Council - AGENDA

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the City Council to be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill on Thursday 27 June 2019 at 4.00 pm

Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr R R Amundsen (Deputy Mayor) Cr R L Abbott Cr A J Arnold Cr K F Arnold Cr T M Biddle Cr A H Crackett Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr L F Soper Cr L S Thomas

CLARE HADLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1 Council - AGENDA

Council’s Values:

Responsibility Take ownership of decisions and outcomes, both collectively and individually. ∑ We willingly share our knowledge. ∑ We acknowledge our mistakes, work to resolve them and learn from them. ∑ We give and receive feedback in a constructive manner to resolve issues. ∑ We do our job with total commitment.

Respect Everyone is important, as are their views. ∑ We support and care for each other. ∑ We stop to listen, learn and understand. ∑ We communicate in an honest, up-front and considerate manner. ∑ We maintain confidences and avoid hurtful gossip.

Positivity Always look on the bright side of life. ∑ We are approachable, interested and friendly. ∑ We are open and receptive to change. ∑ We acknowledge and praise the efforts of others. ∑ We work together as a team to get the job done.

Above and Beyond Take opportunities to go the extra mile. ∑ We take the initiative to improve our work practices to get the best results. ∑ We challenge ourselves and each other to make it better. ∑ We take pride in providing the best possible outcomes. ∑ We are ambassadors for our Council at all times.

Council’s Vision for the City:

Enhance our City and preserve its character, while embracing innovation and change.

Council’s Vision:

We are an energised, fun and innovative team that makes it better for each other and our community.

Council’s Mission:

Making it better by making it happen.

2 Council - AGENDA

A G E N D A

Page

2. APOLOGIES

3. PUBLIC FORUM

3.1 MATARIKI

Dean Whaanga, Kaupapa Taiao Manager will be in attendance to speak to this item.

3.2 SMAG UPDATE

Cr Biddle will be updating Council on this item.

3.3 LANDCARE GROUP

Barry and Robyn Smith will be in attendance to speak to this item.

4. INTEREST REGISTER 6

5. REPORT OF THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL 12

6. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 14 2019

7. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 31 HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

8. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY 38 BOARD HELD ON 10 JUNE 2019

9. ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN 42

9.1 Appendix 1 44

10. 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION 116

11. ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES 124

11.1 Appendix 1 126

3 Council - AGENDA

12. FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED 170

13. SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 173 TRANSITION

14. 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS 178

14.1 Appendix 1 191

15. MAYOR’S REPORT

To be tabled.

16. URGENT BUSINESS

17. 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 - 28 May 2019. (b) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Extraordinary Council Meeting – 5 June 2019. (c) Final Statement of Intent – Invercargill City Holdings Limited (d) Southland Museum and Art Gallery Governance Arrangements.

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

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

(a) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes – Council holding the information to 28 May 2019 carry on, without disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

4 Council - AGENDA

(b) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes – holding the information to Extraordinary carry on, without Council 5 June 2019 disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(c) Final Statement of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(h) Intent – Invercargill holding the information to City Holdings carry on, without Limited disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(d) Southland Museum Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(h) and Art Gallery holding the information to Governance carry out, without Arrangements prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

**********

5 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ELECTED MEMBERS NAME ENTITY INTERESTS PROPERTY RONALD LINDSAY ABBOTT Invercargill City Council Councillor Kiwi-Pie Radio 88FM Invercargill Director / Broadcaster Invercargill Art Gallery Council Representative / Board Invercargill Venues and Events Member Management Director REBECCA RAE AMUNDSEN Invercargill City Council Councillor Arch Draught Ltd Director BP Orr Ltd Director Task Ltd Director Arts Murihiku Trustee Dan Davin Literary Foundation Trustee/Chair Heritage South Contractor Glengarry Community Action Events Co-ordinator (Volunteer) Group SMAG Board Council Representative Venture Southland Council Representative Southland Regional Heritage Council Representative Committee

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

6 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ALLAN JAMES ARNOLD Invercargill City Council Councillor Ziff’s Café Bar Ltd Executive Director Buster Crabb Ltd Executive Director Ziff’s Tour Ltd Executive Director Ziff’s HR Ltd Executive Director Ziff’s Trust Trustee Administrator NZMCA Member Southland Aero Club Member Invercargill Club Member Invercargill East Rotary Member Southland Aero Club Committee Member KAREN FRANCES ARNOLD Invercargill City Council Councillor Funding Scheme Trustee/Chair

TONI MARIE BIDDLE Invercargill City Council Councillor Invercargill Venue and Events Director Management Limited Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trustee Trust Board McIntyre and Dick Husband (Kris MacLellan) – Chief Executive Officer Waihopai Runaka As a contractor

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

7 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ALEX HOLLY CRACKETT Invercargill City Council Councillor High Street Ride Southland Chair Invercargill Southland Youth Futures Advisory Chair Board Venture Southland and Sub Council Representative Committee Sport Southland Trustee McIntyre Dick Marketing Manager IRWIN LLOYD ESLER Invercargill City Council Councillor Bluff Community Board Council Representative Bluff Maritime Museum Council Representative Otatara Landcare Group Member GRAHAM DAVID LEWIS Invercargill City Council Councillor Invercargill City Holdings Limited Director Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Trustee Charitable Trust Bluff 2024 Rejuvenation Officer Invercargill Community Recreation Trustee & Sports Trust Hospice Southland Trustee Invercargill City Properties Director

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

8 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 DARREN JAMES LUDLOW Invercargill City Council Councillor 770 Queens Drive Radio Southland Manager Invercargill Invercargill City Holdings Limited Director Invercargill Venue and Events Director / Chairman Management Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trustee Trust Board Healthy Families Invercargill Board Member Murihiku Maori Wardens Board Member Southland Community Law Centre Board Member Invercargill Community Recreation Trustee and Sport Trust Invercargill City Properties Director IAN REAY POTTINGER Invercargill City Council Councillor 171 Terrace Street Southland Electronics Limited Director Invercargill 9810 Santa Parade Organiser Alice Pottinger (Wife) TIMOTHY RICHARD Invercargill City Council Mayor SHADBOLT Limited Director Kiwi Speakers Limited Director SIT Ambassador Contractor

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

9 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220

LESLEY FRANCES SOPER Invercargill City Council Councillor 137 Morton Street Breathing Space Southland Trust Chair Strathern (Emergency Housing) Secretary/Treasurer Invercargill Tracks Trust Member National Council of Women (NCW) Active Communities Chair/Trustee 24 Margaret Street Invercargill Public Art Gallery Board Member Richmond Citizens Advice Bureau Board Member Invercargill Southland ACC Advocacy Trust Employee LINDSAY STEWART Invercargill City Council Councillor THOMAS Invercargill City Holdings Limited Director HWCP Management Limited Director

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

10 Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220

EXECUTIVE STAFF NAME ENTITY INTERESTS PROPERTY PAMELA GARE Invercargill City Council Director of Environmental and Planning Services DJ & PM Gare Family Trust Trustee

CLARE HADLEY Invercargill City Council Chief Executive Hadley Family Trust Trustee

CAMERON MCINTOSH Invercargill City Council Director of Works and Services

DAVID FOSTER Invercargill City Council Acting Director of Finance and Corporate Services Executive Director Foster and Associates Ltd

Members Interest Register 5 June 2019

11 Council - REPORT OF THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: MARY NAPPER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL

SUMMARY

The Invercargill Youth Council will be presenting their Youth Week project.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That report Invercargill Youth Council 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 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? Yes

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No implications.

YOUTH WEEK 2019

The theme of Youth Week 2019 was “We are More than you See”. The Invercargill Youth Council has developed a profile of the Youth Council based on this theme. Members will be present to share their new profile which explains that they “are more than you see”.

A2656258

12 Council - REPORT OF THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL

LEADERSHIP FORUM 2019

The Youth Council are holding a leadership forum on Thursday 11 July 2019. The forum is targeting students in Years 9, 10 and 11. An invitation to attend this forum has been extended to the Councillors.

**********

13 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

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 28 MAY 2019 AT 4.00 PM

PRESENT: Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr R R Amundsen – Deputy Mayor Cr R L Abbott Cr A J Arnold Cr K F Arnold Cr T M Biddle Cr A H Crackett Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr L F Soper Cr L S Thomas

IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs C Hadley – Chief Executive Mr C A McIntosh – Director of Works and Services Mrs P Gare – Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr D Foster – Interim Director of Finance Mrs E Harris Mitchell – Manager Communications and Secretarial Services Mr R Pearson – Roading Manager Mr D Booth – Manager Financial Services Ms M Brook - Manager Strategy and Policy Mr A Cameron - Executive Officer Ms M Frey - Interim Parks Manager Ms M Napper – Manager Community Development Ms L Kuresa – Governance Officer

1. APOLOGIES

Nil.

2. PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 Electric Scooter Trial

Carolyn Weston was in attendance to speak to this item.

Mrs Weston voiced her concerns about her safety as a blind person whilst walking the footpaths of Invercargill, in relation to the trial of electric scooters. She wanted Council to ensure that it was not going to breach its current bylaws whilst this trial was in place. Council needed to make good decisions and be a good role model in relation to this matter.

In response to questions, Mrs Weston gave the following answers:

1. Bicycles are operated by pedalling, so they are managed by the physical ability of a rider but they do not travel very far. Electric scooters can travel up to 27 kilometres an hour.

14 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

2. Blind Citizens NZ, which I am part of, and also the Royal NZ Foundation of the Blind have both been advocating for councils not to allow electric scooters on the streets because of the danger they represent. 3. There may need to be discussion on what areas the trial could take place because there are more blind people in the Windsor area compared to other areas of town.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mrs Weston for taking the time to present to Council.

2.2 Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust

Neil Affleck from the Invercargill Licensing Trust was in attendance to speak to this item.

Mr Affleck reported that the Invercargill Licensing Trust was asking for renewal of the annual services contract for $400,000 plus on additional $300,000 for the upcoming year. The ILT had explained its application to Council on several occasions. It was about the issue of how this was managed and how the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust Board managed the situation in relation to funding. The recommendation to Council was for Council to defer making a decision until the Spaces and Places Plan was completed, which he understood could be completed later this year or early next year. The Trustees were uncomfortable with that approach because they required some certainty around funding. Funding needed to be in place, so the Trust could make decisions knowing it was not going to run out of funding in the next couple of years. He highlighted the benefits of the Stadium to the city and how it was a significant asset for the city and its ratepayers.

In response to questions, Mr Affleck gave the following answers:

1. In the 2020-2022 years, the Stadium will need to trim its cloth to suit. In that three year budget there is an allowance for the maintenance plan. We have an 18 year maintenance plan, prepared by the Stadium but supported by Southern Quantity Surveyors. The forecast, even with the extra $700,000 every year from the City will mean that the Trust will be $165,000 in the red after the three years. Over that period we will spend close to $1.5 million on maintenance. 2. This is a $70 million Stadium that is a property that requires a significant level of funds to keep it operating. The Stadium takes in $30,000 of income every week from people using the Stadium and in addition to that we need community funding to keep it operational. 3. About 12,000 users per week use the Stadium for sporting events, which is a significant number. The events draw people from outside Invercargill, so it draws people from all over. 4. We approached Council for an increase in their funding some time ago, which they did.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Affleck for taking the time to present to Council.

15 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

2.3 Film Otago Southland

Mr Kevin Jennings was in attendance to speak to this item.

Mr Jennings said that Film Otago Southland was the regional film office. It was a shared service model with five councils from the . Film Otago Southland was part of an international organisation and he was on the Board. He had the opportunity to be Chair of the Board for the global organisation of 300 film offices. To do that he needed to raise funding to pay his expenses to attend three meetings internationally per year. He approached Mayor Tim Shadbolt and Mr Richard King to discuss the opportunity and benefits of his role and two years ago it was agreed to extend the funding, which he received from Invercargill City Council for those first two years. He was requesting funding for the final year term, which was the reason why the Mayor had asked him to speak at today’s Council meeting.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

1. For the first two year period, I received funding and an extension was requested, which was approved by the Mayor and Mr King and this is the final invoice being discussed tonight. 2. I have records of the payments and I have sent emails updating the Mayor and Mr King on how things were progressing. 3. I did an Annual Report that was sent to the Mayor and Mr King on individual events that I attended. The key benefit was the relationship with the film industry. 4. I have a Trust that I work for and they said that if I could raise the funding I was able to travel, so it was totally on the approval of funding being approved, which the Mayor and Mr King approved. 5. The situation today is awkward as we had a verbal agreement for funding. Updates were provided regularly. 6. SIT contributes to the ongoing funding of Film Otago Southland and they have a seat on the Board, so they are a partner in this. Venture Southland also contributes and also has a seat on the Board. Had I known that this payment was going to be questioned, I would have looked at other alternatives.

Cr Ludlow said that this item was considered in the public excluded session of the Finance and Policy in committee meeting. Given the level of discussion that had taken place in Public Forum, he was comfortable that the item be brought forward to the public section of the Council Meeting.

3. INTEREST REGISTER

Nil.

4. REPORT OF THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL

Youth Council representatives were in attendance to speak to the report.

Moved Cr Crackett, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that the report be received.

16 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 16 APRIL 2019

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

6. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 14 MAY 2019

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

7. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 13 AMY 2019

Moved Cr Esler, seconded Cr Lewis that the minutes be received.

Cr Thomas noted that Mr Hawkes had updated the Board on the Bluff Cycleway, which the City contributed funding to and it had not had an update on it. He wondered if Mr Hawkes could be invited to present to Council in the near future on this matter. He was more concerned about item 8.6, Southland DisAbility Enterprises, This matter was under a tender process and he noted that the Board discussed this in an open meeting and viewed its concern.

Cr Esler explained that the matter was raised and he attempted to get the discussion closed down but the Board Members were keen to note their concerns.

Cr Thomas suggested that the Chief Executive speaks to the Chairman of the Bluff Community Board regarding this matter when there was a tender process in place and Mrs Hadley indicated that she would do so.

In response to a question as whether the Bluff Community Board agenda was checked by Council staff before it was published, Mrs Hadley explained that it was not looked over by her but it was checked by staff. She was of the understanding that this item came from the floor and was received as what could be best described as “a bit of a chat’.

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

8. MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE – 13 MAY 2019

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that the minutes be received;

AND THAT

Council complies with its agreement with Environment Southland to provide public transport updates as detailed in that agreement;

AND THAT

Council reviews its process to ensure Super Gold patronage data is accurately reported.

17 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

9. MINUTES OF THE REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE – 14 MAY 2019

Mrs Hadley pointed out that the recommendation with regard to the Health and Hygiene Bylaw did not make sense. It should read, “Council approves the Health and Hygiene Bylaw be made operative on 1 July 2019”.

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr K Arnold that the minutes be received;

AND THAT

Council approves the Health and Hygiene Bylaw be made operative on 1 July 2019’

AND THAT

The first review of the Bylaw be within 18 months of the operative date.

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

10. MINUTES OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE – 20 MAY 2019

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr K Arnold that the minutes be received;

AND THAT

The following recommendations be adopted:

1. Council approves that Hospice Southland be permitted temporary signage to advertise its funding event at the Te Rangi Bowling Club from 29 May 2019 to 19 July 2019;

2. Park and Reserves staff partner with Sport Southland to produce a Regional Spaces and Places Plan;

AND THAT

Open spaces (and Recreation) Strategy is developed through community engagement;

AND THAT

Parks and Recreation staff undertake a pilot project to activate a ‘play space’ alongside removal of old unsafe equipment and report back to Council on the outcomes;

AND THAT

Parks and Recreation staff develop a Tree Plan to ensure the proactive management of the city’s tree network; AND THAT

Parks and Recreation staff undertake a series of ‘quick win’ projects in Bluff until a Master Plan begins;

AND THAT

18 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Parks and Recreation staff review Surrey Park sports hub master planning.

3. Council approves that the Committee agrees that the proposed event will not impede traffic unreasonably;

AND THAT

As permitted under the Local Government Act 1974, (Section 342 and Schedule 10) the Committee approves the temporary road closures for these events for the times, dates and locations as specified.

4. Council approves NZ Post’s use of the Paxter vehicle on footpaths in the Invercargill urban area for a period of approximately five years concluding on 20 June 2024;

AND THAT

No licence is required, or fee or charge be placed by Council on NZ Post for this approval.

5. That in light of the importance to maintain the pedestrian walkway network, that the walkway between Gretna Street and Rimu Street (Tutukiwi Walkway) remains open;

AND THAT

Council reviews and considers additional lighting and signage for Gretna Street.

6. Council is supportive of the principle of Electric Scooters and a trial of Electric Scooters is approved within Invercargill (for up to six months unless extended), with a maximum of three companies being permitted to operate;

AND THAT

No Licence fee or charge is required during the trial when approving Licence to Occupy (for a business to operate Electric Scooters);

AND THAT

The results of the trial are reported back to Council for a decision for setting any future fee or charge.

7. Council ratifies the letter to the Minister of Conservation.

In response to a question for clarification on the Youth Council’s suggestion about the fee in relation to the electric scooter trial, Cr Crackett explained that because Council was accepting the process for a trial, a levy could be set as part of the process, due to the fact that it was trial period of up to six months.

Cr Thomas explained that Council staff were unsure as to how the process would take place but Council had allowed for up to three companies to make submissions on this matter. He believed that setting a fee for the trial period was not prudent because that could be done later on in the process.

19 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

In response to a question as to whether consideration had been given to ensuring the new LED lights in Gretna Street conformed to international standards, Cr Pottinger explained the LED rollout for street lighting used 3,000k lighting, which was considered warm lights that most people used in their houses. At extremely busy intersections, they used 4,000k lighting, which were much cleaner.

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

11. MINUTES OF THE FINANCE AND POLICY COMMITTEE – 21 MAY 2019

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the minutes be received;

AND THAT

1. Council approves the Schedule of Forecast changes. 2. Council makes no comment on the Invercargill City Charitable Trust Draft Statement of Intent. 3. Council makes no comment on the IVEM Draft Statement of Intent. 4. Council makes no comment on the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Draft Statement of Intent.

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the Film Otago Southland Invoice item be brought forward from Public Excluded Session into public meeting for discussion as a separate item under Finance and Policy.

Cr Ludlow took the meeting through the Film Otago Southland Invoice item.

Cr Pottinger said that from an audit perspective, he was concerned that there was no paper trail regarding the funding for the Film Otago Southland Invoice.

In response to a question as to whether the new SRDA entity would have the discretion to continue funding Film Otago Southland, Mrs Hadley explained that Venture Southland had been funding Film Otago Southland and this was over and above that. The SRDA would be able to make that choice themselves.

In response to a question as to whether and Southland District Council had contributed to Mr Jennings’ directors fees as well, Mrs Hadley explained that only Invercargill City Council contributed $18,000 for this purpose.

After discussions Cr Soper noted this was a stand-alone amount that had nothing to do with the annual budget that was contributed to by the various councils. It was termed in the document that Council had a “scholarship” for Mr Jennings to serve on the Board of Directors for the Association of Films Commission International AFCI. Council was the sole contributing Council for this scholarship. Council could not get into a position where it was informed without knowledge that there was an existing scholarship that Council did not have information about.

Cr K Arnold asked whether Mayor and Mr King had made other agreements to fund and support projects without a contract drawn out.

Note: Cr Soper raised a Point of Order and said that Cr K Arnold’s question was not relevant to the matter on the table.

20 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

His Worship the Mayor said he did not mind having a look through his files.

Note: Cr K Arnold asked for this matter to be added to the Action Sheet.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr K Arnold and RESOLVED that Council pays the Film Otago Southland invoice.

Note: Cr Thomas voted against the motion.

12. CIVIC FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Mrs Harris Mitchell spoke to the report.

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr K Arnold and RESOLVED that the proxy be given to the Chair;

AND THAT

Council approves voting on the re-election of Anthony Marryatt and Michael Hannan as directors,

Council approves voting on the company reducing the maximum number of directors from six to five, with effect from 1 July 2019;

AND THAT

The Civic Financial Services Annual Report to 2018 be received, which includes financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2018 and the report of the auditor therein;

AND THAT

Appointment and Remuneration of Auditor (pursuant to Section 207 of the Companies Act 1993 and Section 15 of the Public audit Act 2001) to hold office until the conclusion of the next Annual General meeting and to authorise the Civic Financial Services Directors to determine the remuneration for the auditor for the year.

13. REQUEST FOR FUNDING – SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST

Mrs Hadley took the meeting through the report.

In response to a question as to what the timeframe was for completing the Spaces and Places Plan, Mrs Hadley explained that the plan would be developed over the rest of this year and be ready at the end of the year to early next year. She drew Council’s attention to the fact that Council did give another $300,000 to the Trust, which was still sitting in its bank account at this stage. She could not advise Council to transfer funds from Council’s bank account to a third party’s bank account where it was not going to be used in the foreseeable future.

Note: Cr Lewis declared a conflict of interest and sat back from the table.

21 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Moved Cr K Arnold, seconded Cr Soper that the report be received;

AND THAT

The request be referred to the Parks Manager, for consideration within the Spaces and Places Plan policy development which is to commence shortly;

AND THAT

The matter be reconsidered by Council after that Plan is received.

In response to a question as to where the funding for Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust came from under the Spaces and Places Plan, Mrs Hadley explained that the recommendation would come back to Council for consideration.

Comments against the recommendation were discussed as follows:

Cr Esler commented that after listening to Mr Affleck and the presentation at the Stadium, Council needed to pay the extra funding requested. When comparing the investment that Council had put in to the Library and Splash Palace, the funding contributed to the Stadium for the amount of good it did, was miniscule. In the interest of fairness, Council should be funding the Stadium at that higher rate rather than revisiting this issue every year.

Cr Biddle agreed with Cr Esler and said that she was looking at the community good and community wellbeing perspective. Council had an obligation to consider the wellbeing of its community. The facility was used by a wide range of people in the community and there were not many indoor venues left for people to share sports, entertainment and events. It was vital for Council to contribute the $700,000 so that the Stadium could continue its maintenance going forward. She wanted to move an amendment so that Council fund the $700,000 for 12 months, giving Council the time to go through the Spaces and Places Plan, as that was a fair compromise.

In response to a question as to what the impact of $300,000 on the rates, Mr Foster explained it was 0.6% on rates. In terms of what that did in the long- haul meant that it built $300,000 every year on the rates. It would be a one-off 0.6% and then it would stabilise at that point.

In response to a question as to what the impact on the rates for a $2.2 million budget for Don Street, Mr Foster explained they were not comparable because it was $300,000 per annum as opposed to a one-off consequence in terms of a budget blow out. Don Street was a one-off $2.2 million and the overall impact of it was half the effect of $300,000 over ten years.

Cr Biddle moved an amendment as follows:

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Pottinger that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council pays the additional $300,000 for the next financial year;

AND THAT

22 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

The request for ongoing funding be referred to the Parks Manager, for consideration within the Spaces and Places Plan policy development which is to commence shortly;

AND THAT

That the matter be reconsidered by Council after that Plan is received.

The amendment was passed.

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

Note: Cr Soper voted against the motion and Cr Lewis abstained from voting.

14. SUBMISSION TO REMUNERATION AUTHORITY CHILDCARE ALLOWANCE FOR ELECTED MEMBERS

Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Crackett and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

The suggested submission points, numbers one to six in Appendix 2 (A2611760), form the Council’s submission to the Remuneration Authority.

15. ADMINISTRATION REPORT

Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through the report, which covered two items.

Royal Humane Society

Moved Cr K Arnold, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council invites the Royal Humane Society of Inc to submit an application to the Community Grants Committee for consideration at its next meeting.

Southland Warm Homes Trust

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr A Arnold and RESOLVED that Council appoints Cr Soper to serve as a Trustee on the Southland Warm Homes Trust.

23 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

16. JOINT CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES AGREEMENT REVIEW

Mr McKay was invited to speak to this report.

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Abbott that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council: 1. Approves the updated Joint Civil Defence Services Agreement, which will take effect in July 2019 (exact date to be confirmed). 2. Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of Invercargill City Council.

In response to questions, Mr McKay gave the following answers:

1. The proposal was put forward four years ago to use funding from the Emergency Management Southland Operational Reserve towards water tanks to provide the water needed for that purpose but that was put on hold during the discussions around the Stadium since 2010 and it was never reinstated. 2. There were always other options with regard to water supply but having a reserve for drinking water at the Stadium would be good.

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

17. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Mrs Gare took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Crackett and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council endorses the release of the report and associated communication messages.

18. NOTICE OF MOTION TO COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

Mr Cameron gave Council advice on this matter before the Notice of Motion was considered.

Note: Councillors Ludlow and Lewis declared a conflict of interest and refrained from commenting.

Cr Thomas explained that he would not be eligible for future appointment to Holdco as he had served nine years. This vote was for something that took effect after the elections. He was aware he had a pecuniary interest at the moment but he was voting on a policy of removing directors from Holdco.

Cr Pottinger spoke to the Notice of Motion.

24 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Biddle that:

1. Council resolves to exclude elected members from being directors on ICHL and its subsidiaries and associated joint ventures, as from the beginning of the 2019 triennium; 2. Council along with ICHL amends the relevant policies and constitutions to give effect to this, as from October 2019; 3. Council instructs ICHL to have in place new directors where required to take office at the start of the new triennium.

His Worship the Mayor said that he was aware that he had a conflict of interest, but felt that he was able to use the declaration from the Office of the Auditor General dated 24 May 2019.

In response to a question Cr Pottinger clarified Part A of the motion to exclude elected members from being directors, included elected members who wanted to apply as a director in their own right. If someone stood for Council, they wanted to be a councillor, if you wanted to be a Director that was what your role was.

Comments against the recommendation were as follows:

Cr K Arnold expressed concern Council had received a report from a Councillor who was openly biased against Holdco, and she questioned where the independent information was for this Council. Council had a desire to have skills based Board but Council was not skills based. Everyone came onto Council for the first time without any experience with no knowledge about the issues and were absolutely naïve and yet Councillors had the ability to direct the Holding Company and the skilled directors.

Cr Soper believed that if Council was voting on such a motion, it should be done as a holistic package until those major changes were included from 2016 were reversed. That may mean that Council put this on hold and asking the Chief Executive for a report or from Holdco but without some amendment she was not comfortable voting for the motion as it was.

Cr Thomas commented that some councillors did not realise the significance of what it was doing tonight. Council was taking away the protection of the company it owned. Council needed to protect its company by having Councillors on there. By voting for this motion, Council would be taking away the ability for Council to have someone around the Holdco table that had consistently returned a dividend on the Statement of Intent. Cr Pottinger alluded to the fact that Council may not give $2 million this year that was not set in stone. It was not poor performance by EIL, it was a reset by the Commerce Commission. Councillors needed to think carefully before voting for this motion.

Comments for the recommendation were as follows:

Cr Crackett said she had been waiting a long time for this to happen. Throughout the term she had seen an issue with conflicts of interest along with transparency and control.

Cr Abbott said he had advocated in every election campaign that Councillors should not be paid remuneration to be a director on a board. He believed that Councillors were paid sufficiently to be councillors; and he would like to think that Councillors had corporate experience at the board level. He supported the motion.

25 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Cr A Arnold supported the motion and said that he agreed with Cr Pottinger that if you wanted to be a Councillor, you were a Councillor. It meant that people did not need to leave the table because of conflicts.

In response to a question as to whether the Notice of Motion could or should be amended in relation to further matters, Mrs Hadley explained that Standing Orders stated that only the mover at the time the Notice of Motion was moved and with the agreement of the majority of those present at the meeting may alter a proposed Notice of Motion. Once it was moved and seconded, no amendments could be made to a Notice of Motion.

The motion was put and a show of hands was taken – seven voted for the motion and four voted against the motion.

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

19. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CITY BLOCK DESIGN

Note: Cr Thomas declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting at 7.05 pm.

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that this item be received as a major late item.

Mrs Hadley took the meeting through the report.

In response to a question as to why councillors would want to travel, Mrs Hadley said she was conscious that for some, concepts were merely that and sometimes it was easier to understand things when you saw them in operation. People learned in different ways and saw impacts in different ways.

In response to a question as to how much information was enough when making these sorts of decisions, Mrs Hadley explained that this proposal was a $180 million investment proposed by a group of different stakeholders. There was no such thing as too much information. Good governance required information to ask the powerful questions. The bulk of the community would be making submissions which would be based on their emotional response to the proposal. Council needed to be objective about this proposal.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Amundsen that the report ‘Professional Services – Advice on City Block’ be received;

AND THAT

An unbudgeted, initial amount of $200,000, being 1% of the proposed investment of $20 million, be set aside for the engagement of independent, professional advice for the City Block project;

AND THAT

The Chief Executive be requested to undertake the appropriate procurement process for urban design advice now, noting that there will be no significant expenditure before any investment decision is made by Council;

AND THAT

26 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Councillors indicate their interest in visiting other cities to appreciate the impact of design principles of malls on CBDs in those locations.

Note: Cr Esler left the meeting at 7.21 pm.

20. UNBALANCED BUDGET ANNUAL PLAN 2019/2020

Mr Booth took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

The unbalanced budget proposed in the Final Annual Plan 2019/2020 is considered by Council to be prudent in the circumstances of Council’s current financial situation.

21. ADOPTION OF 2019/2020 ANNUAL PLAN

Mr Booth indicated that more work was required because the rates increase was now around 3.5%. The item was withdrawn for further work.

22. STATEMENT OF INTENT – HOLDCO

Mrs Hadley took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Amundsen and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council makes no comment on Invercargill City Council Holdings Limited Draft Statement of Intent.

23. PROPOSED CHANGES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND RULES

This item was held over until the next meeting.

24. ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING AND TRAVEL BUDGET

A copy of the budget was tabled and Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through it.

In response to a question as to whether Cr Ludlow wanted to attend the LGNZ Conference, Cr Ludlow explained that he had indicated to the Chief Executive that he would like to attend the Conference but queried how that would be affect the budget.

In response to a question as to whether funding was set aside as a reserve for the LGNZ Conference, Mrs Harris Mitchell explained she would clarify that.

27 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

Mrs Hadley suggested that this matter be left on the table until clarity was received and that information would be brought back to the Extraordinary Council Meeting next Wednesday.

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

25. COUNCIL REPRESENTATION AT LGNZ AGM

This matter was also left on the table until the Extraordinary Council Meeting.

26. MAYOR’S REPORT

The report was tabled and His Worship the Mayor took the meeting through it.

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

Note: Cr Biddle left the meeting at 7.42 pm and returned at 7.44 pm.

27. URGENT BUSINESS

27.1 Motor Vehicle Purchasing

Mrs Hadley took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr A Arnold and RESOLVED that the report Motor Vehicle Purchasing be received;

AND THAT

The matter be dealt with at tonight’s Council meeting to allow the Council to start realising the benefits of participation in the All of Government purchasing scheme for motor vehicles as soon as possible.

Council was also given a summary of the discussions that the Risk and Assurance Committee had on this matter and Mrs Hadley answered questions for further clarity.

Note: Cr Amundsen left the meeting at 7.54 pm and returned at 7.56 pm.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council notes the gains to be achieved by participating in the All of Government scheme;

AND THAT

The Council endorses entering into a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in the scheme;

28 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

AND THAT

The Council endorses the approach that where the driver seeks to keep a vehicle beyond a typical 3-4 year, the total annual operating costs are analysed to ensure this does not financially disadvantage Council.

28. COUNCIL IN PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved Cr Crackett, seconded Cr Abbott 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 16 April 2019. (b) Receiving of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Infrastructure and Services Committee – 20 May 2019. (c) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Finance and Policy Committee – 21 May 2019. (d) Invercargill City Holdings Limited. (e) Chief Executive Performance Review.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1)(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, 16 April 2019. without disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(b) Receiving of Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Minutes – authority holding the Infrastructure information to carry on, and Services without disadvantage, Committee negotiations (including 20 May 2019 commercial and industrial negotiations)

(c) Receiving of Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Minutes – authority holding the Finance and information to carry on, Policy without disadvantage, Committee negotiations (including 21 May 2019 commercial and industrial negotiations)

29 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 MAY 2019

A2637853

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

(e) Chief Protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Executive natural persons, Performance including that of Review deceased natural persons

There being no further business, the meeting finished at 8.16 pm.

**********

30 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE 2019 AT 5.00 PM

PRESENT: Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr R R Amundsen – Deputy Mayor Cr R L Abbott Cr A J Arnold Cr K F Arnold Cr T M Biddle Cr A H Crackett Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr L F Soper Cr L S Thomas

IN ATTENDANCE: Mayor G Tong Mayor T Hicks Mrs C Hadley – Chief Executive Mr C McIntosh – Director of Works and Services Mr D Foster – Interim Director of Finance Mrs E Harris Mitchell – Manager Communications and Secretarial Services Mr A Cameron – Executive Officer Mr M Loan - Manager - Drainage and Solid Waste Ms D Peterson - Senior Waste Officer Ms H McLeod – Communications Advisor Ms P Nicolaou – Solicitor – Lane Neave Lawyers Mr M Russell – Southland District Council Ms L Kuresa – Governance Officer

1. APOLOGIES

Cr I R Pottinger (Mrs Hadley read out a statement from Cr Pottinger in relation to his apology for this meeting and also stating his conflict of interest with regard to the matter to be discussed by Council), and Cr K Arnold for lateness.

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.

2. PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 Recycling Contract

2.1.1 Phil Burt

Mr Burt informed the meeting of the petition that 22,000 Invercargill residents had signed. The work carried out by the people employed by Southland DisAbility Enterprises formed an integral part of their lives, both emotionally and physically.

31 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

Their jobs provided them with considerable pride and feelings of belonging to a supportive and social group. The loss of jobs would have a severe impact on the workers and their families. The outcome of the special needs workers losing their positions was extremely undesirable. Socially it would be very beneficial for Council to be seen by the public as being a caring, socially responsible and supportive entity. Southland DisAbility Enterprises had for many years provided Invercargill with not only a valuable work source but also a socially responsible form of special needs welfare, much admired by the public and many local organisations and sponsors.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Burt for taking the time to present to Council.

3.1.2 Tony Stewart

Mr Stewart outlined how Southland DisAbility Enterprises had assisted his brother with his disability. His brother Paul started at Southland DisAbility Enterprises 27 years ago and that was where he developed good social skills and decent work ethics. He had developed life-long friendships as well as social relationships.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Stewart for taking the time to present to Council.

3.1.3 Lynda Mooij

Ms Mooij tabled a copy of her submission and took the meeting through it. Her daughter was employed at Southland DisAbility Enterprises. Southland DisAbility Enterprises was more than just an employer, they were social engineers for their workers, offering additional opportunities outside of work. It was a job for adults with disabilities to get up in the morning, providing them with a purpose and an anchoring structure for their day.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Ms Mooij for taking the time to present to Council.

Note: Cr K Arnold joined the meeting at 5.17 pm.

4. INTEREST REGISTER

Nil.

5. NOTICE OF MOTION

Cr Biddle took the meeting through the Notice of Motion.

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Abbott that the WasteNet Tender item be brought into public for debate and decision making;

AND THAT

This excludes the financial and commercial information which may be restricted from public to be received in committee prior to the debate.

32 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

Cr Abbott said that regardless of how Council voted on this matter, he would be asking for a division of how each Councillor voted. In the event that this matter went into public excluded session, he would be asking that a division be taken.

In response to a question as to how part of a contract could be discussed in public excluded session and not the other part, Cr Biddle explained that her motion was not to discuss the contract in public but to have the debate and decision making in public. She did not want to discuss the financials and tender applicants, she wanted the public to see how members debated and behaved over something of this importance.

His Worship the Mayor invited Paula Nicolaou, from Lane Neave, who had been appointed by WasteNet South and had a part in the preparation of all the documents to give legal advice on this matter. Ms Nicolaou had also been in consultation with Andrew Cameron from Council as it was important for Council to understand the processes.

Ms Nicolaou took the meeting through the legal process. This was a live tender process and councils were obliged to follow certain processes to keep the integrity clean and out of respect to all parties that had put in a tender. Information would be made public after the contract had been awarded. The risk to Council and all the parties involved, including the incumbent, was that if confidential information was discussed in open forum that could have legal consequences.

In response to a question as to what could be discussed in public, Ms Nicolaou explained that the one thing that Council needed to consider was that there were three councils involved in this decision. It was important that all councils discussed the same information, which councillors had been provided with. The issue was that it was hard to consider it without going into conditions and price.

Cr K Arnold appreciated the sentiment respectfully from everyone who had attended today’s meeting but equally she must respect the law and the process and the fact that Council could not have an open, honest and true debate if all the information was not discussed in its entirety. She did not support the motion. She was put in an awkward position where she was seconded onto the WasteNet Group at the last minute. She was confident the information that Council would be receiving today was robust and there was information that Council was privy to that would suggest that some of the sentiments were not well founded. She was proud to support the process.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

1. There are processes that a council with good stewardship should follow with a commercial and competitive process. If Council does not follow that, there can be consequences. 2. The contract with Southland DisAbility Enterprises was a 16 year contract that split into two parts, two eight year terms and it was at the stage where the second eight years was contemplated. The contract has a roll over provision which was not exercised. In discussions at that time, Southland DisAbility Enterprises advised the WasteNet Group that a change of costs needed to be made. All parties recognised that the recycling market had been significantly affected due to China closing its borders to recyclables. The parties went through a discussion around what was termed “a claim for increases for the operating costs of the contract”, with respect to what the contract allowed.

33 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

It became evident that the contract did not allow the increase that was being sought. The WasteNet Group and Southland DisAbility Enterprises sat down and looked and in those discussions it got to the point where WasteNet was not satisfied that it could explain the cost increase sought and reluctantly, both parties, Southland DisAbility Enterprises negotiating team and WasteNet’s negotiating team recognised that councils would be obliged to go to the market to look for proposals for that service. 3. It is still a live tender process so until the tender process is finished, the information can’t be released. The contract has not been awarded and these are processes that all councils have to follow. 4. If the process is not followed, councils could be liable for some real money under the tender process if it’s breached. All tenderers may claim the tender costs against the councils. If that process is not followed and if a party can prove they should have been awarded the contract, they can claim the full loss of damages. There is millions of dollars at stake here. 5. These rules and the process that councils are required to follow is set out in the tender documents. In those tender documents and putting them out to the public, councils were effectively saying that they are binding themselves to act in good faith in accordance with the terms and conditions. It’s the entire process which is required together because that’s what the tender document said. There is a process where information will be kept confidential, Council will make a decision and inform the parties and then the information will be released. It comes down to the core idea of behaving in good faith through the tender process.

Cr Biddle wanted to move an amendment for Council to move into public excluded session and for the final vote to be brought back into public to show transparency of Council.

Mr Cameron explained that Council had the option to declare what material was released from the meeting, taking into consideration all the factors. You could pass a resolution that the way the votes were cast be released.

His Worship the Mayor said that according to Standing Orders, once moved and seconded, no more amendments could be made to the Notice of Motion.

Note: A show of hands was carried out. Councillors who voted for the motion were councillors Biddle, Abbott, Crackett, Lewis, A Arnold and His Worship the Mayor.

Councillors who voted against the motion were Councillors Esler, Amundsen, Ludlow, Thomas, Soper and K Arnold.

His Worship the Mayor exercised his casting vote and voted for the motion.

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

In response to a question as to whether another motion could be put forward, His Worship the Mayor explained that it had happened before and he could not see why that could not be done.

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Crackett that Council goes into public excluded session for discussion of financials and commercial information;

AND THAT

A show of hands be brought back to public meeting for the final vote.

34 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

Note: Cr Soper declared an interest and sat back from the table.

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

5. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the exception of Mayor Gary Tong, Mayor Tracy Hicks, Matt Russell and Paula Nicolaou namely:

(a) WasteNet Southland – Recyclables Acceptance Request for Proposal.

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) WasteNet Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Southland – authority holding the Recyclables information to carry on, Acceptance without prejudice or Request for disadvantage, Proposal negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Note: The meeting moved back into public session at 8.45 pm.

6. WASTENET SOUTHLAND – RECYCLABLES ACCEPTANCE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Amundsen that Council adopts the recommendations of the Waste Advisory Group.

Note: A show of hands was carried out. Councillors who voted for the motion were Councillors Esler, Ludlow, Amundsen, Thomas and Crackett.

Councillors who voted against the motion were councillors Biddle, Abbott, Lewis, A Arnold and His Worship the Mayor.

His Worship the Mayor exercised his casting vote and voted against the motion.

The motion, now being put, was LOST.

35 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

7. PROPOSED CHANGES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND’S RULES

Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council supports the four areas of proposed changes to the Local Government New Zealand Rules and that its delegates vote accordingly at the LGNZ AGM.

8. ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING AND TRAVEL BUDGET

Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Thomas and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

Council approves Cr Amundsen and Cr Ludlow’s request to attend the LGNZ Conference in July 2019 in Wellington.

9. COUNCIL REPRESENTATION AT LGNZ AGM

Mrs Harris Mitchell took the meeting through the report.

Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the report be received;

AND THAT

His Worship the Mayor is registered as Council’s Presiding Delegate and Mr Cameron McIntosh is registered as Council’s other Delegate at the Local Government New Zealand AGM;

AND THAT

Council has approved sending Cr R Amundsen and Cr D Ludlow to the Conference and they be registered as Other Delegates, with voting rights.

Cr Thomas requested that Council should move into Public Excluded Session again to hear from Mayor Tong and Mayor Hicks regarding Southland District and Gore District Councils decision on the Recyclables Acceptance Request for Proposal as WasteNet was a joint committee of all councils.

36 Council - MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019

A2645813

10. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Soper and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the exception of Mayor Gary Tong, Mayor Tracy Hicks, Matt Russell and Paula Nicolaou namely:

(a) WasteNet Southland – Recyclables Acceptance Request for Proposal. .

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) WasteNet Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Southland – authority holding the Recyclables information to carry on, Acceptance without prejudice or Request for disadvantage, Proposal negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

There being no further business, the meeting finished at 9.10 pm.

**********

37 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 10 JUNE 2019

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD IN THE BLUFF MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, GORE STREET, BLUFF ON MONDAY 10 JUNE 2019 AT 7.00 PM

PRESENT: Mr R Fife (Chair) Mrs W Glassey Mrs G Henderson Mr G A Laidlaw Mrs P Young Cr I L Esler

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr A J Arnold Cr L F Soper Mr R Pearson – Roading Manager Ms M Frey – Interim Parks Manager Mrs N Allan – Service Centre Manager Mr L Beer – Bluff Publicity/Promotions Officer Ms L Kuresa – Committee Secretary

2. APOLOGY

Nil.

3. PUBLIC FORUM

3.1 South Port Update

Nigel Gear, South Port Chief Executive Officer, Geoff Finnerty, Jamie May and Frank O’Boyle from South Port were in attendance to speak to this item.

A report on the Bluff Boat Ramp, the Maritime Museum Jetty and the Town Wharf – Fuel Berth Upgrade was tabled and Jamie May took the meeting through it.

Maritime Museum Jetty

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

1. We want to work with the community to talk about issues and update the Board on important projects. 2. The problem is we haven’t been maintaining the jetty and we can’t guarantee the safety of the structures. It was a liability as it is. 3. We would like to think that some of the local businesses other than South Port would be part of the process to find a solution.

Town Wharf-Fuel Berth Upgrade

4. Noise will be from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm but nothing outside those hours. Depending on what method they use, there may be a few days of high driving but then may be nothing for a while. 5. Foreshore Road will be closed for up to 18 months, which is the duration of the project. It’s not the whole of Foreshore Road, it’s about a metre section on Foreshore Road off the wharf.

38 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 10 JUNE 2019

6. As soon as we have a contractor on board a public meeting can be held so that the Bluff residents can ask questions for clarity. 7. As part of the upgrade, the bitumen pipeline will be moved to the east end. Due to the age of the wharf and because we are upgrading the east end, it makes sense to have it all consolidated at that end. The west end will not be able to take ships for much longer without doing more work.

The Chairman thanked the representatives from South Port for taking the time to present to the Board on these very important matters.

4. INTEREST REGISTER

P Young informed the meeting that due to the fact that she had recently retired, she was no longer the Manager of Awarua Whanau Services, a member of the Maori Advisory Group for Invercargill Police, a member of the Children Protection Panel Oranga Tamariki or a member of the Governance for Southland Help.

Moved W Glassey, seconded G Laidlaw and RESOLVED that the report be received and that the Interest Register be updated.

5. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 13 MAY 2019

Moved W Glassey, seconded Cr Esler and RESOLVED that the minutes be accepted as a true and correct record.

6. MATTERS ARISING

6.1 Letter to NZTA

The Chairman reported that the letter would be sent out before the end of this week.

6.2 Bluff Vision Statement Drop-off

The Chairman reported that a drop-off to all Bluff resident mailboxes would be carried out before the end of this month.

7. REPORT OF THE PUBLICITY/PROMOTIONS OFFICER

Moved G Henderson, seconded W Glassey that the report be received.

Mr Beer took the meeting through the report.

P Young commented that the Bluff Oyster and Food Festival was a success and Mr Beer agreed that it was a successful festival due to the weather conditions.

The Board agreed that the Bluff Oyster and Food Festival was not only good for Bluff but also for the whole of Southland. The charter flights provided a package for people attending the Festival on Friday night and flew out on Sunday night, which meant people stayed longer.

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

39 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 10 JUNE 2019

8. ACTION SHEET

Moved Cr Esler, seconded G Henderson that the report be received.

Mr Pearson and Ms Frey were in attendance to take the meeting through the report.

In response to a question as to how often the lawn was mowed on the berm from the Memorial around to Stirling Point, Mr Pearson explained it was mowed three times a year. It was maintained as a rural road because New Zealand Transport Agency was not interested.

In response to a question as to who was contracted to mow that area, Mr Pearson explained it was done through a Fulton Hogan contract and it was sub-contracted as part of the Cleanways business.

W Glassey felt frustrated that this was her second term as a Board Member and Bluff residents had been asking the Board about the issues around the town, but nothing was done about it. She said it was either New Zealand Transport Agency, the Council or someone else’s problem but nobody was taking responsibility. Something needed to be done for Bluff because the residents paid their rates. She wanted to see a list of the 200 properties that the Council was mowing its berms around Bluff.

Mr Pearson informed the Board that a meeting was planned with the commercial boat ramp users that Mr O’Boyle spoke about earlier.

Ms Frey reported that she went to Ocean Beach grounds and noted that the bottom field was well maintained but the upper field was getting wilder, which she did not think was a bad thing. She asked for the Board’s views were on this matter.

The Board discussed the matter and informed the meeting that there had not been a lot of feedback, except that there were not enough parking spaces on Kirk Crescent. It was also narrow and there was talk about moving the gate up to where the paddock was, so that people could not drive onto the paddock. People commented that if the accessibility to that area was improved, more people would use it.

G Henderson spoke about signage and gave Mr Pearson photos of different signage that could be used in Bluff that she came across while in Hamilton.

The Chairman requested costings to get the Stirling Point area around the Memorial mowed every two weeks compared with it being done three times per year.

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

9. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

9.1 Parks and Recreation Workshops

The Chairman thanked Mrs Young, Mrs Henderson and Mr Laidlaw for attending these workshops and invited them to give a verbal report.

40 Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 10 JUNE 2019

Ms Frey reported that the Parks and Recreation Workshops were well attended and received. There were a lot of good things coming through around communication partnerships and with that came better ways of funding projects going forward.

9.2 Ideas for the Kiosk

Mr Laidlaw had attended and he said it was well attended with a lot of ideas put forward by Bluff residents.

Moved R Fife, seconded W Glassey and RESOLVED that the report be received.

10. URGENT BUSINESS

10.1 Omaui Track

Cr Esler reported that a helicopter had dropped gravel on the Omaui track two weeks ago and he was now looking for a group to form a working bee to shift the gravel.

10.2 World Oceans Day

Cr Esler reported that he had advertised a World Oceans Day, which was attended by a handful of people. He was amazed at the incredible richness of the marine environment in Bluff because this was the coldest time of the year but there was still an amazing assortment of natural history in that area.

There being no further business, the meeting finished at 8.08 pm.

**********

41 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: DALE BOOTH – FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER

DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

SUMMARY

This report is to present the Annual Plan for the 2019/20 financial year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report ‘Adoption of 2019/20 Annual Plan’ be received;

And that

Council adopts the 2019/20 Annual Plan as attached in Appendix One.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? This is the final stage of the 2019/20 budget setting process. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? At its meeting on 26 March 2019, Council determined that formal consultation was not required for the 2019/20 Annual Plan. 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? Council considers this and all policies when determining the content of the Annual Plan.

ADOPTION OF THE 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Annual Plans are produced in the two years between the adoption of Long-term Plans. The Annual Plan implements the Long-term Plan and provides a budget for the next financial year. The 2019/20 Annual Plan is the second year of the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan and identifies differences between what was included in the Long-term Plan and what is now intended for the 2019/20 financial year.

42 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

In 2014 the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) was amended to assist councils to reduce development time and remove unnecessary duplication in the preparation of information and consultation processes. The Act now provides that consultation is not required if the plan “does not include significant or material differences from the content of the long-term plan for the financial year to which the proposed annual plan relates”.

The draft 2019/20 Annual Plan is attached as Appendix One for Council’s consideration.

The rate increase has been set at 3.50% across all rates, meaning that all properties (which have not changed in value during the past 12 months) will received a 3.50% rates increase. Growth within the rating based has been factored into the final rates revenue calculation meaning total rates revenue will increase by 4.28%. Rates revenue includes both revenue set by rates as well as revenue collected from rates penalties. The rates increase of 3.50% is above the Long-term Plan projected rates increase of 3.14%. On 28 May 2019, Council determined to grant an additional $300,000 to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust in the 2019/20 financial year. The additional rates reflect the increased funding included in the Annual Plan for the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust.

The capital work programme is largely unchanged from year two of the Long-term Plan, with capital spending increasing from $33.1m to $39.2m. This includes some minor changes to the programme which are outlined within the Annual Plan. The principle reason for this remains the carry forwards from the 2018/19 year or prior which have been highlighted in each of the previous quarterly reports. The changes in the capital expenditure are reflective of the timing of the capital programme, rather than actual changes in the capital programme.

On 28 May 2019 Council resolved to adopt an unbalanced budget. The inclusion of additional funding for the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust has not changed this position. It remains prudent for Council to operate an unbalanced budget for the 2019/20 year.

**********

43 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

2019/20 Annual Plan

44 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

45 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

3 Mayor’s Comment

4 Chief Executive’s Comment

5 Readers’ Guide

6 Major projects for 2019/20

7 Rates Overview

8 Financial Overview

10 Refinements of the Annual Plan 2019/20

Funding Impact Statement page 11

12 Rating Policy and information

18 Rating Tables

36 Funding Impact Statement

Financial Management page 39

40 Prospective Financial Statements

46 Schedule of Reserves

47 Benchmarks

50 Prospective Statement of Accounting Policies

ContentsContents1

46 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

2019/20 2 Annual Plan

47 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Mayor’s Comment

Invercargill needs to promote itself as an innovative, vibrant city. At present, we are undergoing major projects that will improve our basic infrastructure. These improvements will create a solid foundation for a wide range of exciting initiatives.

One of our major challenges will be the threat to our for the ‘Free Independent Travellers’. Our network environment. The younger generation are marching in of world class sporting facilities helps us to attract the streets and demanding that Councils should face numerous events to our region. The iconic Burt Munro the issues relating to Climate Change. All over the Challenge and Bluff Seafood and Oyster Festival are South Pacific, small nations such as New Zealand are just two examples. The Bill Richardson Transport World facing extensive damage from storms, slips and rising otherwise known as the Truck Museum along with the sea levels. Dozens of bridges around Southland are Motorcycle Mecca and E Hays & Sons will provide more starting to collapse and although most of the damage upmarket attractions for those interested in heritage is occurring in neighbouring territorial authorities there wheels. There are also specialist displays at the Bluff will be collateral damage to milk processing plants Maritime Museum and the Awarua Communications within our city borders if this trend continues. Museum.

Now for the good news. In a few weeks large jets will We have undertaken many attempts at urban renewal be flying on regular return flights from Invercargill to but the inner city development spearheaded by HWCP . This is the longest jet service within New and referred to as The Block is by far the most bold Zealand and will dramatically improve the connectivity development Council and the private sector have been between the biggest city in the and the committed to in recent decades. The residents and rate third biggest city in the South Island. It should help us payers of Invercargill can most certainly look forward to attract over 10,000 new citizens to our city. Already an exciting decade. house prices are improving and large shopping retailers such as Kmart should be open by Christmas. Tourism is now considered to be New Zealand’s biggest export earner and Invercargill is firmly entrenched as a hub

3

48 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Chief Executive’s Comment

In 2018 Council worked with our community to develop the Long-term Plan looking out to 2028. For the 2019/20 year there are no significant changes to what we put forward to you as part of the Long-term Plan process.

As a result, we did not hold a formal consultation The four community well-beings have been re- process. This Annual Plan does not go into detail about introduced to the legislation outlining Council’s purpose everything Council will be doing in the 2019/20 year, and role within the community. This acknowledges that for this information you will need to look at the 2018- achieving the aspirations of the community requires 2028 Long-term Plan on our website. an economic, social, cultural and environmental perspective. As a Council we will continue to work Council continues its commitment to the maintenance with you in the community to ensure we are delivering and development of our core infrastructure. In doing the activities and services that you desire in the most so, a number of projects are being carried through from efficient and affordable way. prior years and this is increasing the overall capital works programme scheduled for 2019/20. Council has I am looking forward to another positive year, building also made changes to the timing of some projects; the on our achievements and improving the quality of life Living Dinosaurs project has been deferred to 2021/22 that we all enjoy here in the Deep South. to align with the Museum Redevelopment project.

The efficiency and effectiveness of our service delivery remains a top priority, and as such, $1 million has been allocated to begin an IT strategy that will review and update our key software systems. It is anticipated that these changes will have an ongoing positive impact on how we deliver our services, and how you in the community can engage with Council.

2019/20 4 Annual Plan

49 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Readers’ Guide

This Annual Plan is much more concise than previous Annual Plans. The information below has been provided to assist you with understanding Council’s planning and reporting cycle and to direct you to the right document to find the information that you are looking for.

Long-Term Plan Annual Plan The Long-term Plan (LTP) sets out Council’s priorities for An Annual Plan is developed in the two years between the next ten years and how we will promote the current LTPs, showing in detail any changes to what was and future interests of the Community. It is based on a included in the LTP. The purpose of the Annual Plan is to set of assumptions of how our future will look. The LTP contain the budget for the 2019/20 year and to identify is reviewed every three years to ensure that it remains any significant differences between what was proposed relevant and reflects changes in the City, the economy in the 2018-28 LTP and what is now planned for the and the priorities of the Community. The LTP includes 2019/20 year. The Annual Plan doesn’t repeat any the services that Council will provide, the projects that information that is included in the LTP so you will need to we will undertake, the cost of doing the work, how it will refer to the 2018-28 LTP for further information. be paid for and how we will measure our performance. This Annual Plan covers the year from 1 July 2019 to 30 Our current LTP was adopted in June 2018 and covers June 2020. ten years up until 2028.

The Long-term Plan is available on Council’s website, Annual Report https://icc.govt.nz/public-documents/long-term- The Annual Report explains how the Council has plan-2018-2028/, or for reference at the Invercargill progressed in achieving its planned projects, services Public Library or Bluff Service Centre and Library. and financial results and is produced at the end of each Our LTP outlines our anticipated levels of service for the financial year. 2019/20 year. We believe we are on-track for achieving The most recent Annual Report is for the 2017/18 year. these levels of service and delivering what we said we It can be found on Council’s website www.icc.govt.nz , would in our activities. Take a look at the Activity Section or for reference at the Invercargill Public Library or Bluff of the LTP to find out more about what we are delivering. Service Centre and Library.

5

50 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Major Projects for 2019/20

Core Infrastructure Projects

Roading reconstruction and sealing renewals Footpath $3.5m renewals $1.5m Completion of Two lane conversion of LED and 11yr Don Street and right hand upgrade street turn onto Esk Street lighting projects $1.7m $2.0m

Water supply Sewerage Stormwater pipe network pipe network pipe network renewals renewals renewals $6.2m $1.9m $2.6m

The capital programme is continuously reviewed by Council and projects can be subject to changes in timing. The overall capital programme is still expected to be delivered over the period of the Long-term Plan 2018-28, with some projects naturally being deferred to future years as priority is given to other work, or funding requirements change.

2019/20 6 Annual Plan

51 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rates Overview Rates Overviewincrease every rating unit can 3.50% expect to pay in 2019/20 3.50% increase every rating unit can expect to pay in 2019/20 3.50% increase every projected rating unit can expectrates to revenue pay in 2019/20 collection (including rates penalties) $63.7 million $63.7 million projected rates revenue collection (including rates penalties) $63.7 million projected rates revenue collection (including rates penalties) All Invercargill City Council ratepayers can expect a 3.50% increase to their rates All Invercargillassessment City Councilin 2019/20. ratepayers can expect a 3.50%All Invercargill increase City to their Council rates ratepayers assessment can in expect a 3.50% increase to their rates assessment in 2019/20.This is higher than the 3.14% increase 2019/20. projected in the Long-term Plan 2018- This is lower than the 3.14% increase projected in theThis Long-term 2028.is lower On-going than Plan the 2018-2028. 3.14% reviews increase On-goingof Council projected reviews in ofthe council Long-termoperations operations Plan have 2018-2028. has delivered delivered On-going additionaladditional reviews savingsof councilsavings above operations above the savings thehas delivered savingstargets set targetsadditional in the set in Financialsavings above Strategy the ofsavings the Long-term targets set Plan. in the Financialthe FinancialStrategy of Strategy the Long-term of the Plan. Long-term Plan. This has been off-set by an increase of $300,000 in the grant to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust above Long-term Plan levels.

Total rates revenue will increase from $61.1m to $63.3m,TotalTotal rates an rates revenue increase revenue will of 3.6%. increase will increase from $61.1m from to $63.3m, an increase of 3.6%. $61.1m to $63.7m, an increase of 4.28%. Existing rating units will generate $62.2m rate revenueExistingExisting rating for the ratingunits 2019/20 will units generate year. will generate $62.2m rate revenue$62.5m for the rate 2019/20 revenue year. for the 2019/20 Growthyear. within the city will create additional rating unitsGrowth or withinwill change the city some will existing create additionalrating valuation rating forunits someGrowth or will properties. change within some theThis existingcitygrowth will willrating create generate valuation an for some properties. This growth will generate an additionaladditional $0.4m rating rates revenue. units or will change additional $0.4m rates revenue. existing rating valuation for some PENALTIESproperties. This growth will generate an RatepayersPENALTIES who do not pay by set payment dates will incurRatepayersadditional rate penalties, who do $0.5m not which pay ratesis by estimated set revenue.payment to generate dates will $0.7mincur rate rates penalties, revenue which is estimated to generate $0.7mPenalties rates revenue Ratepayers who do not pay by set payment dates will incur rate penalties, which is estimated to generate $0.7m rates revenue.

7

52 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Financial Overview

2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 Long-term Plan Long-term Plan Annual Plan $,000 $,000 $,000

Rates revenue (GST inclusive) * 60,405 62,299 63,678

Rates revenue change + 4.91% 3.14% 4.28%

Rates revenue (GST exclusive) * 52,526 54,173 55,372

Total revenue 93,264 98,426 99,361

Operating expenditure 96,862 99,076 99,550

Operating surplus/(deficit) (3,598) (650) (189)

Total comprehensive revenue & expense 43,355 293 754

Total assets 993,790 1,001,200 979,506

Total liabilities (excluding borrowings) 15,509 15,640 16,523

Borrowings 99,866 106,852 90,700

Total equity 878,415 878,708 872,283

* Rates revenue for the 2019/20 Annual Plan includes rates penalties. The Long-term Plan 2018/19 and 2019/20 comparsion figures excludes rates penalites. + Rates revenue change calculation compares the 2019/20 Annual Plan including rates penalties to the Long-term Plan 2018/19 plus rates penalites.

2019/20 8 Annual Plan

53 Financial Overview

2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 Long‐term Plan Long‐term Plan Annual Plan $,000 $,000 $,000 Rates revenue (GST inclusive) * 60,405 62,299 63,678 Rates revenue change + 4.91% 3.14% 4.17%

Rates revenue (GST exclusive) * 52,526 54,173 55,372 Total revenue 93,264 98,426 99,361 Operating expenditure 96,862 99,076 99,550 Operating surplus/(deficit) Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL(3,598) PLAN (650) (189) Total comprehensive revenue & expense 43,355 293 754

Total assets 993,790 1,001,200 979,506 Total liabilities (excluding borrowings) 15,509 15,640 16,523 Borrowings 99,866 106,852 90,700 Total equity 878,415 878,708 872,283

* Rates revenue for the 2019/20 Annual Plan includes rates penalties. The Long‐term Plan 2018/19 and 2019/20 comparsion figures excludes rates penalites.

+ Rates revenue change calculation compares the 2019/20 Annual Plan includes rates penalties to the Long‐term Plan 2018/19 plus rates penalites.

~ The group of activities called "Social & Cultural" includes Museum, Housing Care Services, Libraries and Archives, Parks, Cemeteries, Pools, Passenger ~ The group of activities calledTransport & Regional Heritage “Social and Cultural” includes Museum, Housing Care Services, Libraries and Archives, Parks, Cemeteries, Pools, Passenger Transport and Regional Heritage. ^ The group of activites called "General" includes Arts and Creativity Invercargill, Living Dinosaurs project, City Centre ^ The group of activities called “General” includes Arts and Creativity Invercargill, Living Dinosaurs project, City Centre Revitalisation, Community Develop Revitalisation, Community Development,ment, Specialised Community Se Specialised Communityrvices, Regional Development, Investement Property, Services, Regional Development, Investment Property, Investements, Public Toilets, Ha Investments, Public Toilets, Hallslls and Theatre Services, Democ and Theatre Services, Democraticratic Services and Support Services. Services and Support Services.

9

54 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Refinements of the Annual Plan 2019/20

Pools Water Supply Projects “Completion of the new Hydro “Completion of Water Tower slide at Splash Palace strenghtening carried across (+$1.5m capital)” (+$1.3m capital)” from 2018/19 Long-term Plan Roading Roading “Completion of the LED street “Upgrade of on-street parking lighting renewal and 11 year meters across the city lighting upgrade projects (+$0.8m capital)” (+$1.5m capital)”

New projects & changes to existing plans

Investment Property Specialised Community Service “Grant increase to Southland Indoor “ Completion of the Investment Property Leisure Centre Charitable Trust for at 20 Don Street Maintenance of Stadium Southland (+$1.8m capital)” (+$0.3m expenditure)”

Roading Investments “Lower dividend payout “Conversion of Don Street indicated by Invercargill City Holdings between Dee and Kelvin Street to two lane Limited (HOLDCO). This will reduce and introduction of a right hand turn into the cashflow pressure HOLDCO are Esk Street’s one lane system. expecting in the short to medium term. (+$1.7m capital)” (-$1.2m revenue)”

Roading Information Services “Additional New Zealand Transport “Commencement of IT strategy to Agency subsidy for footpath renewals review and update key software (+$1.0m revenue)” systems (+$1.0m capital)”

Projects Living Dinosaurs deferred “Living Dinosaurs project deferred to 2021/22 to align with museum redevelopment project (-$5.0m capital and - $2.5m revenue)” to future years

2019/20 10 Annual Plan

55 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

The Funding Impact Statement is made up of three parts:

• Rating policy information for 2019/20

• Rating samples for 2019/20

• Funding Impact Statement - Invercargill City Council for 2019/20

The Funding Impact Statement should be read in conjunction with the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Figures in this statement are GST inclusive unless stated.

Funding Impact Statement

1111

56

Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rating policy and information for 2019/20

The following rates will be set by Council for the financial year commencing 1 July 2019 and ending 30 June 2020.

General Rate

Invercargill City Council charges a general rate. The rate The general rate is charged differentially based on the is charged based on the capital value of the Rating Unit. classification of the land following application of the definitions in the Rating Valuation Rules 2008. Rural The general rate is to fund the activities of Emergency -Farming is defined as a Rating Unit greater than 18Ha. Management, Grants, Total Mobility, Public Toilet, Civic Theatre, Democratic Process, Destination Marketing, In order to maintain an equitable rating impact and Enterprise, Community Development, other support preserve the relationship which exists between services and 15% of both street lighting and footpaths. residential, rural, commercial, utilities and large It is based on the capital value of that rating unit. industrial rating units, differentials have been applied.

The differentials are set out in the table below.

Differentials applied in setting rates %

Residential Base Rate 100.00

Residential – Multi Units Base Rate 100.00

Commercial Base Rate 100.00

Industrial Base Rate 100.00

Rural-Farming Base Rate -25.00

Utilities Base Rate 100.00

Differentials are applied by Council in the following ·· A property with a +25% differential would have manner whether the rate is a fixed dollar or a 100% plus 25%, or 125% of the $100 fixed charge, percentage of the capital value. A guide to the that is $125 applied to it. application of differentials to a fixed charge of A differential of -100% means that the charge does not $100 is set out below: apply to that property. ·· A property with a 100% differential would have 100% of the fixed charge, that is $100 applied to it;

·· A property with a -25% differential would have 100% less 25%, or 75% of the $100 fixed charge, that is $75 applied to it; and

2019/20 12 Annual Plan

57 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Targeted Rate

Invercargill City Council charges various targeted rates. used or inhabited part of the rating unit (SUIP) Targeted rates are charged: using the capital value adjusted for each unit; and/ or ·· per rating unit that falls within the relevant definition set out under the General Rules; and/or ·· for non-residential water, sewerage and drainage the rate is adjusted based on capital value as per ·· for the Residential Multi Unit category where below. stated they are charged on the basis of separately

*%

Less than $50,001 Base Fixed Charge -20

From $50,001 - $100,000 * Base Fixed Charge 100

$100,001 - $200,000 Base Fixed Charge +20

$200,001 - $400,000 Base Fixed Charge +40

$400,001 - $1,000,000 Base Fixed Charge +100

$1,000,001 - $3,000,000 Base Fixed Charge +200

$3,000,001 - $5,000,000 Base Fixed Charge +300

$5,000,001 + Base Fixed Charge +400

* Base rate

SUIP is defined as any part of a rating unit separately • the provision or availability to the land of a service occupied by the owner or any other person who has the provided by, or on behalf of, Invercargill City Council; right to occupy that part by virtue of a tenancy, lease, and/or licence or other agreement. • location The targeted rates are charged differentially based on: • the Council will not be inviting lump sum • the use to which the land is put; and/or contributions in respect to any targeted rates.

Funding Impact Statement 13

58 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Additional Rating Policies In addition to the Policy and method of collecting rates as Industrial outlined over the page. The following additional policies Industrial Property is subject to a differential to the effect will also be applied. that the maximum value for the property is $25,000,000.

Rating of Utilities Serviceable Rating Unit Utilities will be charged only the following rates: Council has determined that a vacant serviceable rating unit is a property where the closest property boundary is ·· General Rate less than:

·· Regulatory Services Rate ·· 100 metres from a water access point; or

·· Roading Rate ·· 30 metres from a sewerage access point; or

·· Parks and Reserves Rate ·· 30 metres from a drainage access point; and

·· Cemeteries Rate it is not impracticable to access the relevant service. Council has determined that a serviceable rating unit, · · Libraries Rate on which a building is erected, is a property where the

·· Pools Rate building is less than · ·· Regional Heritage Rate · 100 metres from water; or · ·· Business Development · 60 metres from sewerage; or · ·· General Waste Management · 60 metres from drainage; and

All utilities are rated at their full capital value. it is not impracticable to access the relevant service.

Rating of Non-Rateable Land Vacant Rating Units Rating units which are deemed to be non-rateable under Vacant rating units where services are available but not the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 will be rateable connected will be charged 50% of the water, sewerage and for water, sewerage and refuse collection where these drainage rates. services are provided (Section 9 of that Act). These rating units will be assessed in the same manner as other ratepayers and according to their residential or non-residential status. Churches, community groups, residential homes and pensioner housing will be classified as residential for this purpose. All other non‑rateable rating units will be classified as non-residential.

2019/20 14 Annual Plan

59 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rate Purpose

To fund the activities of Emergency Management, Grants, Total Mobility, Public Toilets, Civic Theatre, Democratic Process, Destinational Marketing, General Rate Enterprise, Community Development, other Support Services and 15% of both street lighting and footpaths

To fund provision of Parks and Reserves in the Parks and Reserves District

Pools To fund provision of Aquatic Facilities in the District.

To fund the function of Resource Management, Regulatory Services Environmental Health, Animal Services and Building Services

Roading To fund the provision of Roading Services

Cemeteries To fund the operation of Council’s Cemeteries

Libraries To fund provision of Library Services in the District

To fund Council’s contribution to the operation of Regional Heritage Southland museums and heritage

To fund all costs associated with the redevelopment Business Development of commercial areas

To fund economic, sporting and cultural Economic Development development initiatives

To fund provision of footpaths in the areas marked Footpaths in Map A

To fund the provision of street lighting in the areas Street Lighting marked in Map A

To fund the cost of subsidised public transport in Transport the areas marked in Map B

To fund the costs of drainage in the areas marked Drainage in Map C

Funding Impact Statement 15

60 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rate Purpose

To fund the costs of drainage in the areas marked Drainage Myross Bush in Map D

To fund the cost of operating a community centre in Community Centres each of the areas marked in Map E

To fund costs within the Bluff Community Board Community Board marked in Map F

To fund the costs of drainage in the areas marked Drainage Redmayne Road in Map G

To fund the costs of the City Centre Co-ordinator in City Centre Co-ordinator the areas marked in Map H

Water To fund the provision of reticulated water

Sewerage To fund the provision of reticulated sewerage

To fund the costs of drainage, other than in the Drainage areas marked on Maps

To fund the provision of refuse removal and Refuse collection kerbside recycling in the services area

General waste management To fund the education and administration service

2019/20 16 Annual Plan

61 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Total Rates to be Collected

Rating valuations were last reviewed in 2017. The table of Rating Change below shows some examples of different properties, their valuation change and the impact this has had on the rates payable by the ratepayer.

Table of Rating Changes

Type of Rateable Value Rateable Value Rates Rates $ Change $ Change % Change Property (Current) $ (proposed) $ 2018/19 $ 2019/20 $ Annual Weekly Rates

Residential 130,000 130,000 1,802 1,865 63 1.21 3.50%

Residential* 255,000 265,000 2,291 2,411 121 2.32 5.27%

Residential 350,000 350,000 2,662 2,755 93 1.79 3.50%

Commerical 750,000 750,000 5,998 6,208 210 4.04 3.50%

Commerical* 1,090,000 1,150,000 8,757 9,284 527 10.14 6.02%

Commerical 3,590,000 3,590,000 19,352 20,029 677 13.03 3.50%

Farms 620,000 620,000 1,427 1,476 50 0.96 3.50%

Farms* 1,730,000 1,780,000 2,943 3,125 181 3.49 6.17%

Farms 8,500,000 8,500,000 13,206 13,668 462 8.89 3.50%

Industrial 1,030,000 1,030,000 6,911 7,153 242 4.65 3.50%

Industrial* 2,200,000 2,250,000 12,245 12,842 597 11.48 4.88%

Industrial 19,500,000 19,500,000 54,246 56,144 1,899 36.51 3.50%

* denotes where property value has changed

Funding Impact Statement 17

62 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rating Tables

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

General Rate 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 -100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 -25 0.00075492 100

Targeted Rate

Parks and Reserves Uniform Annual 59.51 100 59.51 100 59.51 -100 59.51 100 59.51 100 59.51 100 Charge

Parks and Reserves 0.00096208 100 0.00096208 100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 100 Base Rate

Pools Uniform 29.76 100 29.76 100 29.76 -100 29.76 100 29.76 100 29.76 100 Annual Charge

Pools Base Rate 0.00036248 100 0.00036248 100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 100

Regulatory Services 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 -100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 -25 0.00051036 100 Base Rate

Roading Base Rate 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 -100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 -25 0.00078257 100

Cemeteries Base 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 -100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 -25 0.00004408 100 Rate

Libraries Base Rate 200.16 100 200.16 100 200.16 -25 200.16 100 200.16 100 200.16 100

Regional Heritage 42.56 100 42.56 100 42.56 -25 42.56 100 42.56 100 42.56 100 Base Rate

Business 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 100 0.00048203 100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 100 Development Rate

Economic Development Base 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 100 0.00017163 100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 100 Rate

2019/20 18 Annual Plan

63 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

General Rate 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 -100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 100 0.00075492 -25 0.00075492 100

Targeted Rate

Parks and Reserves Uniform Annual 59.51 100 59.51 100 59.51 -100 59.51 100 59.51 100 59.51 100 Charge

Parks and Reserves 0.00096208 100 0.00096208 100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 -100 0.00096208 100 Base Rate

Pools Uniform 29.76 100 29.76 100 29.76 -100 29.76 100 29.76 100 29.76 100 Annual Charge

Pools Base Rate 0.00036248 100 0.00036248 100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 -100 0.00036248 100

Regulatory Services 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 -100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 100 0.00051036 -25 0.00051036 100 Base Rate

Roading Base Rate 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 -100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 100 0.00078257 -25 0.00078257 100

Cemeteries Base 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 -100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 100 0.00004408 -25 0.00004408 100 Rate

Libraries Base Rate 200.16 100 200.16 100 200.16 -25 200.16 100 200.16 100 200.16 100

Regional Heritage 42.56 100 42.56 100 42.56 -25 42.56 100 42.56 100 42.56 100 Base Rate

Business 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 100 0.00048203 100 0.00048203 -100 0.00048203 100 Development Rate

Economic Development Base 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 100 0.00017163 100 0.00017163 -100 0.00017163 100 Rate

Funding Impact Statement 19

64 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Rating Tables continued

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate

Water Base Rate 385.74 100 385.74 100 385.74 -25 385.74 -100 385.74 -100 385.74 -100

Sewerage Base 249.85 100 249.85 100 249.85 -25 249.85 -100 249.85 -100 249.85 -100 Rate

Drainage Base Rate 174.4 100 174.4 100 174.4 -25 174.4 -100 174.4 -100 174.4 -100

Water Base Rate 513.6 -100 513.6 -100 513.6 -100 513.6 100 513.6 100 513.6 -100 (non-residential)

Sewerage Base Rate 607.14 -100 607.14 -100 607.14 -100 607.14 100 607.14 100 607.14 -100 (non-residential)

Drainage Base Rate 453.72 -100 453.72 -100 453.72 -100 453.72 100 453.72 100 453.72 -100 (non-residential)

Refuse Collection Base Rate 197.63 100 197.63 100 197.63 -25 197.63 100 197.63 100 197.63 -100 (per wheelie bin)

General Waste 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 -100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 -100 0.00011657 100 Management Rate

2019/20 20 Annual Plan

65 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate

Water Base Rate 385.74 100 385.74 100 385.74 -25 385.74 -100 385.74 -100 385.74 -100

Sewerage Base 249.85 100 249.85 100 249.85 -25 249.85 -100 249.85 -100 249.85 -100 Rate

Drainage Base Rate 174.4 100 174.4 100 174.4 -25 174.4 -100 174.4 -100 174.4 -100

Water Base Rate 513.6 -100 513.6 -100 513.6 -100 513.6 100 513.6 100 513.6 -100 (non-residential)

Sewerage Base Rate 607.14 -100 607.14 -100 607.14 -100 607.14 100 607.14 100 607.14 -100 (non-residential)

Drainage Base Rate 453.72 -100 453.72 -100 453.72 -100 453.72 100 453.72 100 453.72 -100 (non-residential)

Refuse Collection Base Rate 197.63 100 197.63 100 197.63 -25 197.63 100 197.63 100 197.63 -100 (per wheelie bin)

General Waste 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 -100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 100 0.00011657 -100 0.00011657 100 Management Rate

Funding Impact Statement 21

66 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Targeted Rates Payable by Location

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate by location

Footpaths Base Rate – within Invercargill and 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 -100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 Bluff Urban Areas (Map A)

Street Lighting Base Rate – within Invercargill and 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 -100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 Bluff Urban Areas (Map A)

Transport Base Rate – within 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 -100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 Invercargill City Area only (Map B)

Drainage Makarewa Base Rate – within the Makarewa 84.8 100 84.8 100 84.8 -100 84.8 100 84.8 100 84.8 100 Drainage Area (Map C)

Drainage Myross Bush Base Rate – 83.64 100 83.64 100 83.64 -100 83.64 100 83.64 100 83.64 100 within the Myross Bush Rate (Map D)

Community Centre – Awarua Rate – locations for 32.09 100 32.09 100 32.09 -100 32.09 100 32.09 100 32.09 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Community Centre – Myross Bush Rate – locations for 30.53 100 30.53 100 30.53 -100 30.53 100 30.53 100 30.53 100 Community Centres (Map E)

2019/20 22 Annual Plan

67 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate by location

Footpaths Base Rate – within Invercargill and 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 -100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 0.00031963 100 Bluff Urban Areas (Map A)

Street Lighting Base Rate – within Invercargill and 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 -100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 0.00008351 100 Bluff Urban Areas (Map A)

Transport Base Rate – within 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 -100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 0.00010747 100 Invercargill City Area only (Map B)

Drainage Makarewa Base Rate – within the Makarewa 84.8 100 84.8 100 84.8 -100 84.8 100 84.8 100 84.8 100 Drainage Area (Map C)

Drainage Myross Bush Base Rate – 83.64 100 83.64 100 83.64 -100 83.64 100 83.64 100 83.64 100 within the Myross Bush Rate (Map D)

Community Centre – Awarua Rate – locations for 32.09 100 32.09 100 32.09 -100 32.09 100 32.09 100 32.09 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Community Centre – Myross Bush Rate – locations for 30.53 100 30.53 100 30.53 -100 30.53 100 30.53 100 30.53 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Funding Impact Statement 23

68 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Targeted Rates Payable by Location continued

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate by location

Community Centre – Otatara Rate – locations for 15.53 100 15.53 100 15.53 -100 15.53 100 15.53 100 15.53 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Town Hall – Bluff Rate – locations for 17.08 100 17.08 100 17.08 -100 17.08 100 17.08 100 17.08 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Bluff Community Board Base Rate 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 -100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 -25 0.00033239 100 – within the Bluff Ward (Map F)

Drainage Redmayne Road Base Rate – within 81.62 100 81.62 100 81.62 -100 81.62 100 81.62 100 81.62 100 the Redmayne Road Drainage District (Map G)

City Centre Co- ordinator Base Rate 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 100 0.00030462 100 0.00030462 100 (Map H)

2019/20 24 Annual Plan

69 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Residential Residential Multi Unit Commercial Industrial Rural-Farming Contiguous Property

First Unit Each Additional Unit

Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate % Base Rate %

Targeted Rate by location

Community Centre – Otatara Rate – locations for 15.53 100 15.53 100 15.53 -100 15.53 100 15.53 100 15.53 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Town Hall – Bluff Rate – locations for 17.08 100 17.08 100 17.08 -100 17.08 100 17.08 100 17.08 100 Community Centres (Map E)

Bluff Community Board Base Rate 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 -100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 100 0.00033239 -25 0.00033239 100 – within the Bluff Ward (Map F)

Drainage Redmayne Road Base Rate – within 81.62 100 81.62 100 81.62 -100 81.62 100 81.62 100 81.62 100 the Redmayne Road Drainage District (Map G)

City Centre Co- ordinator Base Rate 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 -100 0.00030462 100 0.00030462 100 0.00030462 100 (Map H)

Funding Impact Statement 25

70 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Total Rates to be Collected The table below shows the total rates to be collected for Council’s activities for 2019/20 compared to 2018/19 (excluding rates penalties)

Total increase in rates 2018/19 ($ GST inclusive) 2019/20 ($ GST inclusive) General Rate 5,658,871 5,900,845

Regulatory Services 3,825,649 3,989,232

Roading 5,861,236 6,111,904

Parks & Reserves 6,972,110 7,270,260

Cemeteries 330,436 344,557

Libraries 4,786,027 4,990,799

Pools 2,797,574 2,917,223

Regional Heritage 1,017,594 1,061,094

Footpaths 1,783,844 1,860,278

Street Lighting 463,661 483,475

Transport 592,769 618,093

Sewerage 6,724,781 7,012,457

Drainage 4,619,348 4,816,888

Drainage - Makarewa 13,273 13,840

Drainage - Myross Bush 10,102 10,533

Drainage - Redmayne Road 2,760 2,878

Refuse Collection 4,099,860 4,275,209

General Waste Management 839,730 875,613

Water 8,778,591 9,153,934

Economic Development 230,000 239,842

Business Development 709,994 740,361

City Centre Co-ordinator 142,594 148,690

Community Centre - Awarua 3,565 3,718

Community Centre - Myross Bush 15,870 16,558

·· Community Centre - Otatara 19,320 20,143

·· Bluff Town Hall 21,275 22,182

·· Bluff Community Board 84,065 87,658

Net Rates 60,404,899 62,988,266

2019/20 26 Annual Plan

71 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Makarewa

Lorneville

Makarewa River Myross Creek

West Plains Myross Bush

ai River Waihop

Waikiwi Stream Kennington

INVERCARGILL Otepuni Creek

Otatara Kingswell Creek

Oreti Waimatua Beach

Waimatua or Duck Creek

Oreti River

Woodend Motu Rimu

New River Estuary

M o k Sandy o tu a Point S t re Awarua a m

W aip ak a C Omaui ree Island k

Omaui

Mokomoko Inlet

Greenhills Muddy Creek

Colyers Island

Awarua Bay Tikore Island

Greenpoint

Ocean Beach

Tiwai Point

Bluff

Stirling Bluff Hill Point Legend Motupohue

Urban Rateable Land

District Boundary

Roads

Railway Dog Island

Map A ± Urban Rateable Land - Invercargill and Bluff Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

Funding Impact Statement 27

72 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

N

O

S

R

T

T E

H

E

L

R

R D

D

WEST PLAINS RD

BAINFIELD RD B A IN F IE L D R D

N Q

O

U

R E

T E

H N

S

R

D D

R

V

D Y R BA

LAYARD ST

HERBERT ST HERBERT ST

R A C E C O

Q U

U R

E S E T E

N S

W R K E S R D E D

D N D A L D E T R R S V T

E S

V A I E D N

S

R

T S

A T

R

A T T S A T W O O R R A Y

ORIA AVE T VICT GALA ST Y S TA

RROW ST R YA O C K D A I N L G E

B L R O E D L N W I D N O

D O

S I D T TAY ST S D F R R A A D IK R M RA N E OT E

S Invercargill Airport T

TWEED ST

TWEED ST M O

R

T

O

N

S

T

C CENTRE ST

L

Y

D

E

S

E

T L

L

E

T S S

D R

A D E ST

S T

A S

T T

U N E R G N E

R

S

T

TRAMWAY RD

TRAMWAY RD

M OU LS DUNNS RD ON ELIZABETH ST ST

R

O

MCQUARRIE ST C

K

D

A

L

E

R

D

E S L CO

L T T S E T

B S

L U R F D F

H W Y

GO RG E R OA D-IN VE RC AR GIL L H WY

B

O

U

N

Legend D

A

R

Y

R Transport Rateable Land B D L U F F H W District Boundary Y Road

State Highway

Railway

Map B ± Transport Rateable Land Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

2019/20 28 Annual Plan

73 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

ORION RD WEST ORION RD EAST 223 317 283 269 257 253 217 201 185 183 173 171 157 - 233

1927 1932 142 1931 143

143 1943 139 1938 136 139 123 1946A 1946* 1953 127 128 124 1957 119 118 1954* 1959 1964 117 110 1965 115 112 1970 101 108 1977

1984 96 1981 93

1986 1985

1990

D

D

D

R R

R 1993 89 N 1992 - 1996 109 159 165 167 181* A O 127 33 77 115 131 143 153 63 73 V 39 101 1O 07

S 1 11 21 1998 1997

R E

P FLORA RD WEST FLORA RD EAST

E A

Y 84 T 66 N L 2 12 22 28 32 36 42 56 - 64 106 116 124 130 168 172 188

144 154 164 I C

A 30 34 2006

M

A C 26 2013

2019 2022 59 158 61 55

Y 2027 51 W

48 2030 H 48

44 2034 E

L 2039

L 40 38

42 I V

30 E 2041 31

2044 N 36 R

O 47 L 2048 - 2051 22

26 N

O T

2060 N 15 I 2057 20 15 2064 W 13 T 2066 11 S 2068 9

R 2070

7 I 5 2072 O 2074 2076 111 129 131 143 153 171 185 1 17 33 37 M 49 61 89 POMONA RD WEST POMONA RD EAST 24 70 88 2 4 8 38 68 98 104 116 126

2097 110

16 2112 2111

2122

2125 2126 2129 2127

2135 2132 2139 24 2137 2150 Legend District Boundary

30 2158 Legal Boundaries 2/12 27 WALLA 2220 2162 Unformed Road CETOW 4/12 12 8 63 N-LORN 6 49 39 EVILLE Drainage District 31 25 HWY LO 871 RNE- 59 6 8 10 DACRE 869 16 18 RD 67

Map C ± Rateable Land Within the Makarewa Drainage Area Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

Funding Impact Statement 29

74 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

MCGILVRAY RD 55* 49 23 5

428

407 21 405

403

388

372

350 342

331 131 141 H 133* 221 233 421 T 7 23 431 455 457 485* 523 39 41* R MYROSS RD 420 MCIVOR RD O 440 464 478 490 500 510 20 48 58 72 76 84 100 102 118 130 134 192 202 212 232 N 34

148 154 170 176 190 D

R 308

422 299 L

L

I M 290 42 35 288 289 34 184C 184B

426 D 29

279 R 276 158A 160 92

N 90 94 O 20 184D 184A 158B

274 19 154 M

304 272 I S 9 12 88 108 100 54 261 264 246 80 398 384 376 358* 350 340 326 310 276 210 200 186 180 162 148 128 DRYSDALE RD 227 183 DRYSDALE RD 389 379 359* 351 337 317 303 299 275 267 251 241 215 205 173 155 149 93 121 103 56 48 1/14 14 237 238 FOX RD 620 22* 21 15 53 225 230 187

5 123 145 107 714 9 17* 55 57* 73* 89* 161 602 618 640 662 684 706 632 BAINFIELD RD FAIRWEATHER RD 171 619 637 641 677 699 703 723 2 12* 26* 34* 62* 72* 84* 94* 110 124 175 H 44* 130 138 609 158 170

T 231

182 219 R

198 210 216* 228 240 O 653/RC 623/RC N

641/RC D

637/RC 665/RC R L

L 180 I 168 192

699/RC M

165* 126 128 150152 163

150*

471 40 37 106 G 260/RC 264/RC 312 I 310 L L I Legend E 308 216 S 92 61 R 301 5* 282 1 214 District BoD undary 274 264 299 93 84 D 2* 11 260 285 403* R RD 281 T Y 18 Legal BoundarieDsLA261 RD 52 S 21 FIN N A 2223 120 218 OW 30 385 E 70 5 BR 24 86 210Unform221ed Road 12 7 208 6 9 RD 8 190 215 44 W 11 203 Drainage District 373* LE 185 MC 19 42 24 341 219 6 16

Map D ± Rateable Land Within the Myross Bush Drainage Area Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

2019/20 30 Annual Plan

75 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

MaMkaakarreewwa a Community Centre Area

Lorneville

Makarewa River Myross Creek

West Plains Myross Bush Myross Bush Community Centre Area ai River Waihop

Waikiwi Stream Kennington

INVERCARGILL Otepuni Creek

Otattaratara Kingswell Creek Community Oreti Waimatua Beach Centre Area

Waimatua or Duck Creek

Oreti River

Woodend Motu Rimu

New River Estuary

M o k Sandy o tu a Point Awa S rua t re Awarua a Commumnity Centre Area W aip ak a C Omaui ree Island k Awarua Plains

Omaui

Mokomoko Inlet

Greenhills Muddy Creek

Bluff Colyers Island Town Hall Area

Awarua Bay Tikore Island

Greenpoint Bluff Harbour

Ocean Beach

Tiwai Point

Bluff

Stirling Bluff Hill Point Legend Motupohue

District Boundary

Roads

Railway

Community Centre and Town Hall Areas Dog Island

Map E Rateable Land Within the Specified Locations ± Information shown is the currently For Community Centres and Bluff Town Hall assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2011 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

Funding Impact Statement 31

76 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Makarewa

Lorneville

Makarewa River Myross Creek

West Plains Myross Bush

Waihopai River

Waikiwi Stream Kennington

Otepuni Creek

Otatara Kingswell Creek

Oreti Waimatua Beach

Waimatua or Duck Creek

Oreti River

Woodend Motu Rimu

New River Estuary

Mokotua Sandy Stream Point Awarua

Waipaka Omaui Creek Island Awarua Plains

Omaui

Mokomoko Inlet

Greenhills Muddy Creek

BLUFF Colyers Island WARD Awarua Bay Tikore Island

Greenpoint Bluff Harbour

Ocean Beach

Tiwai Point

Bluff

Stirling Bluff Hill Point Motupohue Legend

District Boundary

Roads

Railway

Bluff Ward Dog Island ± Map F Information shown is the currently INVERCARGILL CITY DISTRICT assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. If information is vital, confirm with the Date Printed : 24/2/2009 Authorative Owner. E & O.E

2019/20 32 Annual Plan

77 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

283 283E Myross Creek

285

315 281 275 253255 293 284 268 292 305

302 403 397 98 327 320 331 322 399 401

M CIV 405 342 OR RO AD

377 57 55 374

395 407 53A 390 396 68 421 455 66 431 N

E 53 A 440 S 392 420

69

R O 71 A 70 D 51 87 R ED 119 MA 97 YN 394 422 E R 45 96 O AD 105 41 102 121

29 28 124 130 32 30 98 426

128

112 12*

7 458 440 466 416 426 428 468

455 37 398 384 415 431 439 41 DRYSDALE ROAD 480 39 389 479 478

496

433 437 498 620 22* 536

10*

S

A

503 V

I

L

L

E

511

510 R 435 515

O

Legend W 618 622 602 588 Waterway 568 578 538 BAINFIELD ROAD 619 623 591 609 Legal Boundaries 551 Drainage District

Unformed Road 529 595 619/RC623/RC

Map G ± Rateable Land Within the Redmayne Road Drainage Area Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

Funding Impact Statement 33

78 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

S

M

Y

E

D

L

N FOX ST B

E

O

Y

U

S

R

T

N

E

S

T HAMES ST ST T W K E R R

E D N I A T L T S C V L

H I I

N F I E F

S

E S

T

Y T

S

T

EARNSLAW ST

VICTORIA AVE VICTORIA AVE

GALA ST Q

U

E

E

N

D

S

E

D E

M R

S

V A

T ET ST C LE M

A

S

T

E

R M

A

S

R ROW ST T YAR Y

S

T

K

D

D E

O

L

L E J

O

E

V E V

N V

I D E

N

E

R S

S

N

S

T O

T

T ST S EY SP N

T

S

T

DON ST

ESK ST

T TAY ST HE C RES

N

E

WOOD ST S

S

S

T

FORTH ST

TYNE ST

E

L

Y

L I

D

T

L

D C H

N E

E L A S I

T

Y L N

H R

D

S

S D

E S

T

T

T S EYE ST

T

N

E

S

S

S TWEED ST T

Legend A

A

N N TEVIOT ST

N N Legal Boundaries

A A

N N TEVIOT ST

S S Vibrant Rateable Land

T

T

Map H City Centre Rejuvenation Rateable Land ± Vibrant Rateable Land Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 1/3/2009 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

2019/20 34 Annual Plan

79 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

141 143 163 165 173 207 223 MCIVOR ROAD 118 180 194 200 117

104 101

196 198 92

84 81

70

69

D

A

O

R

61 T

A 60

E

R

T

E R 51

41 40

31

25 22 17

Legend

Waterway 11 Legal Boundaries 9 Inverurie Rateable Land

2 240 252 360 382 BAINFIELD ROAD 359 373 379 235 271273 291295 303 311313 317 345 355 395

Map I ± Inverurie Rateable Land Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at Date Printed. Current as at : 24/2/2012 If information is vital, confirm with the Authorative Owner. E & O.E

Funding Impact Statement 35

80 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Funding Impact Statement - Invercargill City Council (GST exclusive) Long-Term Plan Long-Term Plan Annual Plan 2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 ($’000) ($’000) ($’000) SOURCES OF OPERATIONAL FUNDING General rates, uniform annual general charge, rates penalties 5,550 5,492 5,731 Targeted rates 47,606 49,325 49,641 Subsidies and grants for operating purposes 1 3,741 3,738 4,664 Fees and charges 2 15,249 15,955 17,360 Interest and dividends from investments 3 7,977 8,343 7,411 Local authorities fuel tax, fines, infringement fees, and other receipts 9,023 9,442 10,092 Total operating funding (A) 89,146 92,295 94,899

APPLICATIONS OF OPERATIONAL FUNDING Payments to staff and suppliers 4 65,511 66,490 68,277 Finance costs 5 4,293 4,764 3,260 Other operating funding applications 0 0 0 Total applications of operating funding (B) 69,804 71,254 71,537

Surplus (deficit) of operating funding (A − B) 19,342 21,041 23,362

SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDING Subsidies and grants for capital expenditure 1 4,118 6,131 4,462 Development and financial contributions 0 0 0 Increase (decrease) in debt 6 117 5,319 0 Gross proceeds from sale of assets 318 193 251 Lump sum contributions 0 0 0 Other dedicated capital funding 0 0 0 Total sources of capital funding (C) 4,553 11,643 4,713

APPLICATION OF CAPITAL FUNDING Capital expenditure - to meet additional demand 7 438 6,545 2,466 - to improve the level of service 7 5,514 1,194 5,174 - to replace existing assets 7 17,385 25,461 31,600 Increase (decrease) in reserves 558 (516) (85) Increase (decrease) of investments 6 0 0 (11,080) Total applications of capital funding (D) 23,895 32,684 28,075

Surplus (deficit) of capital funding (C - D) (19,342) (21,041) (23,362)

FUNDING BALANCE ((A − B) + (C − D)) 0 0 0

Depreciation expense (not included in the above FIS) 27,098 27,864 28,053

2019/20 36 Annual Plan

81 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Explanation Of Major Variances Between 2019/20 Long-Term Plan Year 2 and 2019/20 Annual Plan

NOTES 1 Subsidies and grant revenue is expected to be lower as $2.5m of external funding is not expected until the Living Dinosaurs project commences. The project has been delayed to 2021/22. This has partially been offset by increased use of the NZTA subsidies available, including the introduction of NZTA subsidies for renewals of footpaths, which were not included in the Long-term Plan assumptions. 2 Fees and charges are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to the inclusion of $1.8m for Invercargill City Council’s share of Wastenet revenue. This was not included in the assumptions of the Long-term Plan. 3 Interest and dividends from investments is lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to Invercargill City Holdings Limited indicating a lower dividend payout. This will reduce the cashflow pressure Invercargill City Holdings Limited are expecting in the short to medium term. 4 Payments to staff and suppliers are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to the inclusion of $1.7m for Invercargill City Council’s share of Wastenet expenses. This was not included in the assumptions of the Long-term Plan. 5 Finance costs are lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to a revised borrowings interest rate assumption from 5.00% to 3.50%. This has been achieved through transferring existing borrowing to the Local Government Funding Agency in 2018/19. 6 During 2018/19, Invercargill City Council transferred $55m of borrowings from bank loan debt to fixed debt bonds within the Local Government Funding Agency. Funds held on investment will be used to offset funding requirements in the 2019/20 year instead of increasing borrowings. This will reduce the amount held on investments. This cashflow distribution method is different from the method used in the Long-term Plan. 7 Purchase of property, plant and equipment (Capital Infrastructure) is higher than anticipcated in the Long-term Plan due to the deferral of a number of capital projects from prior years to 2019/20.

Funding Impact Statement 37

82 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

2019/20 38 Annual Plan

83 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

The Council must, under the Local Government Act, manage its revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently, and in a manner that sustainably promotes the current and future interests of the Community.

This section includes:

• Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense.

• Prospective Statement of Cashflows.

• Prospective Statement of Financial Position.

• Prospective Statement of Changes in Equity.

• Schedule of Reserves.

• Benchmarks.

• Prospective Statement of Accounting Policies.

All figures are GST exclusive unless otherwise stated.

Financial Management 3939

84 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective Financial Statements

Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Revenue & Expense

Long-Term Long-Term Annual Plan Plan Plan 2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 ($000) ($000) ($000) REVENUE Rates revenue excluding targeted water supply rates 1 44,892 46,306 47,412 Rates revenue - targeted water supply rates 7,634 7,867 7,960 Fines 486 497 497 Subsidies and grants 2 7,859 9,869 9,126 Direct charges revenue 3 19,093 19,962 22,171 Rental revenue 3,028 3,120 2,966 Other revenue 1 2,295 2,462 1,818 Finance revenue 2,127 2,343 2,561 Dividends 4 5,850 6,000 4,850 Total revenue 93,264 98,426 99,361

EXPENSES Employee expenses 24,774 25,277 25,429 Depreciation and amortisation 27,098 27,863 28,053 Other expenses 5 40,697 41,172 42,808 Finance expenses 6 4,293 4,764 3,260 Total expenses 96,862 99,076 99,550

Surplus / (deficit) before tax (3,598) (650) (189) Income tax expense 0 0 0 Surplus / (deficit) after tax (3,598) (650) (189)

OTHER COMPREHENSIVE REVENUE AND EXPENSE Property, plant and equipment revaluations gain / (loss) 46,112 0 0 Investment property revaluations - gain / (loss) 768 862 862 Forestry assets revaluations - gain / (loss) 73 81 81 Total other comprehensive revenue & expense 46,953 943 943

Total comprehensive revenue & expense 43,355 293 754

2019/20 40 Annual Plan

85 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective Statement of Cashflows

Long-Term Long-Term Annual Plan Plan Plan

2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 ($000) ($000) ($000)

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from rates revenue 1 52,526 54,173 55,372 Receipts from other revenue 1-3 31,096 34,091 34,758 Interest received 2,127 2,343 2,561 Dividend received 4 5,850 6,000 4,850 Payments to suppliers and employees 5 (63,846) (64,671) (66,458) Interest paid 6 (4,293) (4,764) (3,260)

Net cash flows from operating activities 23,460 27,172 27,823

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Cash was provided from Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment 318 193 251 Proceeds from sale of investments 7 5,378 5,028 16,800 Purchase of property, plant and equipment 8 (23,267) (33,126) (36,364) Purchase of biological assets 0 0 0 Purchase of intangible assets 9 (70) (74) (1,075) Purchase of investment property 10 0 0 (1,800) Purchase of investments 7 (6,091) (4,593) (5,621)

Net cash flows from investing activities (23,732) (32,572) (27,809)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Proceeds from borrowings 7 3,594 9,159 0 Repayments of borrowings 7 (3,477) (3,840) 0 Net cash flows from financing activities 117 5,319 0

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents (155) (81) 14

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year 11 1,330 1,175 1,679 Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year 1,175 1,094 1,693

Financial Management 41

86 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective Statement of Financial Position

Long-Term Long-Term Annual Plan Plan Plan 2018/19 2019/20 2019/20

($000) ($000) ($000)

ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents 11 1,175 1,094 1,693 Trade and other receivables 12 7,045 7,197 9,612 Inventories 753 770 933 Property, plant and equipment 13 842,290 849,104 833,121 Intangible assets 9 910 910 1,982 Forestry assets 14 3,699 3,780 3,039 Investment property 10 39,165 40,027 41,143 Investment in CCOs and similar entities 36,069 36,069 36,069 Other financial assets - other investments 7 62,684 62,249 51,914

TOTAL ASSETS 993,790 1,001,200 979,506

LIABILITIES Trade and other payables 15 10,143 10,238 11,088 Provisions 848 807 847 Employee benefit liabilities 3,809 3,886 3,631 Borrowings 7 99,866 106,852 90,700 Derivative financial instruments 709 709 957 TOTAL LIABILITIES 115,375 122,492 107,223

Retained earnings 393,185 393,994 379,411 Restricted reserves 27,858 27,342 35,827 Hedging reserves (501) (501) (957) Carbon credit revaluation reserves 335 335 464 Asset revaluation reserves 457,538 457,538 457,538 TOTAL EQUITY 878,415 878,708 872,283

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 993,790 1,001,200 979,506

2019/20 42 Annual Plan

87 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective Statement of Changes in Equity

Long-Term Long-Term Annual Plan Plan Plan 2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 ($000) ($000) ($000)

Balance at 1 July 835,060 878,415 871,529

Total comprehensive revenue & expense for the year 43,355 293 754 Balance at 30 June 878,415 878,708 872,283

COMPONENTS OF EQUITY

Retained earnings at 1 July 396,500 393,185 378,572 Net surplus/(deficit) for the year 43,355 293 754 Transfers (to)/from restricted reserves (558) 516 85 Transfers (to) /from hedging reserves 0 0 0 Transfers (to) /from carbon credit revaluation reserves 0 0 0 Transfers (to)/from asset revaluation reserves (46,112) 0 0 Retained earnings at 30 June 393,185 393,994 379,411

Restricted reserves at 1 July 27,300 27,858 35,912 Transfers to/(from) reserves 558 (516) (85) Restricted reserves at 30 June 27,858 27,342 35,827

Hedging reserves at 1 July (501) (501) (957) Transfers to/(from) reserves 0 0 0 Hedging reserves at 30 June (501) (501) (957)

Carbon credit revaluation reserves at 1 July 335 335 464

Transfers to/(from) reserves 0 0 0

Carbon credit revaluation reserves at 30 June 335 335 464

Asset revaluation reserves at 1 July 411,426 457,538 457,538 Transfers to/(from) reserves 46,112 0 0 Asset revaluation reserves at 30 June 457,538 457,538 457,538

Financial Management 43

88 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Explanation Of Major Variances Between 2019/20 Long-Term Plan Year 2 And 2019/20 Annual Plan

Key (R&E) = Prospective Statement Of Comprehensive Revenue & Expense (CF) = Prospective Statement Of Cashflows (FPOS) = Prospective Statement Of Financial Position

NOTES 1 Rates penalties are disclosed under Rates revenue excluding targeted water supply rates (R&E) and Receipts from rates revenue (CF)in the Annual Plan 2019/20. In the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, they were disclosed under Other revenue (R&E) and Receipts from other revenue (CF). 2 Subsidies and grant revenue is expected to be lower as $2.5m of external funding is not expected until the Living Dinosaurs project commences. The project has been delayed to 2021/22. This has partially been offset by increased use of the NZTA subsidies available, including the introduction of NZTA subsidies for renewals of footpaths, which were not included in the Long-term Plan assumptions. 3 Direct charges revenue (R&E) and Receipts from other revenue (CF) are higher than anticipated in the Long- term Plan due to the inclusion of $1.8m for Invercargill City Council’s share of Wastenet revenue. This was not included in the assumptions of the Long-term Plan. 4 Dividend revenue is lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to Invercargill City Holdings Limited indicating a lower dividend payout. This will reduce the cashflow pressure Invercargill City Holdings Limited are expecting in the short to medium term. 5 Other expenses (R&E) and Payments to suppliers and employees (CF) are higher than anticipated in the Long- term Plan due to the inclusion of $1.7m for Invercargill City Council’s share of Wastenet expenses. This was not included in the assumptions of the Long-term Plan. 6 Finance expenses (R&E) and Interest paid (CF) are lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to a revised borrowings interest rate assumption from 5.00% to 3.50%. This has been achieved through transferring existing borrowing to the Local Government Funding Agency in 2018/19. 7 During 2018/19, Invercargill City Council transferred $55m of borrowings from bank loan debt to fixed debt bonds within the Local Government Funding Agency. Funds held on investment will be used to offset funding requirements in the 2019/20 year instead of increasing borrowings. This will reduce the amount held on investments. This cashflow distribution method is different from the method used in the Long-term Plan. 8 Purchase of property, plant and equipment (capital infrastructure) is higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to the deferral of a number of capital projects from prior years into 2019/20. 9 Purchase of Intangible (CF) and Intangible assets (FPOS) are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to the commencement of the IT strategy to upgrade internal computer and software systems.

2019/20 44 Annual Plan

89 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Key (R&E) = Prospective Statement Of Comprehensive Revenue & Expense (CF) = Prospective Statement Of Cashflows (FPOS) = Prospective Statement Of Financial Position

10 Purchase of Investment property (CF) and Investment Property (FPOS) are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to additional capital expenditure required for the completion of 20 Don Street investment property. This work was approved by Council in 2018/19.

11 Cash and cash equivalents are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to 2017/18 actual closing balance being different to the balance assumption used in the Long-term Plan.

12 Trade and other receivables are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to 2017/18 actual closing balance being different to the balance assumption used in the Long-term Plan.

13 Property, plant and equipment is lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to 2017/18 actual closing balance being different to the balance assumption used in the Long-term Plan.

14 Forestry assets are lower than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to 2017/18 actual closing balance being different to the balance assumption used in the Long-term Plan.

15 Trade and other payables are higher than anticipated in the Long-term Plan due to 2017/18 actual closing balance being different to the balance assumption used in the Long-term Plan.

Financial Management 45

90 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Schedule of Reserves

Reserve funds Reserves are held to ensure that funds received for a remaining Council created reserves are discretionary particular purpose and any surplus created is managed reserves which the Council has established for the fair in accordance with the reason for which the reserve and transparent use of monies. was established. Surpluses held in reserves are Below is a list of current reserves outlining the purpose credited with interest. As at 30 June 2018, the Council for holding each reserve and the Council activity to holds $34.2 million reserves, with $14.6 million being which each reserve relates, together with summary restricted reserves. Restricted reserves are reserves financial information across the year of the Annual that have rules set by legal obligation that restrict the Plan. use that the Council may put the funds towards. The

Opening Transfers Transfers Closing Balance In Out Balance 2019/20 2019/20 2019/20 2019/20 ($,000) ($,000) ($,000) ($,000)

RESTRICTED RESERVES The reserves can only be used for the purpose designated.

Category A (Legal Restriction) 125 4 - 129 The restriction is designated from a statute or legal document. These reserves restrictions include the capital and interest or income generated. This reserve is related to the Parks Activity and is to maintain the Feldwick gates at Queens Park.

Category B (Capital only restriction) 3,817 115 - 3,932 These reserves are invested in property that provides a financial return to ratepayers (Investment Property, Library and Infrastructure activities)

Category C (Specific purpose) 10,679 336 - 11,015 These reserves are to maintain and provide for improvements to separately identifable areas. (Parks Crematorium and Cemetery, Community Centres, Waste and Infrastructure activities)

NON RESTRICTED RESERVES The reserves can be used for purposes other than the purpose specified.

Council Created Reserves 21,290 1,840 (2,379) 20,751 To provide funding for the ongoing operations and replacement of assets in the future. (All Activities)

35,912 2,294 (2,379) 35,827

2019/20 46 Annual Plan

91 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Benchmarks

What is the purpose of this statement?

The purpose of this statement is to disclose Council’s Council is required to include this statement in its planned financial performance in relation to various Annual Plan in accordance with the Local Government benchmarks to enable the assessment of whether (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014 Council is prudently managing its revenues, expenses, (the regulations). Refer to the regulations for more assets, liabilities, and general financial dealings. information, including definitions of some of the terms used in this statement.

Benchmark Limits Planned Met

Rates affordability benchmark:

Income 60% 55.1% YES

Increases (LGCI + 3%) 5.3% 4.3% YES

Debt affordability benchmark: 15% 9.3% YES

Balanced budget benchmark: 100% 99.8% NO

Essential services benchmark: 100% 109.1% YES

Debt servicing benchmark: 10% 3.3% YES

Financial Management 47

92 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

NOTES 1 Rates affordability benchmark (1) For this benchmark,— (a) the Council’s planned rates income for the year is compared with quantified limits on rates contained in the financial strategy included in the Council’s Long-term plan; and (b) the Council’s planned rates increases for the year are compared with quantified limits on rates increases for the year contained in the financial strategy included in the Council’s Long-term plan. (2) The Council meets the rates affordability benchmark if— (a) its planned rates income for the year equals or is less than each quantified limit on rates; and (b) its planned rates increases for the year equal or are less than each quantified limit on rates increases.

2 Debt affordability benchmark (1) For this benchmark, the Council’s planned borrowing is compared with quantified limits on borrowing contained in the financial strategy included in the Council’s Long-term plan. (2) The Council meets the debt affordability benchmark if its planned borrowing is within each quantified limit on borrowing.

3 Balanced budget benchmark (1) For this benchmark, the Council’s planned revenue (excluding development contributions, vested assets, financial contributions, gains on derivative financial instruments, and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment) is presented as a proportion of its planned operating expenses (excluding losses on derivative financial instruments and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment). (2) The Council meets the balanced budget benchmark if its revenue equals or is greater than its operating expenses. Section 100(2) of Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) sets out the matters that Council must have regard to when determining that it is prudent to operate an unbalanced budget These matters are: (a) the estimated expenses of achieving and maintaining the predicted levels of service provision set out in the long-term plan, including estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful life; and (b) the projected revenue available to fund the estimated expense associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful life; and (c) the equitable allocation of responsibility for funding the provision and maintenance of assets and facilities throughout their useful life; and (d) the funding and financial policies adopted under section 102.

2019/20 48 Annual Plan

93 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

4 Essential services benchmark (1) For this benchmark, the Council’s planned capital expenditure on network services is presented as a proportion of expected depreciation on network services. (2) The Council meets the essential services benchmark if its planned capital expenditure on network services equals or is greater than expected depreciation on network services. (3) Council meets the essential services benchmark in 2019/20. Over time Council’s capital expenditure should equal its depreciation on network services. Council replaces its assets as they deteriorate therefore due to some projects being large, the benchmark will fluctuate above and below each year.

5 Debt servicing benchmark (1) For this benchmark, the Council’s planned borrowing costs are presented as a proportion of planned revenue (excluding development contributions, financial contributions, vested assets, gains on derivative financial instruments, and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment). (2) Because Statistics New Zealand projects that the Council’s population will grow slower than the national population growth rate, it meets the debt servicing benchmark if its planned borrowing costs equal or are less than 10% of its planned revenue.

Financial Management 49

94 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective Statement of Accounting Policies

Reporting Entity Invercargill City Council (“the Council”) is a territorial and buildings, certain infrastructure assets, investment local authority governed by the Local Government Act property, biological assets and financial instruments 2002. (including derivative instruments).

The Council has not presented group prospective The financial statements are presented in New Zealand financial statements because the Council believes dollars and all values are rounded to the nearest that the parent prospective financial statements are thousand dollars ($’ 000) unless otherwise stated. more relevant to the users. The main purpose of the The functional currency of the Council is New Zealand prospective financial statements in the Annual Plan is dollars. to provide users with information about core services Foreign currency transactions are translated into the that the Council intends to provide ratepayers, the functional currency using the exchange rates prevailing expected cost of those services and, as a consequence, at the dates of the transactions. Foreign exchange how much the Invercargill City Council requires by gains and losses resulting from the settlement of way of rates to fund the intended levels of service. such transactions are recognised in the Statement of The level of rates funding required is not affected by Comprehensive Revenue and Expense. subsidiaries, except to the extent that Invercargill City Council obtains distributions from, or further invests in, those subsidiaries. Such effects are included in the Subsidiaries prospective financial statements presented. The Council consolidates as subsidiaries in the group The primary objective of the Council is to provide goods financial statements all entities where the Council has or services for the community or social benefit rather the capacity to control their financing and operating than making a financial return. Accordingly, the Council policies as to obtain benefits from the activities of the is classified as a Tier 1 Public Sector Public Benefit entity. This power exists where the Council controls the Entity (“PBE”). majority voting power on the governing body or where such policies have been irreversibly predetermined by the Council or where the determination of such policies Basis of Preparation is unable to materially impact the level of potential ownership benefits that arise from the activities of the The financial statements of the Council have been subsidiary. prepared in accordance with the Tier 1 PBE accounting standards. The Council measures the cost of a business combination as the aggregate of the fair values, at the These financial statements comply with the PBE date of exchange, of assets given, liabilities incurred standards. or presumed, in exchange for control of the subsidiary The accounting policies set out below have been plus any costs directly attributable to the business applied consistently to all periods presented in these combination. financial statements. Any excess of the cost of the business combination The financial statements have been prepared on the over the Council’s interest in the net fair value of the going concern basis. identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities is The financial statements have been prepared on a recognised as goodwill. historical cost basis, modified by the revaluation of land

2019/20 50 Annual Plan

95 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Basis of consolidation Joint operations The purchase method is used to prepare the Joint operation (WasteNet) is an operation which consolidated financial statements, which involves Council has joint control. The Consolidated Financial adding together like items of assets, liabilities, equity, Statements of the Council recognise in the Statement revenue and expenses on a line-by-line basis. All of Financial Position the Council’s Share of Assets significant intragroup balances, transactions, revenue and Liabilities. Council recognises in the Statement of and expenses are eliminated on consolidation. Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses its share of The Council’s investment in its subsidiaries are carried Revenue and Expenses that it earns from the sale or at deemed cost in the Council’s own “parent entity” provision of goods or service by the joint venture. financial statements. Deemed cost is based on the net asset value of the subsidiary on conversion to NZ IFRS. Revenue Revenue is recognised to the extent that it is probable Associates that the economic benefits or service potential will The Council accounts for investments in associates in flow to the Council and the revenue can be reliably the group financial statements use the equity methods. measured, regardless of when the payment is being An associate is an entity over which the Council has made. significant influence and that is neither a subsidiary Revenue is measured at the fair value of the nor an interest in a joint venture. The investments consideration received or receivable, taking into in associates is initially recognised at cost and the account contractually defined terms of payment carrying amount is increased or decreased to recognise excluding taxes or duty. the Council’s share of the surplus or deficit of the associates is recognised in the Council’s Statement of The specific recognition criteria described below must Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses at the group also be met before revenue is recognised. level. Distributions received from associates reduce the PBE IPSAS 23.106(a) requires, either in the statement carrying amount of the investment. of financial position or the notes, that entities The Council’s share in the associate’s surplus or disclose the amount of revenue from non-exchange deficit resulting from unrealised gains on transactions transactions by major classes, showing separately; between the Council and its associates eliminated. i) taxes, showing separately major classes of taxes; and ii) transfers, showing separately major classes of The Council investments in associates are carried at transfer revenue. Due to the difficulty in classifying cost in the Council’s own financial statements. revenue as either an exchange or non-exchange

transaction and the separate labelling of revenue as Joint ventures exchange or non-exchange generally does not provide any additional useful information (and is therefore Joint entities unlikely to be material), we have decided to not Joint ventures are those entities over which the Council label revenue as exchange or non-exchange in the has joint control, established by contractual agreement. Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and The Council’s share of the surplus or deficit of the joint Expenses. venture is recognised in the Council’s Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses, from the date joint control commences until the date control ceases.

Financial Management 51

96 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Revenue from non-exchange transactions: New Zealand Units (NZU’s) allocated by the Crown represent non-monetary government grants and General and targeted rates are initially recognised at nil value. Gains and losses Rates are set annually by a resolution from Council and on disposals are determined by comparing proceeds relate to a financial year. All ratepayers are invoiced with the carrying amounts. These are included in the within the financial year to which the rates have been surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive set. Rates revenue is recognised when payable. Revenue and Expenses. Water billing revenue is recognised on an accrual basis. Fines Unbilled usage, as a result of unread meters at year Traffic and parking infringements are recognised end, is accrued on an average usage basis. when tickets are issued. Government grants and funding Direct charges - subsidised The Council receives government grants from the New (i) Rendering of services Zealand Transport Agency, which subsidises part of Rendering of services at a price that is not the Council’s costs in maintaining the local roading approximately equal to the value of the service infrastructure. provided by the Council is considered a non-exchange Revenues from non-exchange transactions with the transaction. This includes rendering of services where Government and government agencies are recognised the price does not allow the Council to fully recover when the Council obtains control of the transferred the cost of providing the service (such as resource asset (cash, goods, services, or property), and: consents, building consents, water connections, dog • It is probable that the economic benefits or service licensing, etc.), and where the shortfall is subsidised by potential related to the asset will flow to the revenue from other activities, such as rates. Generally Council and can be measured reliably; and there are no conditions attached to such revenue.

• The transfer is free from conditions that require Revenue from such subsidised services is recognised the asset to be refunded or returned to the when the Council issues the invoice or bill for the Government if the conditions are not fulfilled. service. Revenue is recognised at the amount of the invoice or bill, which is the fair value of the cash Revenue from government grants and funding is received or receivable for the service. Revenue is measured at the fair value of the assets (cash, goods, recognised by reference to the stage of completion services, or property) transferred over to the Council at of the service to the extent that the Council has an the time of transfer. obligation to refund the cash received from the service To the extent that there is a condition attached that (or to the extent that the customer has the right to would give rise to a liability to repay the grant amount withhold payment from the Council for the service) if or to return the granted asset, a deferred revenue the service is not completed. liability is recognised instead of revenue. Revenue is Contributions from customers in relation to the then recognised only when the Council has satisfied construction of new lines for the network are these conditions. accounted for as revenue in the year which they have been received.

2019/20 52 Annual Plan

97 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

(ii) Sale of goods - subsidised Dividends The sale of goods at a price that is not approximately Dividends are recognised when the right to receive equal to the value of the goods provided by the Council payment has been established. is considered a non-exchange transaction. This includes the sale of goods where the price does not allow the Council to fully recover the cost of producing the goods, Construction contracts and where the shortfall is subsidised by revenue from Contract revenue and contract costs are recognised as other activities such as rates. revenue and expenses respectively by reference to the stage of completion of the contract at balance date. Revenue from the sale of such subsidised goods is The stage of completion is measured by reference to recognised when the Counci issues the invoice or bill the contract costs incurred up to balance date as a for the goods. Revenue is recognised at the amount percentage of total estimated costs for each contract. of the invoice or bill, which is the fair value of the cash received or receivable for the goods. Contract costs include all costs directly related to specific contracts, costs that are specifically chargeable Where a physical asset is acquired for nil or nominal to the customer under the terms of the contract and an consideration the fair value of the asset received is allocation of overhead expenses incurred in connection recognised as revenue. Assets vested in the Council are with the Council’s construction activities in general. recognised as revenue when control over the asset is obtained. An expected loss on construction contracts is recognised immediately as an expense in the Revenue from exchange transactions: Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses. Direct charges - full cost recovery Where the outcome of a contract cannot be reliably (i) Rendering of other services - full cost recovery estimated, contract costs are recognised as an expense Revenue from the rendering of services is recognised as incurred, and where it is probable that the costs will by reference to the stage of completion of the be recovered, revenue is recognised to the extent of transaction at balance date, based on the actual service costs incurred. provided as a percentage of the total services to be provided. Construction work in progress is stated at the aggregate of contract costs incurred to date plus (ii) Sale of goods - full cost recovery recognised profits less recognised losses and progress Revenue from the sale of goods is measured at the fair billings. If there are contracts where progress billings value of the consideration received or receivable, net exceed the aggregate costs incurred plus profits less of returns and allowances, trade discounts and volume losses, the net amounts are presented under other rebates. Revenue is recognised when the significant liabilities. risks and rewards of ownership have bene transferred to the buyer, recovery of the consideration is probable, the associated costs and possible return of goods Borrowing costs can be reliably estimated and there is no continuing Borrowing costs are recognised as an expense in the management involved with the goods. period in which they occurred. Interest Revenue Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method.

Financial Management 53

98 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Grant expenditure Non-discretionary grants are those grants that are a transaction that is not a business combination, and at awarded if the grant application meets the specified the time of the transaction, affects neither accounting criteria and are recognised as expenditure when an profit nor taxable profit. application that meets the specified criteria for the Deferred tax is recognised on taxable temporary grant has been received. differences arising on investments in subsidiaries Discretionary grants are those grants where the Council and associates, and interests in joint ventures, except has no obligation to award on receipt of the grant where the company can control the reversal of the application and are recognised as expenditure when a temporary difference and it is probable that the successful applicant has been notified of the Council’s temporary difference will not reverse in the foreseeable decision. future.

Deferred tax is calculated at the tax rates that are Income tax expected to apply in the period when the liability is settled or the asset is realised, using tax rates Income tax expense in relation to the surplus or deficit that have been enacted or substantively enacted by for the period comprises current tax and deferred tax. balance date. Current tax and deferred tax is charged Current tax is the amount of income tax payable based or credited to the surplus/deficit in the Statement of on the taxable profit for the current year, plus any Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses, except when it adjustments to income tax payable in respect of prior relates to items charged or credited directly to equity, in years. Current tax is calculated using rates that have which case the tax is dealt with in equity. been enacted or substantively enacted by balance date. Deferred tax is the amount of income tax payable or Leases recoverable in future periods in respect of temporary The determination of whether an arrangement is or differences and unused tax losses. Temporary contains a lease is based on the substance of the differences are differences between the carrying arrangement at inception date. The substance of the amount of assets and liabilities in the financial arrangement depends on whether fulfilment of the statements and the corresponding tax bases used in arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific the computation of taxable profit. asset, or assets, or the arrangement conveys a right Deferred tax liabilities are generally recognised for all to use the asset, even if that right is not explicitly taxable temporary differences. Deferred tax assets are specified in an arrangement. recognised to the extent that it is probable that taxable Finance leases profits will be available against which the deductible A finance lease is a lease that transfers to the lessee temporary differences or tax losses can be utilised. substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to Deferred tax is not recognised if the temporary ownership of an asset, whether or not title is eventually difference arises from the initial recognition of goodwill transferred. or from the initial recognition of an asset and liability in At the commencement of the lease term, the Council recognises finance leases as assets and liabilities in

2019/20 54 Annual Plan

99 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

the Statement of Financial Position at the lower of the which the investments were acquired. Management fair value of the leased item or the present value of the determines the classification of its investments at minimum lease payments. initial recognition and re-evaluates this delegation at every reporting date. The amount recognised as an asset is depreciated over its useful life. If there is no certainty as to whether the Financial assets and liabilities are initially measured at Council will obtain ownership at the end of the lease fair value plus transaction costs. term, the asset is fully depreciated over the shorter of The fair value of financial instruments that are not the lease term and its useful life. traded in an active market is determined using Operating leases valuation techniques. The Council use a variety of An operating lease is a lease that does not transfer methods and make assumptions that are based on substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to market conditions existing at each balance date. ownership of an asset. Lease payments under an Quoted market prices or dealer quotes for similar operating lease are recognised as an expense on a instruments are used for Annual debt instruments held. straight-line basis over the lease term. Other techniques, such as estimated discounted cash flows, net asset backing, are used to determine fair value for the remaining financial instruments. Inventories The four categories of financial assets are: Inventories (such as spare parts and other items) held for distribution or consumption in the provision •• Loans and receivables of services that are not supplied on a commercial These are non-derivative financial assets with fixed basis are measured at the lower of cost and current or determinable payments that are not quoted in an replacement cost. active market.

Inventories held for use in the production of goods and After initial recognition they are measured at services on a commercial basis are valued at the lower amortised cost using the effective interest method. of cost and net realisable value. The cost of purchased Gains and losses when the asset is impaired or inventory is determined using the FIFO method. derecognised are recognised in the surplus/deficit The write down from cost to current replacement cost in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and or net realisable value is recognised in the surplus/ Expenses. Loans and receivables are classified as deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue “other financial assets” in the Statement of Financial and Expenses. Position. Investments in this category include fixed term deposits and loans to associates. Financial assets •• Hold-to-maturity investments The Council classify their financial assets into the Held-to-Maturity Investments are non-derivative following four categories: loans and receivables, held- financial assets with fixed or determinable payments to-maturity investments, available for sale investments and fixed maturities that the Council’s management and financial assets at fair value through surplus or has the positive intention and ability to hold to deficit. The classification depends on the purpose for maturity.

Financial Management 55

100 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

•• Financial assets at fair value through surplus or Shareholdings that Invercargill City Council holds for deficit strategic purposes Shareholdings that Invercargill City Council holds This category has two sub-categories: financial assets for strategic purposes: Invercargill City Council’s held for trading, and those designated at fair value investments in its subsidiaries and associate through surplus or deficit at inception. A financial asset companies are not included in this category as they is classified in this category if acquired principally are held at cost (as allowed by PBE IPSAS 6 (PS) for the purpose of selling in the short term or if so Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements (Public designated by management. Sector) and PBE IPSAS 7 Investments in Associates) Derivatives are also categorised as held for trading whereas this category is to be measured at fair value. unless they are designated as hedges. Assets in this Non-current assets held for sale category are classified as current assets if they are Non-current assets held for sale are classified as held either held for trading or are expected to be realised for sale if their carrying amount will be recovered within 12 months of the balance sheet date. principally through a sale transaction, not through After initial recognition they are measured at their continuing use. Non-current assets held for sale are fair values. Gains or losses on re-measurement are measured at the lower of their carrying amount and fair recognised in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of value less costs to sell. Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses. Impairment of financial assets •• Available for sale investments At each balance sheet date the Council assesses Available for sale investments are those that are whether there is any objective evidence that a financial designated as being held to maturity or are not asset of financial assets is impaired. Any impairment classified in any of the other categories above. This losses are recognised in the surplus/deficit in the category encompasses investments that the Council Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses intends to hold Annual but which may be realised before maturity. After initial recognition these investments are measured at their fair value. Gains Financial instruments and losses are recognised directly in equity except •• Trade and other receivables for impairment losses, which are recognised in the Trade and other receivables are initially measured at surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive fair value and subsequently measured at amortised Revenue and Expenses. In the event of impairment, cost using the effective interest method, less any any cumulative losses previously recognised in equity provision for impairment. will be removed from equity and recognised in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Loans, including loans to community organisations Revenue and Expenses even though the asset has made by the Council at nil, or below-market interest not been derecognised. Investments in this category rates are initially recognised at the present value of include shares in Local Government Insurance their expected future cash flows, discounted at the Corporation. current market rate of return for a similar asset/ investment. They are subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method. The difference between the face value and present value of expected future cash flows of the loan is

2019/20 56 Annual Plan

101 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Derivatives are initially recognised at fair value on Revenue and Expenses as a grant. the date a derivative contract is entered into and are subsequently re-measured at their fair value at each A provision for impairment of receivables is balance date. However, where derivatives qualify established when there is objective evidence that for hedge accounting, recognition for any resultant the Council will not be able to collect all amounts due gain or loss depends on the nature of the hedging according to the original terms of receivables. The relationship. amount of the provision is the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and the present value •• Cash flow hedge of estimated future cash flows, discounted using the Changes in the fair value of the derivatives hedging effective interest method. instruments designated as a cashflow hedge are •• Cash and cash equivalents recognised directly in equity to the extent that the hedge is effective. To the extent that the hedge is Cash and cash equivalents includes cash in hand, ineffective, changes in fair value are recognised in deposits held at call with banks, other short-term surplus or deficit. highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less, and bank overdrafts. If a hedge of a forecast transaction subsequently results in the recognition of a financial asset or a Bank overdrafts are shown separately in current financial liability, the associated gains or losses that liabilities in the Statement of Financial Position. were recognised directly in equity will be reclassified •• Borrowings into surplus or deficit in the same period or periods Borrowings are initially recognised at their fair value, during which the asset acquired or liability assumed net of any transaction costs incurred. After initial affects surplus or deficit. recognition, all borrowings are measured at amortised However, if Invercargill City Council expects that all cost using the effective interest method. or a portion of a loss recognised directly in equity will Borrowings are classified as current liabilities unless not be recovered in one or more future periods, it will Council has an unconditional right to defer settlement reclassify into surplus or deficit the amount that is not of the liability at least 12 months after the balance expected to be recovered. date. When a hedge of a forecast transaction subsequently •• Trade and other payables results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, or a forecast transaction for a Trade and other payables are initially measured at fair non-financial asset or non-financial liability becomes value, and subsequently measured at amortised cost a firm commitment for which fair value hedge using the effective interest method. accounting is applied, then the associated gains and •• Accounting for derivative financial instruments and losses that were recognised directly in equity will be hedging activities included in the initial cost or carrying amount of the The Council use derivative financial instruments to asset or liability. hedge exposure to interest rate risks arising from financing activities. In accordance with its treasury policy, the Council do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.

Financial Management 57

102 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Additions For cash flow hedges other than those covered above, The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment amounts that had been recognised directly in equity is recognised as an asset if, and only if, it is probable will be recognised in surplus or deficit in the same that future economic benefits or service potential period or periods during which the hedged forecast associated with the item will flow to the Council and transaction affects surplus or deficit (for example, the cost of the item can be measured reliably. In most when a forecast sale occurs). instances, an item of property, plant and equipment is

If the hedging instrument no longer meets the criteria recognised at its cost. Where an asset is acquired at no for hedge accounting, expires or is sold, terminated cost, or for a nominal cost, it is recognised at fair value or exercised, then hedge accounting is discontinued as at the date of acquisition. prospectively. The cumulative gain or loss previously The cost of day-to-day servicing of property, plant and recognised in equity remains there until the forecast equipment are recognised in the surplus of deficit as transaction occurs. The amount recognised in equity they are incurred. is transferred to surplus or deficit in the same period that the hedged item affects the surplus or deficit. Disposals Gains and losses on disposals are determined by Property, plant and equipment comparing the proceeds with the carrying amount of Property, plant and equipment consists of: the asset.

Operational assets - These include land, buildings, Gains and losses on disposals are included in the library books, plant and equipment, and motor surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive vehicles. Revenue and Expenses. When revalued assets are sold,

Restricted assets - Restricted assets are parks and the amounts included in asset revaluation reserves reserves owned by the Council which provide a benefit in respect of those assets are transferred to retained or service to the community and cannot be disposed of earnings because of legal or other restrictions. Infrastructure assets - Infrastructure assets are the Subsequent costs fixed utility systems owned by the Council. Each Costs incurred subsequent to initial acquisition asset class includes all items that are required for the are capitalised only when it is probable that future network to function, for example, sewer reticulation economic benefits or service potential associated with includes reticulation piping and sewer pump stations. the item will flow to the Council and the cost of the Property, plant and equipment are shown at cost item can be measured reliably. or valuation, less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

2019/20 58 Annual Plan

103 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Depreciation Depreciation is provided on a straight-line and residual values over their useful lives. The useful lives diminishing value basis on all property, plant and and associated depreciation rates of major classes of equipment other than land, at rates that will write off assets have been estimated as follows: the cost (or valuation) of the assets to their estimated

Buildings Buildings •• Structures 2% - 3% SL

•• Roof 2% - 3% SL

•• Electrical 2% - 3% SL

•• Plumbing 2% - 3% SL

•• Internal Fitout 2% - 3% SL

•• Plant 2% - 3% SL

Furniture and Fittings •• Furniture and Fittings 6.7% - 50% DV

Office Equipment •• Office Equipment 14.4% - 60% SL/DV

Infrastructural Assets Drainage 2.6% - 6.2% SL

Bridges 1% - 2.5% SL

Traffic Services 2.6% - 12.6% SL

Footpaths and Crossings 6.6% - 13% SL

Features and Structures 4.6% - 6% SL

Roads •• Formation 0%

•• Shoulder and Pavements 3.5% SL

•• Top Surface 10.35% SL

Drainage and Stormwater •• System 1.70% - 2.77%

•• Plant 4.09% - 5.71%

•• Buildings 2.91% - 4.34%

Water •• System 1.03% - 12.55%

•• Plant 3.38% - 9.14%

*The depreciation rates above will be subject to change after the Financial Management next revaluation is completed on the 30 June 2019. 59

104 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Plant Plant 6% - 60% SL/DV

Tools Tools 10% SL where applicable

Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles 6.7% - 31.2% SL/DV

Library Collections Library Collections 6.67% - 50% SL

The non fiction collection is not depreciated.

The residual value and useful life of an asset is •• Library collections are valued at depreciated reviewed, and adjusted if applicable, at each financial replacement cost as at 30 June 2017. Valuations are year end. completed three yearly after the next valuation as at 30 June 2019. Revaluation •• Forest land is revalued to fair value and carried Those asset classes that are revalued are valued on a at valuation and is not depreciated. The fair value valuation cycle as described below on the basis described is determined by independent registered valuers below. All other asset classes are carried at depreciated based on the highest and best use of the land. In historical cost. determining the highest and best use consideration is given as to whether the land has been registered The carrying values of revalued items are reviewed at under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme each balance date to ensure that those values are not and hence whether there are restrictions on the land materially different to fair value. use. Land is revalued with sufficient regularity to ensure carrying value does not differ materially from Valuation that which would be determined as fair value. It is anticipated that the Land revaluation will occur every All assets are valued at historic cost less accumulated three years, unless circumstances require otherwise. depreciation and impairment costs, except the following: New Zealand units received from the government are

•• Operational land and buildings have been valued at recognised at cost in the financial statements, which fair value. Valuations are completed three yearly after is nil value. the next valuation as at 30 June 2019. Infrastructural Assets

•• Restricted land (excluding forestry land) and buildings Land under Roads have been valued at deemed cost. This fair value is Land under roads has been valued at deemed cost at the net current value by Quotable Value New Zealand transition to NZIFRS. Deemed cost is the fair value being (Registered Valuers) as at 30 June 1992. the current valuation at 30 June 2005.

2019/20 60 Annual Plan

105 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Roads and Bridges Accounting for revaluations Roads and Bridges are valued at depreciated replacement The Council accounts for revaluations of property, plant cost, being gross replacement cost less accumulated and equipment on a class of asset basis. depreciation to date, based on the Current Age Profile compared to Useful Life. Valuations are completed three The replacement costs where appropriate, reflect yearly after the next valuation as at 30 June 2019. optimisation due to design or surplus capacity. The Council has estimated that the necessary infrastructural Stormwater, Wastewater and Water Systems asset network capacity to service the Invercargill City area Assets are valued at depreciated replacement cost, being is on 100% of the existing capacity, i.e no surplus capacity. gross replacement cost less accumulated depreciation to The valuation of these assets therefore assumes the date, based on the Current Age Profile compared to Useful existing assets will be replaced with assets of similar Life. Valuations are completed three yearly after the next capacity. valuation as at 30 June 2019. The results of revaluing are credited or debited to an asset Vested assets revaluation reserve for that class of asset. Where this Certain infrastructure assets and land have been vested in results in a debit balance in the asset revaluation reserve, the Council as part of the subdivisional consent process. this balance is expensed in the surplus/deficit in the The vested reserve land has been valued at deemed cost. Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses. Deemed cost is the fair value being the current valuation Any subsequent increase on revaluation that offsets a at 30 June 2005. This fair value is the 2005 Beca Rating previous decrease in value recognised in the surplus/ Valuation. deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Vested infrastructural assets have been valued based Expenses will be recognised first in the surplus/deficit in on the actual quantities of infrastructural components the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses vested and current “in the ground” cost of providing up to the amount previously expensed, and then credited identical services. Unless there is a use or return condition to the revaluation reserve for that class of asset. attached to the asset.

Forestry Land

Forestry Land is revalued with sufficient regularity to Intangible assets ensure carrying value does not differ materially from that Carbon Credits Intangible Asset which would be determined as fair value. It is anticipated Carbon credits intangible assets that are aquired by that the Forestry Land revaluation will occur with the Council have been measured at fair value upon aquisition revaluation of other Property Plant and Equipment assets and subsequently revalued to fair value annually. that are revalued every three years, unless circumstances Any revaluation gain/losses are recognised in other require otherwise. Land has been revalued based on Comprehensive Revenue and Expense. its best use. In determining the highest and best use consideration is given as to whether the land has been registered under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme and hence whether there are restrictions on the land use. New Zealand units received from the government are recognised at cost in the financial statements, which is nil value.

Financial Management 61

106 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Other intangible assets After initial recognition, the Council measures all investment property at fair value as determined annually Other intangible assets that are acquired by the Group, by an independent valuer. which have finite useful lives are measured at cost less accumulated amortisation and accumulated impairment Gains or losses arising from a change in the fair value losses. of investment property are recognised in the surplus/ deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Amortisation is charged to the surplus/deficit in the Expenses. surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful economic lives of the intangible assets. The amortisation rates for the current period are as Impairment of non-financial follows: Software 12.5-48% Straight Line/Diminishing assets Value. Non-financial assets that have an indefinite useful life are not subject to amortisation and are tested annually for impairment. Assets that have a finite useful life are Forestry assets reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in Forestry assets are independently revalued annually at circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not fair value less estimated point of sale costs. Fair value is be recoverable. An impairment loss is recognised for the determined based on the present value of expected net amount by which the asset’s carrying amount exceeds its cash flows discounted at a current market determined recoverable amount. The recoverable amount is the higher pre-tax rate. of an asset’s fair value less costs to sell and value in use.

Gains or losses arising on initial recognition of biological Value in use is depreciated replacement cost for an asset assets at fair value less estimated point of sale costs where the future economic benefits or service potential of and from a change in fair value less estimated point of the asset are not primarily dependent on the assets ability sale costs are recognised in the surplus/deficit in the to generate net cash inflows and where the entity would, Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses. if deprived of the asset, replace its remaining future economic benefits or service potential. The costs to maintain the forestry assets are included in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive The value in use for cash-generating assets is the present Revenue and Expenses. value of expected future cash flows. If an asset’s carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount the asset is impaired and the carrying amount Investment property is written down to the recoverable amount. For revalued Properties leased to third parties under operating leases assets the impairment loss is recognised against the are classified as investment property unless the property revaluation reserve for that class of asset. Where that is held to meet service delivery objectives, rather than to results in a debit balance in the revaluation reserve, earn rentals or for capital appreciation. the balance is recognised in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses. Investment property is measured initially at its cost, including transaction costs. For assets not carried at a revalued amount, the total impairment loss is recognised in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses.

2019/20 62 Annual Plan

107 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

The reversal of an impairment loss on a revalued asset is Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses in credited to the revaluation reserve. the period in which they arise.

However, to the extent that an impairment loss for that Superannuation schemes class of asset was previously recognised in the Statement Defined contribution schemes: of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses, a reversal of the impairment loss is also recognised in the surplus/ Obligations for contributions to defined contribution deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and superannuation schemes are recognised as an expense in Expenses. the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses as incurred. For assets not carried at a revalued amount (other than goodwill) the reversal of an impairment loss is recognised Insufficient information is available to use defined benefit in the surplus/deficit in the Statement of Comprehensive accounting, as it is not possible to determine from the Revenue and Expenses. terms of the scheme, the extent to which the surplus/ deficit will affect future contributions by individual employers, as there is no prescribed basis for allocation. Employee benefits The scheme is therefore accounted for as a defined contribution scheme. Short-term benefits

Employee benefits that the Council expects to be settled within 12 months of balance date are measured at Provisions nominal values based on accrued entitlements at current The Council recognises a provision for future expenditure rates of pay. of uncertain amount or timing when there is a present These include salaries and wages accrued up to balance obligation (either legal or constructive) as a result of a past date, annual leave earned to, but not yet taken at balance event, it is probable that expenditures will be required date, retiring and long service leave entitlements expected to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be to be settled within 12 months, and sick leave. made of the amount of the obligation. Provisions are not recognised for future operating losses. Long-term benefits Provisions are measured at the present value of the The Council’s net obligation in respect of long-term expenditures expected to be required to settle the employee benefits other than pension plans is the amount obligation using a pre-tax discount rate that reflects of future benefit that employees have earned in return for current market assessments of the time value of money their service in the current and prior periods; that benefit and the risks specific to the obligation. The increase in the is discounted to determine its present value. The discount provision due to the passage of time is recognised as an rate is the yield at the reporting date on AA credit-rated interest expense. bonds that have maturity dates approximating the terms of the Council’s obligations. The calculation is performed using the projected unit credit method. Any actuarial gains or losses are recognised in the surplus/deficit in the

Financial Management 63

108 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Landfill post closure costs The net amount of GST recoverable from, or payable to, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is included as part The Council has a legal obligation under the Resource of receivables or payables in the Statement of Financial Consent to provide ongoing maintenance and monitoring Position. services at the landfill site after closure. A provision for post closure costs is recognised as a liability when the The net GST paid to, or received from the IRD, including obligation for post closure arises. the GST relating to investing and financing activities, is classified as an operating cash flow in the Statement of The provision is measured based on the present value Cash Flows. of future cash flows expected to be incurred, taking into account future events including new legal requirements Commitments and contingencies are disclosed exclusive and known improvements in technology. The provision of GST. includes all costs associated with landfill post closure. The discount rate applied is 7% which represents the risk free discount rate. Cost allocation The Council has derived the cost of service for each significant activity of the Council using the cost allocation Equity system outlined below.

Equity is the community’s interest in the Council and is Direct costs are those costs directly attributable to a measured as the difference between total assets and total significant activity. Indirect costs are those costs, which liabilities. Equity is disaggregated and classified into a cannot be identified in an economically feasible manner, number of reserves. with a specific significant activity.

The components of equity are: Direct costs are charged directly to significant activities.

•• Retained earnings Indirect costs are charged to significant activities using appropriate cost drivers such as actual usage, staff •• Council reserves (includes sinking funds, special numbers and floor area. reserves and endowment reserves)

•• Fair value and hedging reserves Critical accounting estimates •• Asset revaluation reserves and assumptions In preparing these financial statements Invercargill City Goods and services tax (GST) Council has made estimates and assumptions concerning All items in the financial statements are stated exclusive the future. of GST, except for receivables and payables, which These estimates and assumptions may differ from the are stated on a GST inclusive basis. Where GST is not subsequent actual results. Estimates and assumptions recoverable as input tax then it is recognised as part of the are continually evaluated and are based on historical related asset or expense. experience and other factors, including expectations or future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. The estimates and assumptions that have

2019/20 64 Annual Plan

109 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the Infrastructural Assets carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next There are a number of assumptions and estimates used financial year are discussed below: when performing DRC valuations over infrastructural Classification of non-financial assets as cash-generating assets. These include: assets or non-cash-generating assets • The physical deterioration and condition of an asset, For the purpose of assessing impairment indicators and for example the Council could be carrying an asset at impairment testing, Council classifies nonfinancial assets an amount that does not reflect its actual condition. as either cash-generating or noncash- generating assets. This is particularly so for those assets, which are not Council classifies a nonfinancial asset if the primary visible, for example stormwater, wastewater and objective of the asset is to generate a commercial return. water supply pipes that are underground. This risk All other assets are classified as non-cash-generating is minimised by Council performing a combination assets. of physical inspections and condition modelling assessments of underground assets; All property, plant and equipment and intangible assets (excluding goodwill) held by Council are classified as • Estimating any obsolescence or surplus capacity of an non-cash-generating assets, except for rental properties asset; and that are earning a market rental. This includes assets that • Estimates are made when determining the generate fee revenue or other cash flows for Council as remaining useful lives over which the asset will be these cash flows are generally not sufficient to represent depreciated. These estimates can be impacted by commercial return on the assets. the local conditions, for example weather patterns All property, plant and equipment held by Invercargill City and traffic growth. If useful lives do not reflect the Holdings Limited are classified as cash-generating assets actual consumption of the benefits of the asset, as it is a for-profit entity and the primary objective of its then Invercargill City Council could be over or under assets is to generate commercial return. estimating the annual deprecation charge recognised as an expense in the Statement of Comprehensive Properties Revenue and Expense. To minimise this risk Invercargill City Council owns a number of properties, Invercargill City Council’s infrastructural asset useful which are maintained primarily to provide housing to lives have been determined with reference to the pensioners. The receipt of market-based rental from NZ Infrastructural Asset Valuation and Depreciation these properties is incidental to holding these properties. Guidelines published by the National Asset These properties are held for service delivery objectives Management Steering Group, and have been adjusted as part of Invercargill City Council’s social housing policy. for local conditions based on past experience. These properties are accounted for as property, plant and Asset inspections, deterioration and condition equipment. modelling are also carried out regularly as part of the Invercargill City Council’s asset management planning activities, which gives Invercargill City Council further assurance over its useful life estimates. Experienced independent valuers review the Council’s infrastructural asset revaluations.

Financial Management 65

110 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Prospective financial information The financial information contained within this document is prospective financial information in terms of accounting standard FRS42 and complies with the standard. The purpose for which it has been prepared is to enable ratepayers, residents and any other interest parties to obtain information about the expected future financial performance, position and cash flow of the Invercargill City Council. The actual result achieved for any particular financial year is also likely to vary from the information presented and may vary materially depending on the circumstances that arise during the period. Estimates and judgements are continually evaluated and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectation of future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Changes in accounting policies There have been no significant changes to accounting policies during the Plan.

2019/20 66 Annual Plan

111 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Financial Management 67

112 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

2019/20 68 Annual Plan

113 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

114 Council - ADOPTION OF 2019/20 ANNUAL PLAN

Private Bag 90104, Invercargill 9840, New Zealand - Phone 03 211 1777 - www.icc.govt.nz - www.consultsouth.govt.nz

115 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: DALE BOOTH – MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

SUMMARY

The Rates Resolutions for 2019/20 financial year need to be adopted in accordance with the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Council resolves:

1. That the rates as set out below be set for the financial year beginning 1 July 2019 and ending 30 June 2020, in accordance with the Invercargill City Council’s Funding Impact Statement and Revenue and Financing Policy.

All rates set out below are stated as GST inclusive:

General rate A general rate set on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district. The rate is set on a differential basis and assessed on each dollar of capital value as follows:

Differential Differential Rate ($) category All rateable 100% 0.00075492 rating units other than rural-farming Rural-farming 75% 0.00056619

Parks and reserves targeted rates Parks and reserves targeted rates, as follows:

A targeted rate set and assessed on all rateable rating units in the district, as follows:

Land use Basis of Rate ($) rate All land liable Per rating 59.51 unit

116 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

A targeted rate (the base rate) set and assessed on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district that is categorised in the residential and residential multi-unit differential categories. The rate is set as $0.00096208 per dollar of capital value. Pools targeted rates Pools targeted rates, as follows:

A targeted rate set and assessed on all rateable rating units in the district, as follows

Land use Basis of Rate ($) rate All land liable Per rating 29.76 unit

A targeted rate (the base rate) set and assessed on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district that is categorised in the residential and residential multi-unit differential categories. The rate is set as $0.00036248 per dollar of capital value. Regulatory services targeted rate A regulatory services targeted rate set on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district. The rate is set on a differential basis and assessed on each dollar of capital value as follows:

Differential Differential Rate ($) category All rateable 100% 0.00051036 rating units other than rural-farming Rural-farming 75% 0.00038276 Roading targeted rate A roading targeted rate set on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district. The rate is set on a differential basis and assessed on each dollar of capital value as follows: Differential Differential Rate ($) category All rateable 100% 0.00078257 rating units other than rural-farming Rural-farming 75% 0.00058693

117 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

Cemeteries targeted rate A cemeteries targeted rate set on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the district. The rate is set on a differential basis and assessed on each dollar of capital value as follows:

Differential Differential Rate ($) category All rateable 100% 0.00004408 rating units other than rural-farming Rural-farming 75% 0.00003306

Libraries targeted rate A libraries targeted rate set and assessed as $200.16 per rating unit on every rating unit in the district, with an additional charge of $150.12 on rating units in the residential multi-unit category on every separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit after the first. Regional heritage targeted rate A Regional heritage targeted rate set and assessed as $42.56 per rating unit on every rating unit in the district, with an additional charge of $31.92 on rating units in the residential multi-unit category on every separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit after the first. Business development targeted A business development targeted rate set and rate assessed on the capital value of all rating units in the commercial and industrial differential categories, as an amount of $0.00048203 on each dollar of capital value. Economic development targeted An economic development targeted rate set and rate assessed on the capital value of all rating units in the commercial and industrial (excluding those in the utilities sub-category of industrial) differential categories, as an amount of $0.00017163 on each dollar of capital value.

Water supply targeted rate A water supply targeted rate set and assessed on all rating units serviceable to a Council water supply, as follows: Residential and residential multi-unit water supply targeted rate set and assessed at $385.74 per rating unit. Residential multi-unit rating units set and assessed at $289.31 per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit after the first. Commercial and industrial rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category of industrial), as an amount per rating unit as follows:

118 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

Differential category Differential Rate (%) - by capital value Less than $50,001 80 410.87 From $50,001 - 100 513.60 $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 120 616.32 $200,001 - $400,000 140 719.04 $400,001 - $1,000,000 200 1027.20 $1,000,001 - $3,000,000 300 1540.79 $3,000,001 - $5,000,000 400 2054.39 $5,000,001+ 500 2567.99

Vacant Rating units that are within the serviceable area will be charged 50% of the applicable rate from above. Sewerage disposal targeted rate A sewerage disposal targeted rate set and assessed on all rating units serviceable to a Council wastewater system, as follows: Residential and residential multi-unit sewerage disposal targeted rate set and assessed at $249.85 per rating unit. Residential multi-unit rating units set and assessed at $187.39 per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit after the first. Commercial and industrial rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category of industrial), as an amount per rating unit as follows:

Differential category Differential Rate (%) - by capital value Less than $50,001 80 485.72 From $50,001 - 100 607.14 $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 120 728.57 $200,001 - $400,000 140 849.99 $400,001 - $1,000,000 200 1214.28 $1,000,001 - $3,000,000 300 1821.42 $3,000,001 - $5,000,000 400 2428.57 $5,000,001+ 500 3035.71

119 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

Vacant Rating units that are within the serviceable area will be charged 50% of the applicable rate from above. Drainage targeted rate A Drainage targeted rate set and assessed on all rating units serviceable to a Council Drainage system (excluding Makarewa, Myross Bush, Redmayne Road drainage areas/districts), as follows: Residential and residential multi-unit drainage targeted rate set and assessed at $174.40 per rating unit. Residential multi-unit rating units set and assessed at $130.80 per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit after the first. Commercial and industrial rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category of industrial), as an amount per rating unit as follows:

Differential category Differential Rate (%) - by capital value Less than $50,001 80 362.97 From $50,001 - 100 453.72 $100,000 $100,001 - $200,000 120 544.47 $200,001 - $400,000 140 635.21 $400,001 - $1,000,000 200 907.45 $1,000,001 - $3,000,000 300 1361.17 $3,000,001 - $5,000,000 400 1814.89 $5,000,001+ 500 2268.62

Vacant units that are within the serviceable area will be charged 50% of the applicable rate from above.

Refuse collection targeted rates Targeted rates for refuse collection, as follows: A targeted rate (the refuse collection rate) set and assessed on all rating units provided with the service (supplied with wheelie bins): $197.63 Additional Bins: Residential multi-unit rating units $148.22 per additional bin. All other rating units $197.63 per additional bin.

120 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

A targeted rate (the general waste management rate) set and assessed on the capital value of all rating units in the district except those in the rural- farming differential category, as an amount of $0.00011657per dollar of capital value.

Footpaths targeted rate A footpaths targeted rate set and assessed on the capital value of all rateable rating units except the utilities sub-category of the industrial category within the Invercargill and Bluff Urban Areas, as an amount of $0.00031963 per dollar of capital value. Street lighting targeted rate A street lighting targeted rate set and assessed on the capital value of all rateable rating units except the utilities sub-category of the industrial category within the Invercargill and Bluff Urban Areas, as an amount of $0.00008351 per dollar of capital value. Transport targeted rate A transport targeted rate set and assessed on the capital value of all rateable rating units except the utilities sub-category of the industrial category within the Invercargill City Area, as an amount of $0.00010747 per dollar of capital value. Drainage targeted rates Drainage targeted rates, as follows:

A drainage targeted rate for the Makarewa drainage area, set and assessed as an amount of $84.80 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub- category industrial) located in the Makarewa drainage area.

A drainage targeted rate for the Myross Bush drainage area, set and assessed as an amount of $83.64 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located in the Myross Bush drainage area.

A drainage targeted rate for the Redmayne Road drainage district, set and assessed as an amount of $81.62 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located in the Redmayne Road drainage district.

Community centres targeted rates Community centres targeted rates, as follows:

A community centres targeted rate for the Awarua Community Centre Area, set and assessed as an amount of $32.09 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located within the Awarua Community Centre Area.

121 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

A community centres targeted rate for the Myross Bush Community Centre Area, set and assessed as an amount of $30.53 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located within the Myross Bush Community Centre Area.

A community centres targeted rate for the Otatara Community Centre Area, set and assessed as an amount of $15.53 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located within the Otatara Community Centre Area. Town hall targeted rate A town hall targeted rate set and assessed on rateable rating units in the Bluff Town Hall area an amount of $17.08 for all rating units (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) located in the Bluff Town Hall area. Community board targeted rate A community board targeted rate set and assessed on the capital value of each rateable rating unit (excluding those in the utilities sub-category industrial) within the Bluff Ward. The rate is set on a differential basis and assessed on each dollar of capital value as follows:

Differential Differential Rate ($) category All rateable 100% 0.00033239 rating units other than rural-farming and utilities sub-category of the industrial category Rural-farming 75% 0.00024929 City centre co-ordinator targeted A city centre co-ordinator targeted rate, set and rate assessed on the capital value of each rateable rating unit in the industrial (excluding utilities) or commercial differential categories within the City Centre Rejuvenation Rateable Land Area. The rate is set as $0.00030462 per dollar of capital value.

2. That all rates will be payable in four equal instalments due on the following dates:

1. 30 August 2019 2. 29 November 2019 3. 28 February 2020 4. 29 May 2020

122 Council - 2019/20 RATES RESOLUTION

3. That the following penalties are authorised: A charge of 10% on so much of any instalment that has been assessed as remains unpaid after the relevant due date above. The Penalty Date for each instalment is:

1. 06 September 2019 2. 06 December 2019 3. 06 March 2020 4. 05 June 2020

ÿ A penalty of 10% will be added to the amount of rates assessed in previous financial years that remains unpaid on the 4 July 2019, the penalty will be added on 10 July 2019. ÿ A further penalty of 10% will be added to amounts to which a penalty has been added in accordance with the above point if the amounts remain unpaid, on 16 January 2020.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Yes 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? The policy is considered when preparing the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Rates Resolution set the rates for the 2019/20 financial year

RATES RESOLUTION

The 2019/20 rates resolution sets out the capital value rates and fixed charge rates applicable to each rate type. Ratepayers can expect to have a 3.5% rates increase for the 2019/20 financial year, as a result of every rate type in the rates resolution increasing by 3.5% from rates set in the 2018/19 financial year. Simpson Grierson have reviewed the draft rates resolution and provided assurance that it will satisfactorily set the rates, due dates and penalties regime for the 2019/20 year. ********

123 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: MELISSA BROOK – MANAGER, STRATEGY AND POLICY

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY, 27 JUNE 2019

ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

SUMMARY

Officers have prepared the fees and charges based on budgets for the 2019/20 financial year. The fees and charges have been through the public consultation process with no submissions received. They are now presented for adoption.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report ‘Adoption of Fees and Charges’ be received; and

That the 2019/20 Schedule of Fees and Charges be adopted.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? The Fees and Charges have been subject to a public consultation process with no submissions received. 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? Individual managers consider this and all policies when setting fees.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report recommends the setting of fees and charges for the 2019/20 financial year.

124 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2019/20

The Schedule of Fees and Charges for the 2019/20 financial year is attached (Appendix 1). The fees and charges are based on the budgets approved by Council and help to ensure that predicted revenues are reached.

Council has recently approved some large resource consents that will require significant monitoring. In instances like this it may be more appropriate to negotiate a monitoring fee with the consent holder as an alternative to the hourly rate as outlined in the Schedule of Fees and Charges. This will provide greater surety for both parties.

The Fees and Charges document was made available for public scrutiny and comment. Submissions closed on 28 May 2019. The Council did not receive any submissions on the schedule of fees and charges.

Officers have prepared the fees and charges based on budgets for the 2019/20 financial year. The fees and charges have been through the consultation process and are now presented for adoption.

**********

125 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES 2019-2020

Fees and charges 1

126 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Contents

Animal Services p4

Building Control p7

Compliance p13

Environmental Health p14

Housing Care p16

Invercargill Airport Ltd p17

Invercargill Venue and Events Management p18

Library and Archives p19

Miscellaneous p20

Parks and Reserves p21

Public Transport p28

Pools p30

Public Toilets p31

Resource Management p32

Roading p37

Sewerage p39

Solid Waste p40

Southland Museum and Art Gallery p41

Water p42

2019/20 2 Fees and Charges

127 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Fees and charges

Fees and charges for Council activities, Council Controlled Organisations and Council Organisations are set under sections 12, 103 and 150 of the Local Government Acts 2002 and 1974. Fees and charges are effective from 1 July 2019.

All fees and charges are inclusive of GST unless otherwise stated.

Any updates will be included on the Council’s website www.icc.govt.nz

2018/19 2019/20 Corporate Fees $ $ Executive Staff 225.00 229.50

Managers and Team Leaders 185.00 188.50

Professional and Technical Staff 125.00 127.50

Administration staff 85.00 86.50

Photocopying

·· A4 0.20 0.20

·· A3 0.40 0.40

·· A0 & A1 5.00 5.00 Travel per km 0.75 0.75

Alteration of Fees Fees and charges may be refunded, remitted or waived by the Chief Executive, Director of Environmental and Planning Services, Director of Finance and Corporate Services or Director of Works and Services. The fees and charges listed were correct at the time of going to print. The Council reserves the right to alter fees and charges during the year. Any changes will be publicly notified for submissions. All fees and charges are GST inclusive unless otherwise stated.

Fees and charges 3

128 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Animal Services

Dog Control Fees 2018/19 2019/20 Registration $ $ Responsible Ownership Fee – Not Desexed 70.00 70.00

Responsible Ownership Fee – Desexed 55.00 55.00

Dangerous Dog 150.00 150.00

Standard Fee - Not Desexed 100.00 100.00

Standard Fee - Desexed 85.00 85.00

Working Dog 35.00 35.00

Registration Fee for a Probationary Owner Apply fee applicable to their Apply fee applicable to their classification classification

Multiple Dog Fee (Five Dogs or More) 310.00 Responsible only

Menacing Dog 150.00 150.00

Responsible Menacing Dog (Breed only) 85.00 85.00

Pro-rate Registration Fees Use the fees below when registering a new dog. This could be: 1. A puppy’s first registration; or 2. When a person is a new owner of a dog. For example, if you register your dog for the first time during August, you will need to pay the September to June fee found in the September row of the table below. As a guide to what refund may be given in the case of a dog that has died, take the fee for that month after the refund application is received.

Menacing Dog Dangerous Responsible Standard Standard Dog Registration Responsible and Working owner - Not Dog – Not Dog – Responsible made within Owner - Menacing Dog De-sexed De-sexed De-sexed (Breed only De-sexed Dog applies)

July 64.17 50.42 137.50 91.67 77.92 32.08 77.92

August 58.33 45.83 125.00 83.34 70.80 29.16 70.80

September 52.50 41.25 112.50 75.01 63.74 26.24 63.74

October 46.67 36.67 100.00 66.68 56.67 23.32 56.67

November 40.83 32.10 87.50 58.35 49.58 20.40 49.58

December 35.00 27.50 75.00 50.02 42.50 17.48 42.50

Jan 29.17 22.92 62.50 41.69 35.42 14.56 35.42

Feb 23.33 18.33 50.00 33.36 28.33 11.64 28.33

March 17.50 13.75 37.50 25.03 21.25 8.72 21.25

April 11.67 9.17 25.00 16.70 14.17 5.80 14.17

May 5.83 4.60 12.50 8.37 7.08 2.88 7.08

June 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2019/20 4 Fees and Charges

129 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Animal Services continued

2018/19 2019/20 Other Fees $ $ Application for Responsible Ownership 40.00 40.00

Microchip Implanting 25.00 25.00

Replacement Tags 6.00 6.00

Additional late fee after 1 August 25% of registration 25% of registration

Dog Hearing Lodgment Fee 750.00 750.00

Application Fee (keeping of more than 2 dogs) 40.00 40.00

Dog Impoundment Fees Return to Home 40.00 40.00

First Impounding 80.00 80.00

Second Impounding 120.00 120.00

Third and Subsequent Impounding 160.00 160.00

Sustenance – per day 20.00 20.00

Long-Term Stay (Greater than one month) monthly fee Note – Where a dog is impounded and is awaiting the 300.00 300.00 outcome of a Court Hearing or similar, monthly invoices will be issued to the owner.

After Hours Release (minimum one hour staff time) 120.00 127.50

Additional Impounding Fee: After Hours Impounding 55.00 55.00 (Contractor)

2018/19 2019/20 Stock Impounding Charges $ $

Horses, Asses, Mules, Cattle and Deer First impounding (first animal)

·· Poundage – each 100.00 100.00 Sustenance – per day 10.00 10.00

Second or Subsequent impounding (first animal)

·· Poundage – each 90.00 90.00 Sustenance – per day 10.00 10.00

Additional animal impounding

·· Poundage – each 10.00 10.00 Sustenance – per day 10.00 10.00

Fees and charges 5

130 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Animal Services continued

2018/19 2019/20 Stock Impounding Charges $ $

Sheep, goats or pigs

·· Impounding (first animal) – each 30.00 30.00

·· Impounding additional animals – each 3.00 3.00

·· Sustenance (each animal) – per day 3.00 3.00 Droving, leading or conveying charges 120.00 120.00

Other Fees Bark Collars

Sale New Bark Collars Large 165.00 165.00

·· Small (Dogtro) Bond – 55.00 Bond – 60.00 Per week – 25.00 Per week – 25.00

·· Large (Bark Limiter) Bond – 70.00 Bond – 70.00 Per week – 25.00 Per week – 25.00

2019/20 6 Fees and Charges

131 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Building Services

Building Consent Application

All application based on square meter rates are subject to a minimum $500 and a maximum $22,000 fee, except any construction project with an estimated construction value greater than $3,000,000 that will be charged a flat rate of 0.8% the construction value.

Fees are based on the floor area affected, for example if a wall is removed the areas of the rooms on both sides of the demolished wall are used to calculate the fee.

(a) Healthy Homes

Council offers a 25% subsidy off the following fees as part of 2018/19 2019/120 our commitment to the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: $ $ Healthy Homes Programme Solid Fuel Heater: Freestanding 275.00 -25% = 206.25 275.00 – 25% = 206.25

Solid Fuel Heater: Inbuilt / Wetbacks 410.00 –25%= 307.50 410.00 – 25% = 307.50

Insulation 410.00 -25% = 307.50 410.00 – 25% = 307.50

(b) Residential New Dwellings Single / Semi-Detached / Additions (Includes 22.50/m2 22.75/m2 plumbing and drainage)

Residential interior alterations 18.50/m2 18.75/m2

Building placed on site/foundation only 12.25/m2 12.50/m2

Multi-Residential (includes plumbing and drainage) 23.00/m2 23.25/m2

Conservatories / Verandahs 510.00 flat rate 510.00 flat rate

Re-roof / reclad 510.00 flat rate 510.00 flat rate

155.00 flat rate plus time 155.00 flat rate plus time Amendment costs and/or additional costs and/or additional inspections inspections

(a) Fast Track Foundation Amendment 255.00 flat rate 255.00 flat rate

(b) Waiver / Modification Amendment 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

Solid fuel heater:

·· Freestanding 275.00 flat rate 275.00 flat rate

·· Diesel Freestanding 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

·· Inbuilt / Wetbacks 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

·· Boilers - oil and diesel fired 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate Bathroom alteration including wet area shower 510.00 flat rate 510.00 flat rate

Plumbing – Solar Heating 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

Fences/timber deck 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

Fees and charges 7

132 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Building Services continued

2018/19 2019/20 Building Consent Application continued $ $

Swimming pools 220.00 flat rate 220.00 flat rate

Swimming pool registration (three yearly) 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

Swimming pool exemption request 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

17.25/m2 17.50/m2 Accessory Buildings (unlined) capped at 1,025.00 capped at 1,025.00

20.50/m2 20.75/m2 Accessory Buildings (lined) capped at 1,025.00 capped at 1,025.00

17.00/m2 17.25/m2 Accessory Buildings Extension (minimum fee 305.00) (minimum fee 305.00)

(c) Commercial New Commercial / Additions (General) 25.50/m2 25.75/m2

Foundation / Slab / Bridge Only 410.00 410.00

New Office / Additions 22.50/m2 22.75/m2

Shell only (internal unfinished) 17.50/m2 17.75/m2

Commercial interior alterations 17.50/m2 17.75/m2

Earthquake Strengthening $500 time costs and/or inspections

Minor Work 10.25/m2 10.50/m2

Re-roof / reclad 615.00 flat rate 615.00 flat rate

150.00 flat rate plus time 150.00 flat rate plus time Amendments costs and/or additional costs and/or additional inspections inspections

(a) Fast Track Foundation Amendment 255.00 flat rate 255.00 flat rate

(b) Waiver / Modification Amendment 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

(d) Industrial New Industrial / Additions 15.25/m2 15.50/m2

Industrial interior alterations 15.25/m2 15.50/m2

10.25/m2 capped at 10.50/m2 Farm Buildings (unlined) (bonafide farm use) 1,000.00

150.00 flat rate plus time 150.00 flat rate plus time Amendment costs and/or additional costs and/or additional inspections inspections

(a) Fast Track Foundation Amendment 255.00 flat rate 255.00 flat rate

(b) Waiver / Modification Amendment 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

2019/20 8 Fees and Charges

133 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Building Consent Application continued $ $

(e) Plumbing Interior Plumbing and Drainage 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

Site Servicing / Ext. Drainage / Road Openers 15.50/lin.m 15.50/lin.m (min. $300.00)

Hot water cylinder replacement (same location) 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

Connection to North Road extension 5,377.00 flat rate 5,377.00 flat rate

On-site Waste Water Processing – (initial review) Additional costs will be charged at an hourly rate for subsequent 900.00 flat rate 925.00 flat rate review

(f) Mechanical HVAC (affected area) (min. of $300.00) 1.55/m2 1.75/m2

Sprinkler System (affected area) (min. of $300.00) 0.80/m2 1.00/m2

Fire Alarm, Auto-Doors, Other Specified System 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

(g) Demolition Residential 360.00 flat rate 360.00 flat rate

Commercial / Industrial 510.00 flat rate 510.00 flat rate

Certificate of Acceptance Certificate of Acceptance Building Consent fee x 2 Consent fee x 2 (Plus DBH, BRANZ and Accreditation levies if applicable)

Officer charge out rates Processing - additional time Third review of application will be charged an additional processing 150.00 per hour 150.00 per hour fee

Inspection – additional 150.00 per hour 150.00 per hour Third inspection per stage will be charged an additional fee

Project Information Memorandum PIM – residential 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

PIM – commercial / industrial 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

Fees and charges 9

134 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Building Services continued

2018/19 2019/20 Land Information Memorandum $ $

Residential - Single Property:

·· 5 working days (electronic) 460.00 flat rate 460.00 flat rate

·· 10 working days (electronic) 275.00 flat rate 275.00 flat rate

Other: Includes Rural/Multi Residential/Commercial and Industrial

·· 10 working days (electronic) 460.00 flat rate 460.00 flat rate Note: The set fee for a Land Information Memorandum is for an electronic copy. Should you require a hard copy version; a further 10.00 per copy 10.00 per copy $10.00 charge will apply.

2018/19 2019/20 Annual Building Warrant of Fitness $ $ New Compliance Schedule 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

Building Warrant of Fitness Renewal 155.00 flat rate 155.00 flat rate

Building Warrant of Fitness audit inspection 150.00 flat rate plus time 150.00 flat rate plus time (including file note) costs and/or additional costs and/or additional inspections inspections

Amendment to Compliance Schedule 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

Administrative Building statistics report (per month) 30.00 30.00

Property File Retrieval 10.00 10.00

Copying charges:

·· Per A4 or A3 page (Plus Administrative Charge) 0.20 per page 0.20 per page

·· Per A1 or A0 page (Plus Administrative Charge) 5.00 per page 5.00 per page Scanning of property files 85.00 per hour capped at 86.50 per hour capped at 275.00 275.00

Administrative Charge 85.00 per hour capped at 86.50 per hour capped at 275.00 275.00

2019/20 10 Fees and Charges

135 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Miscellaneous $ $ Signs/Retaining Walls 360.00 flat rate 360.00 flat rate

Playground Equipment ($300.00 min) 5.00/m2 5.00/m2

Tents/Marquees 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

Certificate of Public Use

·· First six months 350.00 flat rate 350.00 flat rate

·· Second six months 700.00 flat rate 700.00 flat rate

·· Third and subsequent six months 2,000.00 flat rate 2,000.00 flat rate Notice to Fix/Dangerous/Insanitary/EQ Prone 500.00 flat rate 500.00 flat rate

Minor variation acceptance 150.00 flat rate 150.00 flat rate

Alternate Solution Assessment 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

Schedule 1 paperwork acceptance 110.00 flat rate 110.00 flat rate

Schedule 1 Exemption 2 410.00 flat rate 410.00 flat rate

Peer Review/Consultant Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10%

Permit inspection (Consent Prior to 1993) 205.00 flat rate 205.00 flat rate

House relocation suitability report (plus report costs) 305.00 flat rate 305.00 flat rate

Dangerous/Insanitary/Earthquake Prone Consultation/Engaging 500.00 hourly rate 500.00 hourly rate consultants

Change of Use notification/acceptance 200.00 flat rate 200.00 flat rate

PSA Registration Maintenance Fee 150.00 for a three year 150.00 for a three year registration registration

Legal Processes Drain in Common fee 550.00 550.00 (Applicant to engage surveyor to draw up plan and provide to Council plus any solicitors costs plus any solicitors for lodging with Land Information New Zealand.) costs

Section 75 of the Building Act 350.00 flat rate 350.00 flat rate

Section 73 of the Building Act 350.00 350.00 plus any solicitors plus any solicitors costs costs

Section 37 of the Building Act 110.00 flat rate 110.00 flat rate

Fees and charges 11

136 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Building Services continued

Government Levies (May be varied by Government legislation) 2018/19 2019/20 $ $ BRANZ Levy 1.00 per 1,000.00 of 1.00 per 1,000.00 of GST inclusive work for all GST inclusive work for all applications of 20,000 applications of 20,000 or more or more

DBH Levy 2.01 per 1,000.00 of 2.01 per 1,000.00 of GST inclusive work for all GST inclusive work for all applications of 20,000 applications of 20,000 or more or more

Accreditation Levy 1.00 per 1,000.00 of 1.00 per 1,000.00 of GST inclusive work for all GST inclusive work for all applications of 5,000.00 applications of 5,000.00 or more or more

2019/20 12 Fees and Charges

137 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Compliance

2018/19 2019/20 Parking Compliance Fees $ $ Abandoned vehicle towage fee including storage Actual Cost Actual Cost

Fees and charges 13

138 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Environmental Health

2018/19 2019/20 Corporate Fees $ $ Food Businesses operating under the Food Act 2014

Registration and Verification Under the Food Act 2014

1. Registration

New Business or Initial Registration Fee 165.00 170.00 for a Food Control Plan or National Programme

Multi-Site Business- in addition to above – Additional fee per site 60.00 62.00

Renewal of a Food Control Plan or National Programme Registration Food Control Plan - Minimum Registration Period - 12 months 125.00 130.00

National Programme 3 – Minimum Registration Period - 2 Years 125.00 130.00

Registration National Programme 2 - Minimum Registration Period 125.00 130.00 - 2 Years

Registration National Programme 1 - Minimum Registration Period 125.00 130.00 - 2 Years

Multi-Site Business - in addition to above – Additional fee per site 40.00 42.00

Amendment to a Food control Plan or National Programme 45.00 47.00 Registration, including change of ownership

2. Verification, Compliance and Monitoring Verification Fee for Food Control Plans and National Programmes Hourly fee of Hourly fee of (includes follow ups) 125.00 or part 130.00 or part thereof PLUS thereof PLUS disbursements disbursements which includes which includes mileage outside the mileage outside city boundary the city boundary

Travel time for staff outside of City Boundary New Fee Half the hourly rate 65.00 charged to the nearest half hour

2019/20 14 Fees and Charges

139 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Other Health Licences Camping Grounds 455.00 465.00

Hairdressers 255.00 260.00

Funeral Directors 255.00 260.00

Offensive Trades 255.00 260.00

Skin Piercing (subject to Bylaw) 255.00 260.00

Change of ownership 45.00 47.00

Late Fee charges 75.00 77.00

Hazardous Substances ( Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act 1996)

Inspection and/or Report under HSNO - per hour or part thereof 125.00 130.00

Clean up, sampling, testing, seizure or removal of material / disposal or Actual & Actual & transfer to holding site/other agency reasonable costs reasonable costs

Gambling Venue Consent (Gambling Act 2003) Venue consent application 500.00 515.00

Hearings lodgment fee payable on lodgment of application (for hearings 1,500.00 1,540.00 that last up to 2 hours)

Monitoring of venue premises (per hour or part thereof) 125.00 130.00

Other Charges – Processing Applications / Variations / Extra Audits or Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours Normal Working Hours (Per hour or part thereof) 125.00 130.00

Outside Normal Working Hours (Per hour or part thereof) 160.00 165.00

Statutory Holidays (Per hour or part thereof) 210.00 215.00

Fees and charges 15

140 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Housing Care

2018/19 2019/20 Housing Care GST Not Applicable $ $ Studio units (per week) Up to 115.00 Up to 120.00

One bedroom units (per week) Up to 135.00 Up to 140.00

One bedroom units with carport (per week) Up to 135.00 Up to 140.00

Two bedroom special needs unit (per week) Up to 185.00 Up to 185.00

2019/20 16 Fees and Charges

141 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Invercargill Airport Limited

2018/19 2019/20 Invercargill Airport Fees $ $ Car parking charges

Up to 1 hour Free – 8.00 Free – 8.00

Up to 24 hours From 8.50 - 25.00 From 8.50 - 25.00

Up to 2 days From 25.50 - 39.00 From 25.50 - 39.00

Up to 3 days From 39.50 - 49.00 From 39.50 - 49.00

Up to 4 days From 48.50 - 53.00 From 48.50 - 53.00

First week (7 day) maximum Maximum 60.00 Maximum 60.00

After the first week, per 12 hour period or part thereof Maximum 80.00 Maximum 80.00

After the first week, weekly maximum 35.00 35.00

Lost ticket fee 100.00 100.00

Unlimited card use (12 months) 980.00 980.00

Leases Market rate Market rate

Fuel sales Market rate Market rate

Meeting rooms, per hour (minimum three hours)

Meeting Room 45.00 - 150.00 + GST 45.00 - 150.00 + GST

Official Information Requests (per hour)

Executive Staff 220.00 + GST 229.50

Managers and Team Leaders 180.00 + GST 188.50

Professional and Technical Staff 120.00 + GST 127.50

Administrative Staff 80.00 + GST 86.50

Photocopying

A4 page 0.20 0.20

A3 page 0.40 0.40

Travel per km 0.75 0.75

Alteration of Fees

Fees and charges may be refunded, remitted or waived by the General Manager, Invercargill Airport Limited. The fees and charges listed were correct at the time of going to print. The Council reserves the right to alter fees and charges during the year. Any changes will be publicly notified for submissions. All fees and charges are GST inclusive unless otherwise stated.

Fees and charges 17

142 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Invercargill Venue and Events Management

2018/19 2019/20 Civic Theatre Complex $ $ Civic Theatre (seating capacity 1,015)

Hire charge per performance Price by negotiation Price by negotiation

Second performance Price by negotiation Price by negotiation

Matinee or rehearsals with an audience 1,950.00 1,950.00

Dark days pack in/out rehearsals 1,150.00 1,150.00

Security deposit per performance 600.00 600.00

Specialist services are also available at an additional charge

Function Rooms Weddings – basic hire for a day Price by negotiation Price by negotiation

Drawing Room Day booking 240.00 240.00

Half day booking (maximum four hours) 130.00 130.00

Day/night 360.00 360.00

Victoria Room – whole room Day booking 375.00 375.00

Half day booking (maximum four hours) 195.00 195.00

Day/night 560.00 560.00

Victoria Room – Venue 1 or Venue 2 Day booking 240.00 240.00

Half day booking (maximum four hours) 130.00 130.00

Day/night 360.00 360.00

Rugby Park Price by negotiation Price by negotiation

Scottish Hall Price by negotiation Price by negotiation

Alteration of Fees

Fees and charges may be refunded, remitted or waived by the Manager, Invercargill Venue and Events Management. The fees and charges listed were correct at the time of going to print. The Council reserves the right to alter fees and charges during the year. Any changes will be publicly notified for submissions. All fees and charges are GST inclusive unless otherwise stated.

2019/20 18 Fees and Charges

143 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Libraries and Archives

2018/19 2019/20 Lending Services $ $ Book Bag 2.00 2.00

Book Covering 5.00 5.00

Book mending/book repair (minimum) 10.00 10.00

Digital image (minimum) 5.00 5.00

DVD (including Bluray) 1.00 1.00

Electronic Games (PS / Xbox / Wii) 2.50 2.50

Holds - (Note: Free for children) 0.60 0.60

Hot Pick Books/Magazines/DVDs 2.50 2.50

Interloans (minimum) 5.00 5.00

Interloans (urgent) 25.00 25.00

Internet (30 minutes) – Note Council continues to provide the “pay” 2.00 2.00 option for internet usage, but also has free internet available.

Meeting Room Hire - hourly by arrangement

·· Half day 70.00 70.00

·· Full day 125.00 125.00 Overdues non-chargeable items (per day) 0.20 0.20

Overdues chargeable items (per day) 0.50 0.50

Printing (per copy)

·· A4 Black and white 0.20 0.20

·· A3 Black and white 0.40 0.40

·· A4 Colour 0.50 0.50

·· A3 Colour 1.00 1.00 Replacement library card 2.00 2.00

Research – contract Price on Request Price on Request

Scanning – email 2.50 2.50

USB stick (8GB) 10.00 10.00

Fees and charges 19

144 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Miscellaneous

2018/19 2019/20 Bank Fees and Charges $ $ Credit card and electronic transfer charges Actual charge Actual charge

Laboratory Services Testing services 125.00 per hour plus 127.50 per hour plus materials materials

Official Information Requests and Compliance Investigations Executive Staff (per hour) 225.00 229.50

Managers and Team Leaders (per hour) 185.00 188.50

Professional and Technical Staff (per hour) 125.00 127.50

Administrative Staff (per hour) 85.00 86.50

Rates Postponement Policy Fees Administration fee 50.00 50.00

Interest rate 8% 8%

Request for establishing a new Rating Area Request for establishing a new Rating Area 7,187.50 7,187.50

Services Provided to other Local Authorities Charge for services provided to other Local Authorities 150.00 153.00 (per hour)

Street Banners Street Banners 125.00 125.00

2019/20 20 Fees and Charges

145 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Parks and Reserves

General Casual Use Park Charge 2018/19 2019/20 (Plus any special requirement charges) $ $ Any area of any park or reserve for a wedding, picnic or 25.00 25.00

Special Locations (Plus any special requirements) Queens Park Band Rotunda (includes power) 50.00 50.00

Queens Park Winter Gardens 85.00 85.00 (between 5.00 to 7.00 pm summer only)

Queens Park Tennis Pavilion (includes power) New Fee 60.00

Anderson Park Pavilion/Kitchen (includes power) 60.00 60.00

Anderson Park Pavilion/Kitchen and BBQ (includes power) 90.00 90.00

Anderson Park Second Picnic Area 40.00 40.00

Otepuni Gardens Band Rotunda (includes power) 50.00 50.00

Sandy Point Oreti Sands Golf Building New Fee 100.00

Otatara Scenic Reserve (ex Guide Camp Area) 40.00 40.00

Makarewa Domain Community Building (ex Bowling Club) New Fee 100.00

Special Requirements

Queens Park

·· Power – where available 25.00 25.00

·· Gates – to have gates opened for official vehicles 100.00 100.00 (1 hour maximum)

Anderson Park

·· Marquee site – includes use of pavilion and kitchen From 400.00 From 400.00

·· Access after dusk 195.00 195.00

Gala Street Reserve

·· Power – Fountain 25.00 25.00

·· Power – Fairs and carnivals From 290.00 From 295.00

Plus power if required Plus power if required

·· Circuses (non performing and performing days) per day From 290.00 From 295.00

·· As determined by the Parks Manager based on size, duration, Plus power if required Plus power if required location and nature of event

·· Power – Fair, Carnival and Circus Area Connection fee PLUS Connection fee PLUS cost of power used cost of power used based on actual based on actual reading reading

Fees and charges 21

146 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Parks and Reserves continued

2018/19 2019/20 Special Requirements - Continued $ $ General Reserves

Other reserves and activities (including concerts or similar) From 125.00 From 125.00

As determined by the Parks Manager based on size, duration, location and nature of event

Power – where available 25.00 25.00

Access to reserves through gates and barriers (key fee) 100.00 100.00

Commercial site including power (per day charge) From 240.00 From 240.00

Commercial concession 350.00 - 500.00 pa 350.00 - 500.00 pa

Dependent upon Dependent upon number of days of number of days of week used week used

Bonds Marquee site From 530.00 From 540.00

Commercial activities (including fairs and carnivals) From 530.00 From 540.00

Circuses From 1,125.00 From 1,145.00

Where not defined above, bond to be determined by Parks Manager

Car Park Maintenance Surrey Park sports clubs with shared car parks Per funding policy Per funding policy

Sports Clubs Occupying Council Reserves (buildings charged as extra) Bowling Green 408.00 415.00

Croquet Greens 380.00 385.00

Dog Obedience Club 320.00 325.00

Model Engineers 580.00 590.00

Surrey Park Grandstand and Athletics Track

School sports (50% paid to Athletics Southland)

·· Year 7 and over 545.00 555.00

·· Years 1 to 6 (inclusive) 440.00 448.00 Athletics – use of sports area, per season (enclosure) 920.00 935.00

Sportsfield and Park Facility Charges

Summer Sports Touch Rugby 255.00 260.00

5-a-side Soccer 255.00 260.00

2019/20 22 Fees and Charges

147 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Special Requirements - Continued $ $

Cricket (per wicket) Prepared wicket

·· Per season Price on application Price on application Artificial wicket

·· Per season 428.00 435.00

·· Per day 65.00 65.00 Unprepared wicket (evenings only)

·· Per season 153.00 155.00

·· Per evening 45.00 45.00

·· Per day 65.00 65.00

Softball Enclosure

·· Per year 920.00 935.00 Grass diamond

·· Per season 428.00 435.00

·· Per game 45.00 45.00

·· Per day 65.00 65.00 Practice area

·· Per season 325.00 330.00

Tennis – court per season 168.00 170.00

Marching (reservations of practice area) per season, per team 85.00 85.00

2018 2019 2020 Winter Sports - Note: Effective April 1 $ $ $

Field rent (per field)

•• Rugby, football and rugby league

·· Per season 760.00 775.00 790.00

·· Single game 75.00 75.00 75.00

·· Per day 95.00 95.00 95.00

·· Practice field 530.00 540.00 550.00

•• Netball Court rental (per court)

·· Per season 165.00 168.00 170.00

Fees and charges 23

148 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Parks and Reserves continued

2018 2019 2020 Winter Sports - Continued $ $ $

•• Hockey – artificial turf (enclosure) 905.00 920.00 935.00

•• Football – artificial turf (enclosure) 905.00 920.00 935.00

Sandy Point Domain

Clubs occupying Sandy Point Domain •• Club buildings 410.00 415.00 420.00

•• Grounds 190.00 193.00 195.00 Annual charge to be assessed on the area of land occupied per hectare or part thereof, minimum charge 1 ha. Where a building is also on the site, the charge shall be the land area plus the building rate.

•• Crib sites 750.00 765.00 780.00 ·· Sandy Point Domain – per annum

Buildings other than Sandy Point Buildings other than Sandy Point Current Current Current market market value market value value

Fencing Contribution

For reserves boundary fences •• Half cost of materials, up to a yearly set fee per lineal metre 40.00 40.00 As per Fencing Act Requirements

Miscellaneous Charges 2018/19 2019/20 Applications Requiring Management Plan Change $ $

Initial application fee 60.00 60.00

Associated costs of application including but not limited to advertising, Recovery of actual cost Recovery of actual cost Minister of Conservation fee, survey fees, legal fees etc. incurred by Council incurred by Council

Firewood Permit – issued for up to two weeks 15.00 15.00

Hire of Plants from McIvor Road Nursery

(Charges do not include delivery) Planter Bag Sizes 2, 3 or 5 3.00 (each) 3.00 (each)

Planter Bag Sizes 8, 12 or 28 4.00 (each) 4.00 (each)

Planter Bag Size 40 6.00 (each) 6.00 (each)

Tubs 12.00 (each) 12.00 (each)

Parks Operations Non Council work Tender / quote Tender / quote

2019/20 24 Fees and Charges

149 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Parks and Services - Cemeteries and Crematorium $ $ Cemeteries – Burial Fees

Monday to Saturday, excluding Sundays and public holidays, including pre-purchase of right of burial. Hours 8am to 5pm weekdays (summer months); 8am to 4pm weekdays (winter months); 8am to 1pm Saturdays. Person over five years of age 855.00 870.00

Child five years of age or under (children’s burial area) 510.00 520.00

Stillborn and child up to one year 305.00 310.00

Breaking concrete Actual time taken Actual time taken

Second burials – and subsequent burial/s 1,000.00 1,020.00

Maintenance Fee – on each burial 575.00 585.00 (not applicable to stillborn and up to five years old; and Ex-Servicemen in the Servicemen’s section)

Handfill - Using existing material No charge No charge - Using new material brought in 100.00 100.00

Burial of ashes in cemetery

·· Burial of ashes 127.50 130.00 Maintenance fee on each burial of ashes 230.00 235.00

Recording fee for scattered ashes 40.00 40.00

Ex-Servicemen’s burial in Servicemen’s area of cemetery

For burials

·· Monday to Saturday 855.00 870.00

·· Ash burial fee 127.50 130.00

Out of hours fee for burials Saturday 1pm to 4pm Out of hours fee, subject to special approval, 330.00 335.00 in addition to normal fees

Purchase of Allotments

(Including pre-purchase of allotment for right of burial)

·· Single one burials 765.00 780.00

·· Children’s plot, 1.8m x 0.75m 390.00 395.00

·· Standard width plot (2 capacity), 2.75m x 1.2m 895.00 900.00

·· Double width plot (4 capacity), 2.75m x 2.4m 1,790.00 1,800.00

·· Family plots – fee to be determined by size of plot requested Fee to be Fee to be (based on multiples of two-capacity plots) determined determined

Fees and charges 25

150 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Parks and Reserves continued

2018/19 2019/20 Parks and Reserves - Cemeteries and Crematorium continued $ $ ·· Plot for burial of ashes (standard size) 160.00 165.00

·· Plot for burial of ashes (60cm x 60cm) 280.00 285.00

Other fees

Memorial beam (including lost Seamen)

·· Permit fee 45.00 45.00

·· Beam 45.00 45.00 Free ground plaques 45.00 45.00

·· Beam 45.00 45.00

·· Maintenance fee 230.00 235.00

·· Memorial Grove 230.00 235.00 (including permit, planting, tree and recording fees)

Miscellaneous

Permit fee for the erection of memorials

·· Prior to erection 45.00 45.00

·· Non-notified 75.00 75.00

Genealogical search fee

·· Search (correspondence including email – minimum) 11.00 15.00

Disinterment and Reinterment

·· Disinterment fee, adult over five years old 2,345.00 2,390.00

·· Disinterment fee, child under five years old 1,120.00 1,140.00

·· Reinterment fee (same plot) 530.00 540.00

·· Disinterment of ashes 127.50 130.00

·· Reinterment of ashes 127.50 130.00

For cremations (including pre-purchase)

Cremations (excluding use of chapel) Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 5pm, Saturday morning 8.30am to 1pm

·· Persons over 10 years of age 785.00 800.00

·· Child 1 to 10 years of age 470.00 480.00

·· Stillborn and child up to one year old 230.00 230.00

·· Under 20 weeks gestation 50.00 50.00

2019/20 26 Fees and Charges

151 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Parks and Reserves - Cemeteries and Crematorium continued $ $ Additional Fees

·· Saturday afternoons, 1pm to 4pm 330.00 330.00 (subject to special approval and in addition to normal fees)

·· Use of chapel for funeral service; committal prior to cremation; 275.00 280.00 or memorial service where no cremation is involved

·· Storage of ashes more than 14 days after cremation, per 50.00 50.00 calendar month or part thereof

2018/19 2019/20 Crematorium $ $

Purchase of allotments

Memorial Gardens

·· Kerb plot 163.00 165.00

·· Garden of Memorial 163.00 165.00

·· Garden of Roses 375.00 380.00

·· Garden of Rest 163.00 165.00

·· Children’s Garden 163.00 165.00

·· Avenue of Tranquillity 375.00 380.00

Miscellaneous Burial of ashes 127.50 130.00

Maintenance

·· Fee on each burial of ashes 230.00 235.00 (not applicable to stillborn and up to five years)

·· Fee recording scattered ashes 45.00 45.00 Disinterment and Reinterment

·· Disinterment of ashes 127.50 130.00

·· Reinterment of ashes 127.50 130.00 Book of Rememberance 15.00 per line 15.00 per line

Fees and charges 27

152 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Public Transport

From 1 February From 1 July Public Transport Fees 2019 2019 $ $ Travel including Paid by: Paid by: Adults, Child, School or Tertiary Student, Senior Citizen – Per Trip - All times and All trips (to Hub)

A trip completed by a Tag Off Bus Smart Card 2.00 Bee Card 2.00

A trip not completed by a Tag Off Bus Smart Card 3.00 Bee Card 3.00

Any other trip Cash Payment 3.00 Cash Payment 3.00

Transfer within 30 minutes of trip finish when paying with Bus Smart 0.00 0.00 Card only (no cash trip transfers)

Under Five Years Old – All travel times Free Free

Super Gold Travel Trip 0.00 0.00 (The Bee Card must be registered ( including the MSD connection to the card) to access the concession for free travel between 8.55 am and 3.00 pm, and all trips on Saturdays)

Bee Card 5.00 5.00 (Off Bus purchase, including online)

Bee Card 10.00 10.00 (On Bus purchase including $5.00 top up)

Minimum Bee Card On Bus Top Up 5.00 5.00

2019/20 28 Fees and Charges

153 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Notes: 1. The Bus Smart Card will be replaced by the Bee Card in early 2019.

2. A trip is inclusive of travel which can start anywhere within a route but concludes at the CBD Hub.

3. Payments made by Bee cards are a specific fare type and are not considered as a discount fare as it does not require cash handling or driver assistance costs within the fare.

4. A tag off action is defined within the RITS Implementation Schema as having completed a Tag On when entering the bus and also a Tag Off (swipe) when leaving the bus. Council may select not to exercise the fare option if the tag off does not occur.

5. Terms and Conditions apply to the Bee card and can be accessed via www.bee.co.nz or via Council’s website.

6. Maximum fares shown. Council may select not to implement this level of fare if other strategies are agreed. Actual fares will be confirmed on Council’s website.

7. There are no peak or off peak times and fares are a flat fare per trip as shown above.

8. Supergold card holders must register and validate their Bee card via the Bee website to be eligible for the travel concession fare (free) and must also complete a Tag Off on concluding the trip. Failure to complete the Tag Off may result in the suspension of the card being eligible for that fare. The registration process will require entering the card holders Ministry of Social Development Number (MSD) for validating the concession.

9. Supergold travel is between the hours shown above unless amended by NZTA and travel must be compliant with the rules set by Council to be eligible for the fare.

Fees and charges 29

154 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Pools

2018/19 2019/20 Splash Palace Fees $ $ Adult 6.30 6.40

Senior (60 years or over) 4.70 4.80

Student (Full time tertiary) 4.70 4.80

Child 4.70 4.80

Lane Space (peak time) (20/25m lane space per hour plus entry) 20.00 20.00

Lane Space (off peak) (20/25m lane space booking fee plus entry) 9.50 3.10 per lane per hour for 1-4 lanes

$9.00 per lane per hour for the 5th lane and more thereafter

2019/20 30 Fees and Charges

155 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Public Toilets

2018/19 2019/20 Fees and Charges $ $ Showers – Wachner Place Public Toilets 3.00 3.00

Fees and charges 31

156 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Resource Management

2018/19 2019/20 Land Use and Subdivision Applications $ $ Fixed initial deposit for non-notified applications: 620.00 700.00 • land use resource consents • change or cancellation of resource consent conditions • objection to resource consents • requests for extensions of time limits

Fixed initial deposit for non-notified applications (land use resource 320.00 350.00 consents for demolition – Rule 3.4 only).

Fixed initial deposit for non-notified subdivision consents. 1,050.00 1,150.00

Fixed initial deposit non-notified applications for which a hearing is 2,050.00 2,200.00 required. In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Fixed initial deposit for applications when notice is served under Section 2,450.00 2,600.00 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991: • resource consents • change or cancellation of resource consent conditions • extensions of time limits

In addition, if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application.

Fixed initial deposit for notified applications. In addition if the application 3,900.00 4,500.00 is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Combined Land Use and Subdivision Applications Fixed initial deposit for non-notified combined applications. 1,400.00 1,500.00

Fixed initial deposit for non-notified combined applications which are 2,600.00 2,800.00 decided by the Hearings Panel. A Hearing fee will also be charged. Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application.

Fixed initial deposit for combined applications when notice is served 2,900.00 3,500.00 under Section 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Fixed initial deposit for notified combined applications. In addition if the 4,300.00 4,500.00 application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

2019/20 32 Fees and Charges

157 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Additional costs for Processing Resource Consents The following fees will apply in instances when any of the above Actual fee for external Actual fee for external fixed initial deposits ( for individual or combined resource consent professionals, postage professionals, postage applications) are insufficient to cover the costs associated with the and packaging. and packaging. processing of an application Staff 150.00 per hour Staff 150.00 per hour

Deemed Permitted Boundary Activity Fixed initial deposit for a deemed permitted boundary activity 250.00 300.00

Outline Plans Fixed initial deposit for an outline plan request - Section 176A of the 620.00 650.00 Resource Management Act 1991.

In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application.

Fixed initial deposit for a request to waive the requirements for an 300.00 350.00 outline plan – section 176A(2)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Monitoring 2018/19 2019/20 $ $ Hourly rate for monitoring of resource consents 150.00 150.00

Lodging of Objections Fixed initial deposit for objections lodged under Section 357 and 800.00 850.00 Section 357A of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Peer Review of Applications returned under section 88 of the RMA Fee when an applicant requests a review of Council’s decision to return Actual fee if Council’s Actual fee if Council’s the application under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act decision to return the decision to return the 1991. application is upheld application is upheld

Independent person to chair pre-application meeting Fee when an applicant requests that an independent person chairs the Actual fee Actual fee pre-application meeting.

Designations/Heritage Orders and Plan Changes

Fees and charges 33

158 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Resource Management continued

Fixed initial deposit for a notice of requirement for Designations under 6,200.00 6,300.00 Section 168 and for Heritage Order applications under Section 189 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application.

Fixed initial deposit for the alteration or removal of a Designation or 820.00 850.00 Heritage Order.

In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing Fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Fee for request for a Plan Change. (Costs are negotiated and may be 13,000.00 13,000.00 significantly lower if the request for a Plan Change is minor). In addition if the application is decided by the Hearings Panel a Hearing fee will also be charged; or Commissioners’ fees will be charged in instances when they hear and/or decide an application

Hearing Fees Fixed initial deposit, which is to be paid prior to the Hearing 1,500.00 for Hearings 1,500.00 lasting up to two hours.

Hourly rate for Hearings after the first two hours (for Hearings decided 600.00 600.00 by the Hearings Panel)

Fee for Hearings Commissioner(s) Where a When a commissioner(s) commissioner(s) hears and decides/ hears and decides/ recommends on recommends on an an application the application their fee will Commissioner’s fee will be charged be charged.

Fee for external professionals (when required) Actual fee Actual fee

2018/19 2019/20 Documents and Certificates $ $ Fee for certificates under Sections 10 and 139 of the Resource 420.00 450.00 Management Act 1991 and other Certificates, e.g. Planning and Building certificate under section 100(f) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Fee for Council signing under seal of legal documents 360.00 and any 400.00 and any associated legal fees associated legal fees

Fee for Council Signatories for Legal Documents 320.00 and any 350.00 and any associated legal fees associated legal fees

2019/20 34 Fees and Charges

159 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Council Signing of Survey Certification Fee for processing a request under Section 223 of the Resource 160.00 170.00 Management Act 1991

Fee for processing a request under Section 224(c)/Section 224(f) of 210.00 220.00 the Resource Management Act 1991 Note – Should a bond be requested and accepted, an administration fee will be charged.

Fee for processing a request under Section 221 of the Resource 210.00 220.00 Management Act 1991

Fee for processing a combined certificate under Section 223 and 210.00 220.00 Section 224(c)/224(f) of the Resource Management Act 1991

Fee for processing a request under Section 226 of the Resource 520.00 530.00 Management Act (including Certification)

Applications by Council Business Units, Council Controlled Organisations and Council Organisations All applications Actual costs for Actual costs for processing, hearing processing, hearing and decision- and decision- making, including making, including the cost of Hearings the cost of Hearings Commissioners and Commissioners and External Professionals External Professionals when required. when required.

Engineering Plans Fee for the lodgment of engineering plans and specifications of 1.5% of the estimated 1.5% of the estimated subdivision including checking and inspection as required under the cost of the Engineering cost of the Engineering Council’s Code of Land Development Bylaw. Works or $1,000.00, Works or $1,000.00, whichever is the whichever is the greater. (Estimated greater. (Estimated cost to be acceptable cost to be acceptable to Council.) to Council.)

Hourly re-inspection fees – additional inspections other than those 120.00 150.00 required by the Code of Practice for Land Development.

2018/19 2019/20 Other Legislation $ $ Section 327A Revocation of a building line restriction. 620.00 650.00

Section 348 Right of Way Approval. 620.00 650.00

District Plan

Fees and charges 35

160 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Resource Management continued

Invercargill City District Plan

Within Southland 350.00 600.00

Remainder of New Zealand (including postage and packaging) 400.00 700.00

Rapid Signs and Aerial Photos

RAPID Number Sign Charges Single Flat Sign 45.00 45.00

Range Sign 55.00 55.00

Row Signs (each) 15.00 15.00

Installation 80.00 80.00

Supply of Aerial Photo Customised projects (per hour) 150.00 150.00

Requests for Remittance of Fees and Charges Requests for remittance of fees and charges under Section 36(5) of the Written requests Written requests Resource Management Act 1991. to the Director of to the Director of Environmental and Environmental and Planning Services, Planning Services, Invercargill City Council Invercargill City Council

2019/20 36 Fees and Charges

161 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Roading

2018/19 2019/20 Roading Fees $ $

Licence to occupy road – “Café licence” (No Alcohol Permitted) – Annual Charge

·· Up to 15 square metres 125.00 125.00

·· Per additional square metre 12.50 12.50

·· Special designated area of footpath for Alcohol Licence or similar 1,050.00 1,050.00 (Annual Charge)

·· Metered parking space removal 2,000.00 2,000.00 (Annual Charge or pro rata for longer periods)

Minimum of 80.00 (for Minimum of 80.00 (for Restricted use of footpath, e.g. scaffolding permit up to 30 days) then up to 30 days) then (monthly fee – also requires CAR permit) 5.00 per calendar day 5.00 per calendar day thereafter thereafter

Technical charge based Technical charge based Vehicle crossing application per crossing on processing time on processing time (minimum 60.00) (minimum 60.00)

Technical charge based Corridor Access Request Technical charge based on processing time on processing time Excavation or similar (minimum 125.00) (minimum 55.00) Re-inspections (minimum 55.00)

Technical charge based Technical charge based No Dig or minor event or similar approval on processing time on processing time (minimum 55.00)

Approval for a Roadside Grazing permit or Dust Suppressant Application Technical charge based Technical charge based permit or Demolition or Removal of Property or Placing of Shipping on processing time on processing time Container on Frontage or Approval for use of any Road Space. (minimum 50.00) (minimum 55.00)

Parking On street parking meters (per hour) 1.20 to 1.50 1.20 to 1.50

On street Coach parking (Casual per hour) 2.50 2.50

Esk Street Number 1 off street car park (Casual per hour) 1.20 -1.50 1.20-1.50

Esk Street Number 2 off street car park (Casual per hour) 1.20 -1.50 1.20 -1.50

Don Street off street car park (Casual per hour) 1.20 -1.50 1.20 -1.50

Tay Central off street car park ( Casual per hour) 1.20 -1.50 1.20 -1.50

Fees and charges 37

162 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Roading continued

2018/19 2019/20 Parking continued $ $ Esk Street Number 2 off street car park, Reserved Permit Parking ( per 60.00-80.00 65.00-80.00 month)

Esk Street Number 2 off street car park, Early Bird Parking (per day) 5.00

Deveron Street off street carpark Reserved Permit Parking New Fee 75.00 – 100.00 (per month)

Permit Parking (where available) at any Carpark not specified 100.00–150.00 80.00–150.00 (per month)

Park Zone Car Park Building (Leven Street) Casual parking (per hour) 1.20-1.50 1.20-1.50

Reserved Permit Space (Red Zone) (per month) 80.00 85.00

Reserved Space (Level 7 – Blue Zone) (per month) 60.00 65.00 (limited numbers)

Meter Bags ·· Per day 15.00 15.00 ·· Per calendar week 65.00 65.00

2019/20 38 Fees and Charges

163 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Sewerage

2018/19 2019/20 Trade Waste Bylaw Fees $ $

Reinspection Fee

3 3 Volume Charge (CF) 45c/m 47c/m

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Charge / Organic Loading (CB) 42c/Kg BOD 43c/Kg BOD

Suspended Solids Charge (CS) 40.2c/Kg SS 41c/Kg SS Tankered Waste (Clifton) Plant influent (main sewer) 9.75/m3 9.75/m3

Digester 19.50/m3 19.50/m3

Other 9.75/m3 9.75/m3

Connection Fees Kennington Connection 7,000.00 7,000.00

Fees and charges 39

164 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Solid Waste

2018/19 2019/20 Invercargill Transfer Station $ $ Cash minimum 5.00 5.00

Account minimum 10.00 10.00

General waste per tonne 192.00 196.00

Mixed waste > 80% green waste per tonne 192.00 196.00

Mixed waste < 80% green waste per tonne 157.50 157.50

Green waste only per tonne 78.00 83.00

Cleanfill only per tonne 88.50 92.00

Hazardous waste per tonne 88.50 92.00

Car tyres, each (weight charges also apply) 6.00 6.00

Truck tyres, each (weight charges also apply) 11.00 11.00

Bluff Transfer Station

Rubbish

·· Car 10.00 10.00

·· Station wagon 16.00 16.00

·· Ute/large van 26.00 26.00

·· Trailer – single axle 41.00 41.00

·· Trailer – tandem axle 69.00 69.00

·· Tyres – car, each (no bulk loads) 6.00 6.00

·· Tyres – truck, each (no bulk loads) 11.00 11.00

Greenwaste

·· Car 5.50 5.50

·· Station wagon 8.00 8.00

·· Ute/large van 13.00 13.00

·· Trailer – single axle 20.50 20.50

·· Trailer – tandem axle 34.50 34.50

2019/20 40 Fees and Charges

165 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Southland Museum and Art Gallery

2018/19 2019/20 Digital Services $ $ Photo emailed/printed (personal use) 25.00 25.00

25.00 + 50.00 25.00 + 50.00 Photo emailed/printed to be published (acknowledgement fee) (acknowledgement fee)

Request for photo of collection item 55.00 55.00

Photo to be used on front cover To be negotiated To be negotiated

Filming by prior arrangement per hour 250.00 250.00

Other Southland Museums and Historical Cost only Cost only Societies

Research 180.00 per hour 180.00 per hour Commercial Rate First half-hour free First half-hour free

Photocopying A4 Black and white 0.20 0.20

A4 Colour 0.50 0.50

Official Information Requests (per hour) Executive Staff 225.00 229.50

Managers and Team Leaders 185.00 188.50

Professional and Technical Staff 125.00 127.50

Administrative Staff 85.00 86.50

Photocopying A4 page 0.20 0.20

A3 page 0.40 0.40

Travel per km 0.75 0.75

Alteration of Fees Fees and charges may be refunded, remitted or waived by the Manager, Southland Museum and Art Gallery. The fees and charges listed were correct at the time of going to print. The Council reserves the right to alter fees and charges during the year. Any changes will be publicly notified for submissions. All fees and charges are GST inclusive unless otherwise stated.

Fees and charges 41

166 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

Water Supply

2018/19 2019/20 Sale of water $ $ Class A: Excess usage by Easement Grantors (by agreement) m3 0.0254 0.0254

Class C: Extraordinary Consumers of Reticulation (non-residential rating units) Annual Consumption m3:

·· 0 to 249 0 0

·· 250 to 100,000 0.653 0.668

·· 100,001 to 200,000 0.592 0.606

·· 200,001 and above 0.52 0.532 (prior to 2019/20: 200,001 to 300,000)

·· 300,001 and above 0.46 N/A Class D: Southland District Council consumers 1.43 1.46 off Branxholme pipelines m3

Class G: Bulk water ex waterworks to tankers etc 2.15 2.20 (minimum $17.60) m3

Class H: Supplied per metered standpipe ex hydrants 2.15 2.20 (minimum $17.60) m3

·· Plus standpipe hire per day 40.80 41.75 Class I: Builders unmetered supply paid with permit fees

·· Dwelling 40.80 41.75

·· Commercial buildings 81.60 83.50

Water connection charges

Ordinary connections (Invercargill area)

·· 20mm service each 1,750.00 1,900.00

·· 25mm service each 2,350.00 2,350.00 Ordinary connections (Bluff area) Quote Quote

Extraordinary connections Quote Quote

Renewals (20mm diameter) 1,310.00 1,425.00

2019/20 42 Fees and Charges

167 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

2018/19 2019/20 Water connection charges continued $ $

Disconnection fee

·· Up to and including 50mm each 714.00 927.00

·· Above 50mm Quote Quote Reconnection fee (up to 50mm diameter) 1,020.00 1,045.00

Service connection flow test each 306.00 530.00

Backflow preventer fee

·· Registration and installation 127.50 130.00

·· Annual inspection 71.40 73.00 Fire protection water connection annual licence 71.40 73.00

Fees and charges 43

168 Council - ADOPTION OF FEES AND CHARGES

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL • PRIVATE BAG 90104 • INVERCARGILL 9840 • NEW ZEALAND phone (03) 211 1777 • fax 03 211 1433 • www.icc.govt.nz 2019/20 44 Fees and Charges

169 Council - FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: ANDREW CAMERON – GENERAL MANAGER INVERCARGILL CITY HOLDINGS

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED

SUMMARY

The 2018 Annual Report of Forest Growth Holdings disclosed that they were prepared on a disestablishment basis. Further they stated that the directors had resolved to cease operations and make the company dormant once the remaining land had been sold and trees harvested. On 3 April 2019 at the completion of that process the directors of Forest Growth Holdings Limited resolved to cease business and make an application to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue requesting that the company be removed from the New Zealand Register. It is unlikely that this process will be completed before 30 June 2019. To avoid unnecessary audit costs, application is made to Council to exempt Forest Growth Holdings Limited from being a council-controlled organisation for the 2019 financial year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the “Forest Growth Holdings Limited” report be received;

AND

That Invercargill City Council notes the resolution by Forest Growth Holdings Limited to cease business and have its name removed from the Register of Companies;

AND

That having taken into consideration the matters contained in section 7(5) of the Local Government Act 2002 the Invercargill City Council resolve that Forest Growth Holdings Limited is a small organisation, is not a council-controlled trading organisation and is exempted under Section 7 from being a council controlled trading organisation for the purposes of section 6 of that Act.

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 Policy on Significance? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? Not applicable.

170 Council - FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED

5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? No. 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? Yes.

1. LEGISLATION

Local Government Act 2002

6 Meaning of council-controlled organisation and council organisation (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - council-controlled organisation means a council organisation that is - (a) a company (i) in which equity securities carrying 50% or more of the voting rights at a meeting of the shareholders of the company are— (A) held by 1 or more local authorities; or (B) controlled, directly or indirectly, by 1 or more local authorities; or (ii) in which 1 or more local authorities have the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors of the company; or (b) an entity in respect of which 1 or more local authorities have, whether or not jointly with other local authorities or persons,— (i) control, directly or indirectly, of 50% or more of the votes at any meeting of the members or controlling body of the entity; or (ii) the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the trustees, directors, or managers (however described) of the entity council-controlled trading organisation means a council-controlled organisation that operates a trading undertaking for the purpose of making a profit

7 Exempted organisations (1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, exempt an organisation for the purposes of section 6(4)(i). (2) The Minister may make a recommendation only if— (a) the organisation is subject to monitoring and reporting requirements under an enactment; and (b) in the Minister’s opinion, the organisation’s accountability under that enactment is of a similar nature and effect to that required of a council- controlled organisation under this Act. (3) A local authority may, after having taken account of the matters specified in subsection (5), exempt a small organisation that is not a council-controlled trading organisation, for the purposes of section 6(4)(i). (4) An exemption must be granted by resolution of the local authority. (5) The matters are— (a) the nature and scope of the activities provided by the organisation; and (b) the costs and benefits, if an exemption is granted, to the local authority, the council-controlled organisation, and the community. (6) A local authority must review an exemption it has granted— (a) within 3 years after it is granted; and (b) after the first review, not more than 3 years following the last review under this section. (7) A local authority may, at any time, revoke an exemption it has granted.

171 Council - FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED

2. FOREST GROWTH HOLDINGS LIMITED

In its 2018 Annual Report Forest Growth Holdings Limited (FGH) made the following statement.

The financial statements have been prepared on a disestablishment basis. A substantial portion of the inventory on hand is under contract for sale, but is subject to approval from the Overseas Investment Office (OIO). The outcome and timing of the OIO approval is uncertain. The directors have resolved to cease operations and make the company dormant once the remaining land is sold and trees harvested. This is anticipated to occur within the next 12 months.

As anticipated that land sale has been completed. The balance of the estate has been harvested and the land and any remaining cash transferred to Invercargill City Forests Limited.

On 3 April 2019 the directors of FGH resolved to cease operations and apply to have itself removed from the register of companies.

While FGH is going through this process it is still considered to be a council-controlled organisation.

FGH has ceased to be a council-controlled trading organisation as it is no longer operating as a trading organisation for the purposes of making a profit at least from 3 April 2019.

3. CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Invercargill City Council (ICC) is able to exempt FGH from being a council-controlled organisation after taking into consideration the matters set out below: (a) the nature and scope of the activities provided by the organisation; and (b) the costs and benefits, if an exemption is granted, to the local authority, the council- controlled organisation, and the community.

As FGH is no longer trading, was in fact continuing for the entire financial year on a disestablishment basis, and undertaking very limited and identifiable activities. Namely the settlement of an existing contract, the harvesting of a small block of trees and the transfer of a small landholding to ICFL.

Last financial year the audit costs for FGH were in the order of $12,000. While this may have been higher than normal as a result of some of the issues with the FGH audit last year this is an indicative figure. Audit New Zealand have advised that exempting FGH from being a council-controlled organisation would reduce this figure to approximately $4,500 this year.

Taking into consideration the factors identified above council can be satisfied that it is in the best interest of all parties that FGH be exempted from being a council-controlled organisation.

**********

172 Council - SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: CLARE HADLEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

SUMMARY

To seek Council approval for proposed transition arrangements to allow establishment of the Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA), including the transfer of existing Venture Southland assets and liabilities, to be completed in an orderly manner.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report “Southland Regional Development Agency Transition” (A2666214) be received; and

That Council determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

That Council determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter; and

That Council notes the progress being made with formation of the new Southland Regional Development Agency and agrees to extend the operation of the Venture Southland joint committee through to 31 December 2019 to enable the transition process to be completed in an orderly manner; and

That Council approves the payment of the first quarter of 2019/20 core and service agreement funding to the Southland Regional Development Agency.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Funding for regional development is included in the 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? None

A2666214

173 Council - SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Not at this time 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? N/A

SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

Council has previously approved the creation of the new Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) based on the premise that the assets and liabilities of Venture Southland, which is established as a joint committee of the Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council and Gore District Council, would be transferred into the new entity.

While this work is progressing it is taking longer than originally envisaged given previous delays in the formation process including, for example, appointment of the board and the overall quantum of work that needs to be completed. As a result we are not currently in a position to complete the transfer of all of the Venture Southland assets and liabilities and the SRDA board are still to finalise their 2019/20 budget and statement of intent. Hence, the core and service agreements are still to be finalised.

Given the need to ensure that we can continue with a smooth transition it is proposed that Council agree to make an advance payment of the core and service agreement funding for the 2019/20 financial year and agree to extend the operation of the Venture Southland joint committee for a further six months.

BACKGROUND

Council has previously approved the creation of the new Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) based on the premise that the staff, assets and liabilities of Venture Southland, which is established as a joint committee of the Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council and Gore District Council, would be transferred into the new entity. This approach was reflected in the propositions that were endorsed by Council when it made the decision to proceed with forming the SRDA as a council controlled organisation under the Companies Act 1993 at its 20 April 2018 meeting.

Subsequently, Council has also provided direction on the level of core and service agreement funding to be provided and the range of activities to which this funding is to be allocated in the 2019/20 financial year. These priorities were reflected in the letter of expectation sent to the board shortly after their appointment in March 2019 and are the subject of ongoing discussion between staff and the SRDA representatives.

While the work associated with the establishment of the agency is progressing it is taking time to work through all of the issues involved. Work on the transition of the existing Venture Southland staff is well advanced and is expected to be largely complete in the near future. The board have also appointed an interim chief executive while they work through the process of making a permanent appointment.

To enable the existing assets and liabilities of the SRDA to be transferred a sale and purchase agreement is being developed so that the SRDA board have a clear understanding of the assets and liabilities that are being transferred.

A2666214

174 Council - SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

Work is also being progressed to look at how the net assets that are to be transferred might best be recognised from an accounting and shareholding perspective in the SRDA accounts. At this stage consideration is being given to the creation of preference shares so that the initial equity injected can be recognised in an appropriate manner. This approach would, however, require an amendment to be made to the SRDA constitution and shareholders agreement.

ISSUES

Given the issues that remain to be resolved it is clear that the formal transition process will not be completed by 30 June 2019. As a result there is a need to formally extend the existence of Venture Southland as a joint committee, to enable the transfer of its assets and liabilities to be managed in an orderly manner, and to provide a cash injection so that the SRDA can meet its initial establishment costs and commence operations.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

Legal and Statutory Requirements

Under the Companies Act 1993 the directors are required to ensure that the SRDA can meet a number of solvency tests. Without a cash injection to meet costs incurred to date and a level of surety around the provision of operational revenue the company will not be able to meet its existing commitments.

Schedule 9 of the Local Government Act 2002 outlines requirements relating to the transfer of local authority assets and liabilities into a council controlled organisations (CCO). These include a requirement for the CCO to formally accept the transfer of any liabilities.

Community Views

There was significant community and stakeholder input to the development of the Southland Regional Development Strategy and the decision to proceed with the formation of the new Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA).

The decisions which Council is being asked to make through this paper represent a continuation of that process.

Costs and Funding

Council makes provision for regional development activity funding continuing as part of its LTP/Annual Plan processes. It is proposed that funding for the first quarter of 2019/20, as provided for the in 2019/20 Annual Plan, be advanced at this stage to provide a level of initial working capital.

The assets and liabilities, including the unallocated cash reserves, currently held by Venture Southland are reflected in their financial statements. A separate report on the assets and reserves proposed to be transferred will be provided once work currently underway to confirm what is to be transferred, and agreement is reached with the SRDA board, is complete.

A2666214

175 Council - SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

Policy Implications

Council has formally resolved to support the formation of the new SRDA. It is appropriate that it provide support for this transition process by providing a level of funding for both.

ANALYSIS

Options Considered

The options considered are for Council to approve the proposed transition arrangements (option 1) or do nothing (option 2).

Under the first option, Council would agree to extend Venture Southland for a further six months so that the transfer of the remaining assets and liabilities, including contractual agreements, can be completed in an orderly manner. Council would also approve payment of the allocated core and service agreement funding for the first quarter of 2019/20.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve transition support Advantages Disadvantages

∑ Allows for the establishment of the SRDA ∑ Payment would be made ahead of core to be completed in an orderly manner that and service agreements being finalised. will meet the relevant statutory requirements.

∑ Ensures that the SRDA can commence operational activity and meet its financial commitments.

∑ Is consistent with the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

Option 2 – Do nothing Advantages Disadvantages

∑ Payment of funding would be delayed ∑ Existing Venture Southland commitments until the core and service agreements are and liabilities would need to be allocated finalised. to individual councils.

∑ SRDA would not be able to begin operational activity.

∑ SRDA will have contractual commitments that it cannot meet.

Assessment of Significance

A decision in accordance with the recommendation is not considered to be significant. It will allow for a more orderly establishment process and transfer of the existing Venture Southland assets and liabilities.

Recommended Option

It is recommended that Council approve option 1 and agree to advance the core and service agreement funding to the SRDA.

A2666214

176 Council - SOUTHLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSITION

Next Steps

Staff will arrange for the invoicing and payment of funds to be made.

**********

A2666214

177 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620

TO: COUNCIL

FROM: EIRWEN HARRIS MITCHELL MANAGER SECRETARIAL SERVICES

MEETING DATE: THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019

2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

SUMMARY

The remits to be considered at the 2019 LGNZ Annual General Meeting have been provided to allow members sufficient time to discuss these remits within their councils before the AGM.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report ‘2019 LGNZ Annual General Meeting Remits’ be received.

AND THAT

Council provides guidance to His Worship the Mayor, Council’s Principal Delegate for the LGNZ Annual General Meeting, on how it wishes to vote on each remit.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? N/A 2. Is a budget amendment required? No. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? LGNZ is consulting with councils. 6. Has the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Policy been considered? N/A.

INTRODUCTION

There are 24 remits for consideration at the AGM and a further five that were submitted but referred to the National Council of LGNZ for action rather than to the AGM for consideration. The remits are attached, with a full explanation and background research, in Appendix 1.

178 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620

Council is asked to consider the remits and provide guidance to His Worship the Mayor on how it would like to vote on each issue. A workshop was held on 18 June 2019, feedback from this workshop has been used to provide a recommended position to begin discussions. A precis is provided in the table below:

179 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 REMITS FOR CONSIDERATION

Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N 1. Climate change – local government ∑ It is recommended that LGNZ work with central government to Yes representation advocate for these changes. That LGNZ calls on the Government to include local ∑ It is recommended that LGNZ engage directly with relevant government representation (as determined by local ministers and ministries to ensure local government has an government) at all levels of policy development, appropriate role in the National Climate Change Risk technical risk and resilience assessment, and data Assessment Framework, and all related and relevant work acquisition on climate change response policies – programmes. with an emphasis on climate adaptation: policy; legal; planning; and financial compensation regimes. 2. Ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public It is recommended that LGNZ work with central government to No raise the issue and advocate for legislative change. That LGNZ works with central government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public and end their private use. 3. Traffic offences – red light running We ask that LGNZ request the Government to include red light Yes running with other traffic offences that incur demerit points. That LGNZ request the Government to bring into line camera and officer-detected red light running offences with other traffic offences that incur demerit points. 4. Prohibit parking on grass berms Not provided Yes To seek an amendment to clause 6.2 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 to prohibit parking on urban berms. 5. Short term guest accommodation Convene a working group of local government subject matter Yes experts to prepare a prototype legislative solution to put to the That LGNZ advocates for enabling legislation that Government to guide advice to MPs. would allow councils to require all guest accommodation providers to register with the council The solution should enable councils to require all accommodation and that provides an efficient approach to imposing providers to register and keep records of the frequency of their punitive action on operators who don’t comply. bookings and should enable councils to develop a regulatory and rating approach that best suits its situation and needs.

180 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N 6. Nitrate in drinking water Recommend that central government fund additional research into Yes effects of nitrates in drinking water on human health and/or partner That LGNZ recommend to the Government the with international public health organisations to promote such funding of additional research into the effects of research. nitrates in drinking water on human health, and/or partner with international public health organisations Recommend that central government work with regional and local to promote such research, in order to determine governments to improve monitoring of nitrates in reticulated whether the current drinking water standard for supplies as well as in the sources of drinking water, noting that in nitrate is still appropriate for the protection of human its 2017 report Our Fresh Water 2017 the Ministry for the health. Environment has stated that they “have insufficient data to determine groundwater trends at most monitored sites” and that the Ministry of Health’s latest report on drinking water Annual Report on Drinking water Quality 2016–2017 states that “chemical determinants are not regularly monitored in all supplies”. 7. Local Government Official Information and LGNZ prioritises a national review of LGOIMA request Yes meetings Act 1987 management as part of its programme to continuously improve the local government legal environment. LGNZ initiates a review of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (1987) (LGOIMA) request management nationally with a view to establishing clear and descriptive reporting for and by local authorities that will create a sector-wide picture of: • Trends in the volume and nature of LGOIMA requests over time. • Trends in users. • The impacts of technology in terms of accessing information sought and the amount of information now held by local authorities (and able to be requested). • The financial and resource impacts on local authorities in managing the LGOIMA function. • That LGNZ use the data obtained to:

181 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N • Identify opportunities to streamline or simplify LGOIMA processes. • Share best practice between local authorities. • Assess the value of a common national local government framework of practice for LGOIMA requests. ∑ Identify opportunities to advocate for legislation changes on behalf of the sector (where these are indicated). 8. Weed control LGNZ leads a commitment by local government to investigate and Yes trial environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical weed control That LGNZ encourages member councils to with results shared amongst member organisations. consider using environmentally friendly weed control methods. 9. Building defects claims We consider that LGNZ could form a joint working party with MBIE Yes and the Ministry of Justice, and possibly the relevant Minister’s LGNZ calls on central government to take action as (Jenny Salesa’s) staff to explore limiting councils’ liability for recommended by the Law Commission in its 2014 building defects claims, including: report on “Liability of Multiple Defendants” to introduce a cap on the liability of councils in New • Disclosing and considering the following information (whether Zealand in relation to building defects claims whilst by way of OIA requests and/or as part of a working group): joint and several liability applies. ÿ MBIE documents relating to its consideration of the Law Commission report and the reasons why it is no longer progressing the capping of council liability. ÿ Ministry of Justice and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to the Law Commission report and to proposed capping of council liability. ÿ MBIE and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to implementation of s 17 of the Building Amendment Act 2012. • Drafting proposed amendments to the Building Act and/or a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill (this work may have been started by MBIE, so this task should await the outcome of the

182 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N information gathering exercise above). • Drafting content for a cabinet paper regarding the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability for building defect claims be capped. 10. Social housing Yes That LGNZ, in conjunction with central government, This remit supports, as a matter of urgency, the further urgently focus on the development and investigation by central government and LGNZ of the opportunities implementation of a broader range of funding and identified at the workshop and any other mechanisms that would financing tools in respect of community/social support councils provision of community housing in New Zealand. housing provision, than those which currently exist in It is designed to strengthen LGNZ’s advocacy and would provide a the housing needs space. These should include reason to approach the Government in the knowledge that local funding to support the operation, upgrade and government as a whole is in support. growth of council housing portfolios and, where a council chooses, access to Income Related Rents for eligible tenants. LGNZ, on behalf of member councils, would increase efforts to formally advocate for local authorities to be able to access Income Related Rent Subsidies for all eligible tenants that they house, with implementation within a two year timeframe. 11. Procurement Not provided No That LGNZ investigate the ability of the sector to collaborate in procuring open-source designs and plans for bulk infrastructure that are largely similar, with an initial approach to look at water and wastewater treatment facilities. 12. Single use polystyrene Not provided Yes That LGNZ advocates to the Government to phase out single use polystyrene. 13. Local Government Act 2002 Not provided Yes That LGNZ pursue an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 to: a. Re-number sub-sections 181 (5) and (6) to sub- sections (6) and (7); and

183 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N b. Introduce a new sub-section (5) to read: For all purposes the term “any work” in subsection 4 means any works constructed before xx Month 20xx; and includes any works that were wholly or partly in existence, or work on the construction of which commenced, before xx Month 20xx. 14. Campground regulations Amend the Campground Regulations definition for remote sites to No allow councils to authorise remote camps on private land taking That LGNZ request the Government to amend the into account distance from existing campground facilities. Camping - Ground Regulations to allow councils to approve remote camp facilities on private property, By providing sites where a modest fee is required, the operator subject to any such conditions as deemed required provides the basic facilities at no cost to ratepayers or the by a council, including the condition that any environment. approved campground is x distance away from an existing campground, unless the existing campground operator agrees to waive this condition in writing. 15. Living wage Member councils who are developing policies on payment of the No Living Wage will consider engaging with the Living Wage Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members Movement Aotearoa New Zealand to understand the criteria for consider engaging with the Living Wage Aotearoa becoming a Living Wage accredited employer. New Zealand Movement when developing policies on payment of the Living Wage. 16. Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act Wellington City Council Yes LGNZ, on behalf of its member councils ask for a That LGNZ would, on behalf of its member councils, form a review of the effectiveness of the Sale and Supply of working group to work with central agencies to review the Alcohol Act 2012 in reducing alcohol harm (eg price, effectiveness of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. advertising, purchase age and availability) and fully Council involve local government in that review. • Actively monitor opportunities to submit to central government with respect to review of statutes and regulations that relate to alcohol. • Prepare submissions to central government review processes that relate to the key drivers of alcohol harm as outlined in this

184 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N remit. • Write to and meet with the Minister of Justice and officials to promote changes to laws and regulations that will address the key drivers of alcohol harm. • Create a national action plan to reduce harm caused by alcohol. • Engage and support councils nationwide to implement strategies, policies and actions that are aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm. This could include delivering workshops; providing statistics and information on the harm alcohol causes and developing templates for policies and strategies that can be easily implemented. 17. Greenhouse gases The Minister for the Environment is aware of the gap, and has No publicly stated: Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members collectively adopt the position that government “The Government intends to undertake a comprehensive review of should revise the Resource Management Act 1991 the resource management system (Stage 2), which is expected to to adequately consider the impact of greenhouse begin this year.” gases when making decisions under that law and to “Cabinet has already noted my intention to consider RMA changes ensure that the Resource Management Act 1991 is relating to climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) within consistent with the Zero Carbon Bill. the scope of this review.” Local government will have an opportunity to advocate for the inclusion of climate change effects through this process. This remit asks councils to work together in engaging with government to amend the RMA to require decision makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 18. Climate Changing – funding policy frame That LGNZ issue a news release explaining the content of the No remit, and that they engage with central government directly (in That LGNZ recommends to government that they face to face meetings) to discuss the setting up of an independent establish an independent expert group to develop a expert group to progress the development of a new policy new policy framework for adapting to climate change framework for adapting to climate change impacts. impacts as recommended by the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group (CCATWG). This new expert group would be supported by a

185 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N secretariat and stakeholder advisory group. 19. Road safety • Support NZTA's initiative to review CoPTTM in light of the Yes recent fatalities. 1. That LGNZ acknowledges that the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA's), Code of Practice • Encourage NZTA to work closely with RCA's to ensure the for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) is CoPTTM review also covers local road Temporary Traffic a comprehensive and robust document, and that Management. • Strongly encourage RCA's to work with NZTA, NZTA ensures the CoPTTM system is regularly perhaps through the RCA Forum, on a review of local road reviewed, refined and updated. However, in light Temporary Traffic Management. of the recent road worker fatalities LGNZ • Strongly encourage RCA's to adopt with urgency, any local requests NZTA, in partnership with Road road CoPTTM Controlling Authorities (RCAs); ∑ Improvements that arise from the review. a. Review afresh its Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM} to satisfy themselves that; i. The document provides sufficient guidelines and procedures to ensure approaching traffic are given every possible opportunity to become aware of the worksite ahead and to respond appropriately and in a timely manner. b. Review its CoPTTM Training System to ensure; i. Trainers are sufficiently qualified and adequately covering the training syllabus. ii. Site Traffic Management Supervisors (STMS's) and Traffic Controllers (TC's) are only certified when they can demonstrate competence in the application of CoPTTM. iii. A robust refresher programme is in place to ensure those in charge of Traffic Management on worksites remain current in the required

186 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N competencies. c. Review its Site Auditing requirements to ensure the traffic management at worksites is independently audited at a sufficient frequency to ensure compliance, and that a significantly robust system is put in place to enable enforcement of compliance. 2. That LGNZ takes steps to remind its members of their duties with respect to their role as Road Controlling Authorities including; a. Appointing and sufficiently training and resourcing a Traffic Management Coordinator to ensure their obligations under the Health and Safety Work Act 2015, with respect to traffic management, are being met. b. Adequately resourcing and undertaking audits of road work sites to ensure compliance with CoPTTM. 20. Mobility scooter safety Speed limits No That LGNZ requests that government investigate the It is recommended that the approach taken in some Australian introduction of strengthened rules to govern the safe States, including Victoria be adopted. This states that mobility use of mobility scooters, particularly in relation to scooters: “must have a maximum capable speed of 10km per hour speed limits and registration. on level ground and a maximum unladen mass of 110kg”. 67 Road usage It is recommended that New Zealand Police be resourced to enforce the law. Local and regional councils throughout the country, as well as NZTA, road safety action groups and other key agencies, have highlighted serious concerns about mobility scooters riding on the road when a footpath is available, as well as riding on the road as if they are a motor vehicle.

187 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N Monitoring and registration It is recommended that legislation is changed to require all mobility scooters to be registered and display a licence plate, with minimal or no cost imposed, to ensure compliance. It is further recommended that the legislation set a maximum power assisted speed and size for mobility scooters. 21. Museums and galleries That central government funding be made available on an annual Yes basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities That central government funding be made available with nationally significant collections. on an annual basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities with nationally This would be in the form of an annual allocation for operating significant collections. costs based on specific criteria to ensure the maintenance, preservation and development of collections with relevance beyond the local setting. This would provide the surety of a reliable income stream and could be set to a specified limit, eg 10 per cent of annual operating costs. Of particular interest would be those collections of national importance where the benefit of protection and enhancement would make a substantial contribution to New Zealand’s creative sector as well as our national cultural identity. Priority funding would be given to museums and galleries which hold permanent New Zealand collections, rather than being solely exhibition galleries. Funding could also be based on the size and type of collection. This recognises the added burden of storage, care and maintenance for collections of a significant size and importance. 22. Resource Management Act That the selection of all accredited commissioners for RMA Yes hearings be centralised and independently managed by the That the selection of all independent commissioners Ministry for the Environment. for Resource Management Act hearings be centralised to improve independence and enhance The new process could follow the Victorian State Government the quality of decisions. example. In essence this involves making an initial hearing panel application online, followed by a formal letter of request. A panel is then appointed by the Minister (or a delegate) in accordance with the specific details of the particular issue, eg the complexity of the topic, the number of submissions received or the special expertise required. This enables administrative ‘filtering’ to sort panellists

188 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620 Remit Topic Recommendations provided by the proposing council(s) Does ICC support the remit? Y/N according to their suitability across a spectrum of hearing complexities. For example, smaller and less controversial issues would be resourced differently to more difficult topics. This would also ensure a tailored mix of expertise and backgrounds – enabling greater Māori representation, a balance of newer and more experienced commissioners and a spread of local and external knowledge. In Victoria the pool of available commissioners is managed by an ‘Office of Planning Panels’ acting as a conduit between panels and interested parties to “ensure an independent and transparent process is upheld”. If MfE took this on it would also be expected to manage the contracts, oversee the effectiveness of the process, receive and adjudicate on any complaints about commissioner conduct and regulate the fee structure. It would also deliver administrative support for the process (although where hearings are cost recoverable from applicants then this would be managed accordingly). MfE could also maintain the register of accredited commissioners and chairs and ensure that it remained up to date, with sufficient information provided to ensure the effective appointment of panels. 23. Mayor decision to appoint Deputy Mayor Not provided. Yes That LGNZ request the Government to amend S.41A of the LGA2002 to give Mayors the same powers to appoint a deputy mayor as held by the Mayor of Auckland. 24. Beauty Industry That LGNZ calls on the Government to develop and implement Yes national guidelines, policy or regulations to achieve national That LGNZ calls on the Government to develop and consistency for the largely unregulated ‘health and beauty clinic’ implement national guidelines, policy or regulations industry. to achieve national consistency for the largely unregulated ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry. It is also suggested that LGNZ engage directly with relevant ministers and ministries to ensure local government has an appropriate role in the development of nationally consistent legislation or guidelines to address the challenges the industry brings.

189 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

A2645620

CONCLUSION

Council is invited to provide direction to His Worship the Mayor, Council’s Principal Delegate at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting, on how it wishes to vote on each remit.

**********

190 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

2019 Annual General Meeting Remits

191 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

1 Climate change – local government representation

Remit: That LGNZ calls on the Government to include local government representation (as determined by local government) at all levels of policy development, technical risk and resilience assessment, and data acquisition on climate change response policies – with an emphasis on climate adaptation: policy; legal; planning; and financial compensation regimes. Proposed by: Supported by: Zone One

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue a. Climate change action, impacts and related policy, risk, legal, planning and financial implications are borne most directly by local communities. b. As the structure and framework for a more cohesive New Zealand-wide approach emerges with the current government, it is critical that the country-wide context is informed directly by the local voice at a local council level so it is integrated appropriately into the wider context. c. Local government is likely to be responsible for implementing a range of central government climate change policies – it is therefore crucial that local government is represented in policy/technical design process to ensure it is fit for purpose at a local scale and able to be implemented cost-effectively in the local government system.

2. Background to its being raised a. Climate adaptation and mitigation approaches are being adopted across New Zealand, in some cases well in advance of a coherent national approach. As local councils make progress on strategy, policy, planning and direct initiatives, an opportunity exists to integrate learning, challenges or concerns into the wider national context. b. Some councils have pioneered new approaches with mana whenua, community engagement, evidence-building and research and cross-sector governance. Without a seat at the larger table, the lessons from these early adopters risk being lost in the national conversation/approach.

2

192 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

3. New or confirming existing policy This is a new policy.

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

 The issue relates to LGNZ’s climate change work programme, particularly relating to the input/influence on the Zero Carbon Act and Independent Climate Commission, implementation of CCATWG recommendations, decision-making and risk, impacts assessment, and other elements.  A local seat at the larger New Zealand table would ensure a strong local voice for a range of workstreams.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome Aside from specific LGNZ workstreams relating to climate change (see above), central government has progressed consultation on the Zero Carbon Bill and Interim Climate Change Committee, has appointed a panel to produce a framework for national climate change risk assessment, and has announced a set of improvements to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. Likewise, a number of councils have progressed action plans and strategies to reduce emissions and prepare for climate impacts. Notably, New Zealand-wide emissions continue to rise and the serious risks associated with climate impacts continue to be better understood – an integrated local and national approach is very much needed in order to make any substantive progress on climate change in New Zealand.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice As described above, the Zero Carbon Act is the main relevant New Zealand legislation with accompanying frameworks, policies and schemes. A range of more local policies from the Auckland Unitary Plan to coastal policies need meticulous alignment and integration with the national approach in order for both to be most effective.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone or Sector meeting Zone 1 agreed on 1 March 2019 to support this remit.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged • It is recommended that LGNZ work with central government to advocate for these changes. • It is recommended that LGNZ engage directly with relevant ministers and ministries to ensure local government has an appropriate role in the National Climate Change Risk Assessment Framework, and all related and relevant work programmes.

3

193 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

2 Ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public

Remit: That LGNZ works with central government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public and end their private use. Proposed by: Auckland Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The following issues have been identified: a. Community concern about the negative impacts of the ad-hoc private use of fireworks particularly around the deliberate and unintentional distress to people and animals and damage to property. b. High demand for council and emergency services who receive a large number of complaints in relation to the use of fireworks. c. The absence of regulatory powers to territorial authorities to ban the sale of fireworks by retailers to the general public.

2. Background to its being raised

a. The issue was raised during the review of the Auckland Council’s Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 which prohibits setting off fireworks on public places. b. During the review of this Bylaw, Auckland Council separately resolved to request the New Zealand Government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public and end their private use. c. Reasons for the decision are stated in the ‘Nature of the issue’ and further details are in ‘What work or action on the issue has been done, and the outcome’.

3. New or confirming existing policy

This is a new policy.

4

194 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

This issue relates to LGNZ’s social issues portfolio which reflects working alongside central government to address social issues affecting community safety:

 Community safety is an issue of vital interest for councils as areas which are perceived to be “unsafe” are likely to experience lower levels of social cohesion and economic investment. When asked to rank issues that are most important to themselves and their communities’ safety is always one of the top.  Framed in this way, prohibiting the private use and sale of fireworks through government legislation enhances community safety as a top priority for LGNZ. Furthermore, it also promotes social cohesion by enabling the use of public displays without the worries and danger of ad-hoc private use of fireworks.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

The review of Auckland Council’s Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 identified that a territorial authority has no regulatory powers to ban the retail sale of fireworks to the general public.

A territorial authority’s regulatory powers in relation to fireworks are limited to: • Prohibiting fireworks from being set off on or from a public place. • Addressing nuisance and safety issues that may arise from their use on other places (eg private property) and affect people in a public place. • Addressing noise issues relating to fireworks being set off on other places.

Enforcement is also challenging and resource-intensive. Auckland Council (and potentially other territorial authorities) do not have capacity to respond to all complaints during peak times, and it is difficult to catch people in the act. There can also be health and safety risks for compliance staff.

A ban on the sale of fireworks through legislative reform would therefore be the most efficient and effective way of addressing issues identified in the ‘Nature of the issue’.

Any such ban would not prohibit public fireworks displays which enable a managed approach towards cultural celebrations that use fireworks throughout the year.

There is also a known level of public support for such a ban. Public feedback between October and December 2018 on the decision of Auckland Council to request a ban on the sale of fireworks was overwhelmingly supportive. Feedback to Auckland Council resolution was received from 7,997 people online. Feedback showed 89 per cent (7,041) in support and 10 per cent (837) opposed.

5

195 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Key themes in support included: • Concerns for the safety of people and animals (68 per cent). • Concerns about the amount of noise (35 per cent). • Concerns about stockpiling and use of fireworks after Guy Fawkes night (27 per cent). • A preference for public fireworks displays only (23 per cent). Key themes opposed, including from fireworks retailers, were: • A ban would be excessively restrictive. • In favour of more regulation on use instead of a ban. • A ban would end a key part of kiwi culture and tradition. Similar requests and petitions to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public have been delivered to the Government, including: • An unsuccessful petition in 2015 with 32,000 signatures, including the SPCA, SAFE and the New Zealand Veterinarians Association. • A recent petition in 2018 with nearly 18,000 signatures which was accepted on its behalf by Green Party animal welfare spokesperson Gareth Hughes. A ban on the sale of fireworks would align New Zealand legislation to that of other comparative jurisdictions. For example, retail sale of fireworks to the general public is prohibited in every Australian jurisdiction (except the Northern Territories and Tasmania where strict restrictions on the sale and use are in place).

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

Hazardous Substances (Fireworks) Regulations 2001  Fireworks may be displayed for retail sale or sold by a retailer during the period beginning on 2 November and ending at the close of 5 November in each year.  A person must be at least 18 years in order to purchase fireworks. WorkSafe

 Regulates health and safety in a workplace and administers the regulations for storing fireworks in a workplace.  Approve compliance certifiers who certify public/commercial displays. New Zealand Police  Enforce regulations around the sale of retail fireworks, including requirements around the sale period and age restrictions under the Hazardous Substances (Fireworks) Regulations 2001.  Address complaints about dangerous use of fireworks.

6

196 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 Responsible for providing information about the sale of retail fireworks.  Responsible for approving certifiers to test and certify that retail fireworks are safe prior to being sold in New Zealand.  Provides approval for hazardous substances, including fireworks and provide import certificates to allow fireworks to be brought into New Zealand and the requirements for labelling and packaging of fireworks. Auckland Council

 Deals with complaints about noise from fireworks.  Prohibits setting off fireworks from public places under its Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

 Responsible for enforcing Land Transport Rule 1 which covers fireworks being transported on the road.

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

It is recommended that LGNZ work with central government to raise the issue and advocate for legislative change.

7

197 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

3 Traffic offences – red light running

Remit: That LGNZ request the Government to bring into line camera and officer- detected red light running offences with other traffic offences that incur demerit points. Proposed by: Auckland Council Supported by: Metro Sector

1. Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue LGNZ strategic goals include a safe system for transport – increasingly free of death and serious injury. This proposal is directly working towards a safe road system, with an integrated approach across infrastructure, operation of the road network and enforcement.

The red-light-running-related crash-risk has increased in recent years (CAS) and additional prevention measures are required to reduce and eventually eliminate the social, financial and road trauma burden of these crashes.

Making use of safety cameras and demerit points would allow the intent of the law to be upheld without the need for significantly increased police presence, and is a cost effective way to ensure safety at high risk camera locations.

Demerit points are more effective than fines in deterring unsafe road user behaviour as the deterrent effect impacts equally across a wide range of road users.

We ask that LGNZ request the Government that red light running be included with other traffic offences that incur demerit points (currently absent from the list of similar offences that acquire points, although this was proposed in 2007).

All councils in New Zealand stand to benefit from reduced red-light running and cost-effective enforcement of safety using red light cameras which can operate more cheaply over wide areas. This will support councils to get strong safety results from their road safety camera programmes.

Demerit point systems (DPS) work through prevention, selection and correction mechanisms. A DPS can help increase compliance with stop signals, reducing the likelihood of exposure to non-survivable forces, and it can help reduce repeat offending among ‘loss of licence’ drivers who repeatedly make poor safety choices which may lead to a crash.

8

198 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Applying demerit points to red-light-running offences would help make the whole penalty system more meaningful and fair, and better reflect the risk. It is expected that the costs would be minimal, mostly in the justice sector, however these too can be minimised with an educational approach.

2. Background to its being raised Road safety crisis

Auckland, as the rest of New Zealand, has an increasing road toll. From 2014 to 2017 Auckland had an increase in deaths of 78 per cent. The rest of New Zealand had an increase of almost 30 per cent in that same period. Serious injuries have increased at similar rates in that time. This follows a long period of gradual reductions in road trauma. The previous methods for managing road safety are no longer working.

A Vision Zero approach requires clear expectations and shared responsibility about safe behaviour at intersections, from road users and legislators and managers of the road system.

Auckland Transport (AT) Independent Road Safety Business Improvement Review (BIR) recommends increasing penalties for camera offences for all drivers, alongside other recommendations for road safety sector partnerships.

National Road Safety Strategy update is underway. It would help to have LGNZ support for changes like this being considered under the strategy.

3. New or confirming existing policy Red light running or failing to stop at a red signal at intersections:

 Note that in this 2007 release for changes to the demerit system in 2010, proposed a fine of $50 and 25 demerit points for red light running. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tougher-penalties-focus-road-safety-package 10 years of driver offence data:  https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/road-policing-driver-offence-data- january-2009-december-2018 (accessed at 2 April 2019) Number of red light running offences for 2014-2018 five year period, all of New Zealand:  Officer issued: 61,208 or $8.9 million in fines, no demerit points.  Camera issued: 14,904 or $2.2 million in fines, no demerit points.

9

199 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme The overall strategic focus of LGNZ includes leadership and delivery of change on the big issues confronting New Zealand communities, such as road safety, with a focus on best performance and value for communities. Safety cameras with reliable enforcement tick off a number of these requirements.

This proposal could support three of the five strategic policy priorities in the LGNZ Policy statement 2017-2019, although it does not fit under one alone:

 Infrastructure: LGNZ’s policy statement mentions a safe system for transport – increasingly free of death and serious injury (p6). This proposal is directly working towards a safe road system, including infrastructure, operation of the road network and enforcement.  Risk and resilience: Also known as safe and sustainable transport, Vision Zero and this detailed change to road safety supports a risk-based approach to increasing safety in New Zealand communities. Collaboration between local and central government is necessary to achieve the safe system goal and treating no death or serious injury as acceptable for those communities.  Social issue – community safety: LGNZ supports projects that strengthen confidence in the police and improve perceptions of safety. This proposal reflects the goal of responsive policing, and innovative solutions for dealing with social issues.

Note on equity

While demerit points provide a more equitable deterrent effect compared to fines and help dispel the myth of ‘revenue gathering’, an increase in the use of demerit points may still impact some low deprivation communities and create ‘transport poverty’ issues, particularly in areas with high sharing of vehicles. One way to manage this potential equity issue is to use the Swedish model for managing safety cameras where they are only switched on a proportion of the time and are well supported by local road safety education activities.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome From Auckland Transport research report: Auckland Red Light Camera Project: Final Evaluation Report, 2011: “When red light cameras were trialled in Auckland between 2008 and 2010, there was a 43 per cent reduction in red-light running and an average 63 per cent decrease in crashes attributable to red light running.”

Conversations with AT and Policing Operations on demerits for safety camera infringements indicate that police are very supportive of demerit points for safety cameras.

Reasons include that demerits from safety cameras can be easily transferred to the driver involved in the infringement, which addresses concerns that vehicle owners who are not driving would be unfairly penalised.

10

200 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Further conversations between AT and New Zealand Police indicate that red light running offences are an anomaly as they do not lead to demerit points. For comparison, failing to give way at a pedestrian crossing is 35 points, and ignoring the flashing red signal at rail crossings, 20 points.

The effect of demerit points on young drivers: incentives and disincentives can have an important impact on young, novice drivers’ behaviour, including demerit points as a concrete disincentive.

From OECD research report: Young Drivers: The Road to Safety 2006 by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (EMCT), OECD publishing, France.

Comment on technology used for enforcement:

Existing cameras are more than capable of detecting offences, it is just the legal rules that are preventing this. However, it may be worth considering that new intelligent technology will potentially improve this process even further in future.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice To change the:

 Land Transport Act 1998.  Land Transport (offenses and penalties) Regulations 1999.  Land Transport (road user) Rule 2004. The demerits points system comes from section 88 of the Land Transport Act and expressly excludes offences detected by camera enforcement (“vehicle surveillance equipment” as it is called in legislation).

These sections of the Act are supported by reg 6 and schedule 2 of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999.

7. Suggested course of action envisaged We ask that LGNZ request the Government to include red light running with other traffic offences that incur demerit points.

11

201 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

4 Prohibit parking on grass berms

Remit: To seek an amendment to clause 6.2 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 to prohibit parking on urban berms. Proposed by: Auckland Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Auckland Transport cannot enforce ‘parking on the grass berms’ without the request signage being in place.

2. Background to its being raised

In 2015 Auckland Transport Parking Services received advice that the enforcement of motor vehicles parking on the berms of the roadway could not be lawfully carried out, without the requisite signage being in place to inform the driver that the activity is not permitted. After that advice, enforcement was restricted to roadways where signage is in place. A programme to install signage was undertaken on a risk priority basis from that time to present.

3. New or confirming existing policy

Change in the existing legislative situation.

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

The overall strategic focus of LGNZ includes leadership and delivery of change on the big issues confronting New Zealand communities, such as road safety, with a focus on best performance and value for communities.

12

202 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

This proposal supports the Infrastructure strategic policy priorities in the LGNZ policy statement 2017-2019:  Infrastructure: LGNZ policy statement mentions the right infrastructure and services to the right level at the best cost (p6). This proposal is directly working towards a safe road system, including infrastructure that meets the increasing demands within a reasonable roading investment.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

 September 2015: AT legal team notified Parking Services and Ministry of Transport (MoT) of the issue.  October 2015: Ministry responded stating it would be included in the next omnibus rule amendment.  June 2016: AT was advised that the matter would not be progressed as a policy project would be needed. AT also informed that the matter was not in the 2016/17 programme but would be considered in the forward work programme.  AT advised there would be workshops with local government to determine potential regulatory proposals in the 2017/18 programme. This did not happen.  November 2016: AT’s Legal team wrote to the MoT again requesting for an update on when the workshops would take place.  November 2016: MoT advised AT that they were currently co-ordinating proposals.

AT have not received an update on the issue since.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

AT’s Traffic Bylaw 2012 prohibits parking on the grass within the Auckland urban traffic area. However, the combination of provisions in the Land Transport Act 1998, and the various rules made under it, mean that for AT to enforce this prohibition, we must first install prescribed signs every 100 metres on all grass road margins within the urban traffic area.

It should be noted that this is not just confined to Auckland, but is a nationwide issue, hence our multiple requests for the Ministry to consider the issue.

To note: The same requirements apply to beaches, meaning before AT can enforce a Council prohibition on parking on the beach, signage must first be installed every 100 metres along the beach.

Clearly, installing the required signage on all road margins and beaches is both aesthetically undesirable as well as prohibitively expensive.

Operational practice by AT parking services is to respond to calls for service and complaints from the public. This change is not to introduce a change in enforcement practices.

13

203 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

That LGNZ formally supports the change to the legislation and a confirmed timeline for this to happen.

14

204 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5 Short-term guest accommodation

Remit: That LGNZ advocates for enabling legislation that would allow councils to require all guest accommodation providers to register with the council and that provides an efficient approach to imposing punitive action on operators who don’t comply. Proposed by: City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The advent of online listing and payment platforms like Airbnb and HomeAway have helped grow a largely informal accommodation provider sector around the world on a huge scale. This is presenting challenges for local authorities around the world to adapt regulatory frameworks to effectively capture these new businesses.

The Airbnb market share in Christchurch has grown exponentially from June 2016 to December 2018.

 Rooms in owner-occupied homes listed grew from 58 in June 2016 to 1,496 in December 2018.  Entire homes listed increased from 54 to 1,281 over the same period (+2,272 per cent).  Airbnb’s share of all guest nights in Christchurch rose from 0.7 per cent in June 2016 to 24 per cent in December 2018.  In the month of December 2018 there were an estimated 120,000 guest nights in Christchurch at Airbnb providers. Councils generally have regulatory and rating requirements that guest accommodation providers are required to work within. District Plan rules protect residential amenity and coherence and many councils require business properties to pay a differential premium on general rates.

However, many informal short-term guest accommodation providers operate outside the applicable regulatory and rates frameworks. The nature of the activity makes finding properties being used for this activity problematic. Location information on the listing is vague and GPS coordinates scrambled. Hosts do not provide exact address information until a property is booked, and the platform providers won’t provide detailed location, booking frequency or contact details to councils, citing privacy obligations. In their view, the onus is on hosts to

15

205 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

confirm they meet relevant regulatory requirements. In short, we don’t know where they are and finding them is an expensive and resource-intensive exercise.

This means the informal accommodation sector is able to capture competitive advantages vis- à-vis the formal sector by reducing compliance costs and risks. In popular residential neighbourhoods, high demand for this activity can reduce housing affordability, supply and choice and compromise the neighbourhood amenity.

Councils need to be able to require guest accommodation providers to register with them and to keep records of the frequency of use of residential homes for this purpose. This would enable councils to communicate better with providers, ensure regulatory and rating requirements are being met and enable a more productive relationship with platform providers.

Queenstown Lakes District Council proposed a registration approach through its District Plan review but withdrew that part of their proposal after seeking further legal advice. Christchurch City Council has also had legal advice to the effect that registration with the Council cannot be used as a condition for permitted activity status under the District Plan, particularly if that registration is contingent on compliance with other Acts (eg the Building Act, various fire safety regulations, etc). The closest thing to a form of registration that can be achieved under the RMA is to require a controlled resource consent which is still a relatively costly and onerous process for casual hosts.

2. Background to it being raised

Christchurch City Council has received numerous complaints and requests for action from representatives of the traditional accommodation sector – hotels, motels and campgrounds. They have asked for short-term rental accommodation to be brought into the same regulatory framework they are required to operate in.

There are other wider issues to consider such as impact on rental housing availability, impact on house prices and impact on type of development being delivered in response to this market.

Representatives from the Christchurch accommodation sector have raised the disparity in operating costs and regulation that are imposed on them and not the informal sector. They believe the effect of this is:

 Undermining the financial viability of the formal accommodation sector.  Resulting in anti-social behaviour and negative amenity impacts in residential neighbourhoods.  Creating a health and safety risk where small, casual operators are not required to meet the same standards that they are.

16

206 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

LGNZ Flagship Policy Project - Localism

‘’Local government is calling for a shift in the way public decisions are made in New Zealand by seeking a commitment to localism. Instead of relying on central government to decide what is good for our communities it is time to empower councils and communities themselves to make such decisions. Strengthening self-government at the local level means putting people back in charge of politics and reinvigorating our democracy.”

Providing councils with the means to require accommodation providers to register will greatly assist them to work with their communities to develop approaches to regulating the short-term guest accommodation sector that best serves that particular community. For many councils it would enable a nuanced approach for each community to evolve under a district-wide policy.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

Christchurch City Council is taking a four-pronged approach to creating a more workable regulatory and rating frameworks.  Preliminary work is underway to consider changes to the District Plan. These will explore options including: o To differentiate between scales of the activity with a primarily residential or rural versus primarily commercial character (likely to be determined based on the number of days a year that a residential unit is used for this activity and whether or not it is also used for a residential purpose); o To enable short-term guest accommodation with a primarily residential or rural character in areas where it will have no or minimal effects on housing availability or affordability, residential amenity or character, and the recovery of the Central City; and o Restrict short-term guest accommodation in residential areas where it has a primarily commercial character.  Consideration will be given to business rates approaches that align with any changes to District Plan rules. This may see a graduated approach to imposing business rates based on the level of activity and in line with District Plan compliance thresholds. This is an approach Auckland Council and Queenstown Lakes District Council are using.  Consideration of a more proactive regulatory compliance approach once any changes to District Plan rules are introduced. The Council is currently responding to complaints related to guest accommodation activity but is not undertaking proactive enforcement due to the difficulty in identifying properties being used as guest accommodation and then enforcing zone rules.  Advocating for enabling legislation that would allow councils to require all guest accommodation providers to register with the council and that provides an efficient approach to imposing punitive action on operators who don’t comply.

17

207 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

Convene a working group of local government subject matter experts to prepare a prototype legislative solution to put to the Government to guide advice to MPs.

The solution should enable councils to require all accommodation providers to register and keep records of the frequency of their bookings and should enable councils to develop a regulatory and rating approach that best suits its situation and needs.

Examples of legislation that provide similar powers include:

 Class 4 and TAB Gambling Policies under the Gambling Act.  Prostitution Bylaws under the Prostitution Reform Act.  Freedom Camping Bylaws under the Freedom Camping Act.

18

208 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

6 Nitrate in drinking water

Remit: That LGNZ recommend to the Government the funding of additional research into the effects of nitrates in drinking water on human health, and/or partner with international public health organisations to promote such research, in order to determine whether the current drinking water standard for nitrate is still appropriate for the protection of human health. Proposed by: Christchurch City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue Nitrates are one of the chemical contaminants in drinking water for which the Ministry of Health has set a maximum acceptable value (MAV) of 50 mg/L nitrate (equivalent to 11.3 mg/L nitrate- Nitrogen) for ‘short-term’ exposure. This level was determined to protect babies from methaemoglobinaemia (‘blue baby’ syndrome).

Some studies, in particular a recent Danish study, indicate a relationship between nitrates in drinking water and increased risk of adverse health effects, in particular colorectal cancer.

The well-publicised 2018 Danish study found that much lower levels of nitrate than that set in the New Zealand drinking water standards may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The level of increased risk was small, but ‘significant’ even at levels as low as 0.87 mg/L nitrate-Nitrogen, which is more than an order of magnitude lower than the New Zealand drinking water standard.

Other studies looking at the relationship of nitrate in drinking water and possible adverse human health effects have in some instances been inconclusive or have found a relationship between nitrate in drinking water and colorectal cancer for specific sub-groups with additional risk factors (such as high red meat consumption), but not necessarily at the same level as the 2018 Danish study. The 2018 Danish study is notable because of its duration (between 1 January 1978 to 31 December 2011) and the size of the population studied (2.7 million Danish adults).

There does not appear to be a robust national system for monitoring and reporting nitrate in drinking water, nor a programme or system in place for considering whether the current drinking water standard for nitrate is still appropriate for protecting human health.

19

209 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

2. Background to its being raised Dietary intake of nitrates include consumption of vegetables such as spinach, lettuce, beets and carrots, which contain significant amounts of nitrate, and processed meat, and to a lesser extent drinking water (when/where nitrate is present).

In the 2015 Environmental indicators Te taiao Aotearoa compiled by Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand, an overall trend of increasing levels of nitrate in groundwater was observed for the ten-year period 2005-2014 at monitored sites (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Nitrate levels in groundwater, 2005-2014

Ministry for the Environment’s Our Fresh Water 2017 reports that 47 of 361 sites (13 per cent) did not meet the drinking water quality standard for nitrate at least once in the period between 2012 and 2014. The report doesn’t indicate whether any or all of these sites are sources of public water supplies.

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

 One of LGNZ’s five strategic priorities concerns councils’ infrastructure including that for ‘Three Waters’: “Water is critical to the future health of New Zealanders and their economy and in a world facing water scarcity New Zealand’s water resources represent a significant economic advantage. Consequently, protecting the quality of water and ensuring it is used wisely is a matter of critical importance to local government and our communities. Water is also subject to a range of legislative and regulatory reforms, with the overall allocation framework under review and councils subject to national standards, such as drinking water standards.”  Another of LGNZ’s strategic priorities is addressing environmental issues including the quality and quantity of New Zealand’s freshwater resources: “Water quality is, and will continue to be, one of the defining political issues for governments and councils over the foreseeable future …”

20

210 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

 LGNZ’s Water 2050 project is also relevant. This project is described as: “A fit-for-purpose policy framework for the future (Water 2050) which considers freshwater quality and quantity: including standards, freshwater management, impacts on rural and urban areas, such as infrastructure requirements and associated funding, quantity issues including rights and allocation, and institutional frameworks for water governance.”

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome The City Council undertakes chemical sampling from approximately 20-25 bores each year as an additional risk management barrier for the provision of its public drinking water supply. This data is shared with Environment Canterbury. The monitoring programme analyses for a number of chemicals, with nitrate being only one of many contaminants analysed. The City Council maintains a database with the results of the chemical monitoring programme.

The extent of the issue with respect to understanding the extent of nitrates in drinking water and its associated human health implication is beyond the scope of the City Council’s resources to undertake.

5. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting To date no City Council drinking water well has exceeded the drinking water standard for nitrate.

Data from the last ten years of the City Council’s monitoring programme have shown that in about a third of the samples taken, results have met or exceeded the 0.87 mg/L level for which the 2018 Danish study found an increased risk of colorectal cancer (see Table 1).

Table 1. Nitrate-Nitrogen sampling results of CCC drinking water wells, 2008-2018

Results below Results 0.87 mg/L at/above 0.87 mg/L Total number of samples taken 280 93 Number of wells with 1 or more results 126 57 Concentration range <0.001 – 0.85 0.89 – 7.1

21

211 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

6. Suggested course of action envisaged

Recommend that central government fund additional research into effects of nitrates in drinking water on human health and/or partner with international public health organisations to promote such research.

Recommend that central government work with regional and local governments to improve monitoring of nitrates in reticulated supplies as well as in the sources of drinking water, noting that in its 2017 report Our Fresh Water 2017 the Ministry for the Environment has stated that they “have insufficient data to determine groundwater trends at most monitored sites” and that the Ministry of Health’s latest report on drinking water Annual Report on Drinking water Quality 2016–2017 states that “chemical determinants are not regularly monitored in all supplies”.

22

212 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

7 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (1987)

Remit: That LGNZ initiates a review of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (1987) (LGOIMA) request management nationally with a view to establishing clear and descriptive reporting for and by local authorities that will create a sector-wide picture of: • Trends in the volume and nature of LGOIMA requests over time. • Trends in users. • The impacts of technology in terms of accessing information sought and the amount of information now held by local authorities (and able to be requested). • The financial and resource impacts on local authorities in managing the LGOIMA function. That LGNZ use the data obtained to: • Identify opportunities to streamline or simplify LGOIMA processes. • Share best practice between local authorities. • Assess the value of a common national local government framework of practice for LGOIMA requests. • Identify opportunities to advocate for legislation changes on behalf of the sector (where these are indicated). Proposed by: Hamilton City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue A comprehensive understanding of the current state of play in the sector is needed, as are metrics to measure LGOIMA activity nationally to identify opportunities for improvements and efficiencies for the benefit of local authorities and the public.

An appropriate response is needed to address the tension between transparency and accountability to the public and effective, cost-efficient use of council resources to respond to requests under LGOIMA.

23

213 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Despite guidance provided by the Office of the Ombudsman, it is becoming harder for local authorities to traverse the range of requests made under LGOIMA with confidence that they are complying fully with the Act. Issues such as grounds for withholding information, charging for information or seeking extensions are becoming increasingly problematic as the scope and scale of complex requests grows.

2. Background to its being raised Anecdotally, local authorities all around the country seem to be noticing:

 An increase in the volume of LGOIMA requests year on year;  An increase in requests from media;  An increase in serial requestors;  An increase in referrals for legal advice to negotiate complex requests and the application of the Act;  An increase in requests that could be described as vexatious; and  Consequently, an increase in the costs of staff time in managing LGOIMA.

In seeking to comply with the legislation, local authorities share the Ombudsman’s view of the importance of public access to public information in a timely fashion in order to “enable more effective public participation in decision-making; and promote the accountability of members and officials; and so, enhance respect for the law and promote good local government” (s4 LGOIMA).

In many ways technology is making it easier to source, collate and share a far greater range of public information faster. At the same time the ubiquitous use of technology within local government has significantly increased the volume and forms of information an organisation generates and captures, with associated implications for researching, collating and then reviewing this information in response to LGOIMA requests.

Current status: a. Understandably, the Ombudsman’s advice encourages local authorities to apply a very high threshold for withholding information and to take a generous view of what is in the public interest. b. The scope of requests is becoming broader, more complex and covers longer time periods (to the point where some could be described as fishing expeditions). While local authorities can request refinements to scope, requestors do not always agree to do so or make only minimal changes. c. There are costs associated with automated searches of systems, databases and email accounts, some of which should not or are not easily able to be passed on to requestors. Not undertaking automated searches increases the risk of pertinent information being omitted.

24

214 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

d. The Ombudsman’s guidance is very helpful in the main. However, Ombudsman’s guidelines take the view that a council will scope the request then make the decision whether to release the information then prepare the information for release. This often does not reflect the reality of dealing with a LGOIMA request especially large and complex requests. These components are interrelated and cannot be processed as entirely separate stages. e. A small number of repeat requestors appear to be responsible for an increasingly disproportionate number of the total requests. Some are individuals, but a greater number are media and watchdog groups like the Taxpayers Union. f. With an increasing amount of information requested, the review of documents, webpages, etc and redaction of text for reasons of privacy or outside-of-scope is significant and onerous. g. Local authorities are failing to take a common approach to people and organisations that are making the same request across the sector. h. An increasing number of LGOIMA requests are seeking property/property owner/license- holder information or other information more often than not to be used for marketing or other commercial ends. Yet local authorities are limited in their ability to recoup associated costs in providing this information, or in the case of standard operating procedures, protect their own intellectual property.

3. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme LGNZ has a work programme focused on improving the local government legal framework. This remit is consistent with that programme and seeks to focus attention on a particularly problematic part of the framework that is currently not being specifically addressed.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome At a local level, Hamilton City Council has been working continuously over the last 18 months to refine our processes for dealing with LGOIMA requests. This work has ensured that relevant staff as well as the staff in the LGOIMA office and in the Communications Unit are aware of the procedures and requirements for dealing with LGOIMA requests under the Act, and options potentially available where the scope or the complexity of requests tests Council resources. Templates for responses and communications with staff regarding responses have been developed and are used or customised as necessary. We have also introduced a reporting framework so that we have visibility of requests over time and various component factors including time taken to prepare and respond to LGOIMAs. Opportunities for further enhancements relate to understanding and being able to reflect best practice sector-wide.

25

215 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; Privacy Act 1993; Office of the Ombudsman Official Information legislation guides; Privacy Commissioner privacy principles.

Hamilton City Council is very conscious of its responsibilities under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Privacy Act 1993, and related guidance, and our processes comply with the relevant legislation.

This topic is also closely aligned with Hamilton City Council’s strategic imperative: ‘A Council that is Best in Business’.

6. Suggested course of action envisaged

LGNZ prioritises a national review of LGOIMA request management as part of its programme to continuously improve the local government legal environment.

26

216 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

8 Weed control

Remit: That LGNZ encourages member councils to consider using environmentally friendly weed control methods. Proposed by: Hamilton City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue There is mixed evidence of the risks associated with using chemical weed control as a method, particularly glyphosate-based, and lobby groups are actively pressuring councils to reduce use. Glyphosate is currently approved for use as a herbicide by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and most New Zealand councils use it, given it is a cost-effective, proven option for weed control. Most councils take an integrated approach to weed control, which includes the use of glyphosate-based products along with alternative methods.

2. Background to its being raised

In New Zealand, the use of chemicals including glyphosate is regulated by the EPA. A 2016 EPA review concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans and does not require classification under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 as a carcinogen or mutagen.

Internationally, there is controversy surrounding the use of glyphosate. In 2004 a World Health Organisation (WHO) Group (the Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues) determined that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. In 2015, another WHO sub-group (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.

In August 2018 a California jury found Monsanto liable in a case linking the use of the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers to cancer. In March 2019, a federal jury in America ruled that use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkiller was a ‘substantial factor’ in another user developing cancer. These cases have reinvigorated calls to ban the use of glyphosate in New Zealand and worldwide.

27

217 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

3. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme LGNZ has an environmental work programme and the proposed remit is consistent with this focus on environmental issues that affect local government and local communities. The LGNZ programme does not specifically address the issue of non-chemical methods of weed control despite strong public interest.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome At a local level, Hamilton City Council staff are currently actively looking at reducing chemical use in general and, more specifically, at alternative weed control methods. Our approach acknowledges the importance of keeping our community and staff safe and healthy. Staff are appropriately trained and required to wear the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) for the task.

Our investigation of non-chemical options has incorporated the following:

 In September 2018, we began trialling use of a steam machine for weed control. The equipment has a large carbon footprint (9 litres of fossil fuel per hour of operation) and requires more frequent application to achieve the same level of weed control.  The use of a new mulch application machine has enabled sites to be mulched faster than traditional methods, which supresses weeds for longer.  We have trialled longer grass-cutting heights to reduce Onehunga weed in amenity areas. This has led to a reduction in selective herbicide application.  We are working with Kiwicare to trial alternative weed control methods in Hamilton parks. Kiwicare has a wide range of alternatives, including an organic fatty acid-based product.

Our current operating approach includes continuous review of application equipment efficiency including use of air-induced spray nozzles droplet control, which results in less spray being required.

As a result of Hamilton City Council’s strategy to consider alternatives, one large herbicide sprayer was decommissioned from the council parks fleet in early 2019. This will lead to a reduction in glyphosate used.

Glyphosate is no longer used for weed control in our playground sites. It has been replaced with an organic spray alternative (this option is 30 per cent more expensive than using glyphosate).

Glyphosate use by Hamilton City Council is recorded on a dedicated webpage and a no-spray register is maintained. Residents can opt out of the council spraying programme and take responsibility themselves for weed control along property boundaries and street frontages.

28

218 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

Hamilton City Council currently operates in compliance with national standards (New Zealand Standard 8409:2004 Code of Practice for the management of agrichemicals), the Waikato Regional Plan and Pest Management Plan and our own Herbicides Use Management Policy.

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

Most councils take an integrated approach to weed control, which includes the use of glyphosate-based products along with alternative methods. Reports this year from Christchurch, where the City Council is phasing out use of glyphosate, indicates levels of service and maintenance appearance have been an issue, along with significant cost increases when glyphosate has been significantly reduced.

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

LGNZ leads a commitment by local government to investigate and trial environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical weed control with results shared amongst member organisations.

29

219 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

9 Building defects claims

Remit: LGNZ calls on central government to take action as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2014 report on “Liability of Multiple Defendants” to introduce a cap on the liability of councils in New Zealand in relation to building defects claims whilst joint and several liability applies. Proposed by: Napier City Council Supported by: Zone Three

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

 In its report on joint and several liability issued in June 2014 (the Law Commission report) the Law Commission recommended that councils’ liability for defective building claims should be capped. Building consent authorities in New Zealand (councils) are disproportionally affected by defective building claims.  The Government in its response to the Law Commission report directed the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to further analyse the value and potential impact of the Law Commission’s recommendations, including capping liability of councils, and report back to their respective ministers.  The MBIE website suggests that a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill would be consulted on in 2017 and final policy approval obtained from Cabinet. That Bill, according to the MBIE website, would be aimed to amend the Building Act 2004 to cap the liability of councils and protect consumers by introducing provisions driving greater uptake of home warranty protection. However no progress appears to have been made towards drafting or introducing this Bill into Parliament. At a recent rural and provincial local government meeting in Wellington, MBIE advised that no further action is being taken to progress any capping of council liability.  This proposed remit is aimed to put pressure on MBIE and the Government to follow the Law Commission’s recommendation to limit (ideally by capping) councils’ liability in respect of defective building claims.

30

220 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

2. Background to its being raised

 Defective building claims are prevalent throughout New Zealand, both in large centres and small. They are not limited to “leaky building” claims. Claims which include allegations involving structural and fire defects are increasingly common, both for residential and commercial properties.  The courts have held that councils will generally have a proportionate share of liability in defective building cases in the vicinity of 20 per cent. However, because councils are generally exposed to the full quantum of the claim, when other parties are absent (for example whereabouts unknown, deceased, company struck off) or insolvent (bankrupt or company liquidated), which is the rule, rather than the exception, the Council is left to cover the shortfall. The Law Commission report recognised that councils in New Zealand effectively act as insurers for homeowners, at the expense of ratepayers.  Other liable parties such as developers, builders and architects can potentially reduce their exposure through insurance and wind up companies in the event of a large claim. Developers often set up a dedicated company for a particular development and then wind that company up following completion.  Councils on the other hand can no longer access insurance for weathertightness defects (a “known risk”). They have no choice about whether to be involved in the design and construction of buildings, as they have a legislative role as building consent authorities in their districts. They make no profit from developments and cannot increase their fees to account for the level of risk. Yet they are often the main or sole solvent defendant in defective building claims (last person standing).  The cost to ratepayers of the current joint and several liability system is significant, disproportionately so. This was recognised in the Law Commission report in 2014, but no substantive steps have been taken by central government to address the issue or implement the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability should be capped.

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

The current LGNZ Work Programme for housing includes an objective of the regulatory and competitive framework of continuing advocacy to government for alternatives to current liability arrangements. Clearly this remit fits squarely within and would assist to progress that objective.

31

221 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

 The Law Commission report was a result of concerns raised primarily by LGNZ and councils around New Zealand about the effect of joint and several liability in relation to the leaky homes crisis. Prior to release of the report, LGNZ and a number of councils around New Zealand, including Auckland Council, Christchurch City Council, Hamilton City Council, Hastings District Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Council, Council staff, Wellington City Council, as well as SOLGM and BOINZ all filed submissions advocating for a change to the status quo.  The Law Commission report, as discussed in more detail above, recommended that councils’ liability be capped. It was understood from the Government’s response to the Law Commission report and from MBIE (both discussed above) that this recommendation was being progressed in a meaningful way. This was further supported by MBIE’s submission to the Law Commission prior to the release of the Law Commission report, in which it stated that: a. Provisions in the Building Amendment Act 2012 not yet in force, in particular the three new types of building consent limiting councils’ liability “are likely to be brought into force within a reasonable time after the Commission completes its review of joint and several liability”. MBIE stated that the Law Commission should take the impact of these changes into account in preparing its report. However, these provisions are still not in force. b. “The Government has instructed the Ministry to explore options for the consolidation of building consent authorities as part of the Housing Affordability agenda and ongoing reforms in the construction sector. Issues regarding the liability of a central regulator, as well as that of territorial authorities, will be fundamental concerns as consolidation options and other measures to increase productivity in the sector are explored”. This does not appear to have been progressed.  It was only in the last month or so that MBIE has now advised that the recommendation that councils’ liability be capped would no longer be progressed.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

We consider that LGNZ could form a joint working party with MBIE and the Ministry of Justice, and possibly the relevant Minister’s (Jenny Salesa’s) staff to explore limiting councils’ liability for building defects claims, including:  Disclosing and considering the following information (whether by way of OIA requests and/or as part of a working group): o MBIE documents relating to its consideration of the Law Commission report and the reasons why it is no longer progressing the capping of council liability. o Ministry of Justice and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to the Law Commission report and to proposed capping of council liability.

32

222 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

o MBIE and Minister of Building and Housing’s documents relating to implementation of s 17 of the Building Amendment Act 2012.  Drafting proposed amendments to the Building Act and/or a Building (Liability) Amendment Bill (this work may have been started by MBIE, so this task should await the outcome of the information gathering exercise above).  Drafting content for a cabinet paper regarding the Law Commission’s recommendation that council liability for building defect claims be capped.

33

223 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

10 Social housing

Remit: That LGNZ, in conjunction with central government, urgently focus on the development and implementation of a broader range of funding and financing tools in respect of community/social housing provision, than those which currently exist in the housing needs space. These should include funding to support the operation, upgrade and growth of council housing portfolios and, where a council chooses, access to Income Related Rents for eligible tenants. Proposed by: Napier City Council, City Council and Wellington City Council Supported by: Zone Three Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue Napier City Council

Social housing, especially for older citizens, is a strategic issue.

New Zealand communities are facing an extremely serious housing affordability crisis that has resulted in the country having the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world. Current policy settings are failing to adequately address the issue.

Local government is the second largest provider of social housing in New Zealand, however, since 1991, successive governments have failed to adequately recognise the contribution we have and are making. Unfortunately, existing policy actively discriminates against councils meeting local housing needs resulting in a gradual reduction in the council owned social housing stock. With Housing New Zealand focussing its attention on fast growing urban areas, social housing needs in smaller communities are not being met.

The issue is becoming more serious as baby boomers retire – the current social housing is not designed to address the needs of this cohort – a role historically provided by councils with support from central government in the form of capital grants.

The issue has already become urgent for Aotearoa New Zealand and its communities.

34

224 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Tauranga City Council

The western Bay of Plenty SmartGrowth partnership (Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council and tangata whenua), has undertaken some preliminary research into the potential for government assisted bond raising for community/social housing providers using the Federal Government experience from Australia.

It has also identified the Australian rental housing provision tax incentive opportunities that the current Labour opposition has put forward. The partnership is aware of work being undertaken by Treasury in terms of raising the debt ceilings via amendments to the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014. The SmartGrowth partnership would welcome the opportunity to work further with LGNZ and others to take a more “four well- beings” focus to the housing funding and financing toolkit than currently exists. This matter is becoming critical for all of the Upper North Island growth councils and other councils such as Queenstown.

Wellington City Council

Housing is an important contributor to the wellbeing of New Zealanders, and councils support the work of the Government to continue to grow and improve social housing provision in New Zealand.

Addressing housing demand and affordability related challenges are significant issues for local government. 62 (93 per cent) of New Zealand’s 67 local authorities reference some type of housing-related activity in their current Long Term Plans. As at November 2018, 60 local authorities (90 per cent) collectively own 12,881 housing units and 13 of those provide 50 per cent or more of the total social housing within their jurisdictions.

The social housing currently owned by local authorities equates to 16 per cent of the nationwide social housing stock, with the remaining 82 per cent largely owned by the Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) and Community Housing Providers (CHPs). While there is variation in housing eligibility policy settings at the local level, a significant proportion of tenants housed by local authorities have a similar profile to those housed by HNZC and CHPs.

To help address housing affordability for households on the lowest incomes, central government provides the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) for those with housing need and that meet policy eligibility criteria. Eligible households generally pay 25 per cent of their income on rent, and a government subsidy is paid to the housing provider for remaining portion of rent.

Despite housing a similar group of tenants, current IRRS policy settings mean HNZC and CHPs can access the subsidy for tenants but local authorities cannot.

This has created considerable inequity in the housing system and is placing pressure on a vulnerable population group in New Zealand. Tenants who would be eligible for IRRS, but who are housed by a local authority, generally have to pay a significantly higher amount of rent. With demand for HNZC public housing and social housing provided by Community Housing Providers outstripping supply in most areas, these households have very few housing options and are unable to access the Government support they would otherwise be eligible for.

35

225 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

The inability to access IRRS has also contributed to housing portfolio sustainability challenges for local authorities, who cannot access the additional funding through IRRS to help maintain their housing portfolios. This challenge has led to vulnerable tenants having to be charged unaffordable levels of rent, and the decline in the overall social housing stock levels owned by local authorities. This has occurred even as social housing demand has increased and housing affordability has become a more acute challenge for more households.

2. Background to its being raised

Napier City Council

Councils provide in excess of 10,000 housing units, making it a significant provider of community housing in New Zealand. Councils began providing community housing across the country, particularly for pensioners, in the 1960’s when central government encouraged them to do so through capital loan funding. In the 1980’s, this occurred once again and was applied to general community housing developments. Council’s rent setting formulas varied but all provided subsidised rents. While the housing stock was relatively new, the rental income maintained the homes, however, now decades on, and with housing at the end of life, significant investment is required. Income from rents has not been enough to fund renewals let alone growth to meet demand.

The Government introduced Income Related Rent subsidy (IRR) in 2000 for public housing tenants and it was later applied to registered Community Housing Providers. This mechanism allows tenants to pay an affordable rent in relation to their income, while the housing provider receives a ‘top up’ to the agreed market rent for each property under the scheme. In effect, housing providers receive market rent through this mechanism. Being able to generate market rental income is the most successful sustainable model for the provision of community housing. Providers receive an adequate income to cover the cost of providing housing, to fund future renewals and to raise capital for immediate asset management. Councils are excluded from receiving this subsidy, and so are their tenants.

Wellington City Council

Key objectives for councils that provide social housing generally include ensuring that their social housing tenants are well housed in quality homes, and that they pay an affordable level of rent. Balancing this objective with business sustainability continues to be a real challenge for many councils, and has contributed to some divesting their social housing portfolios. At the same time, demand for social housing has generally continued to increase and housing affordability is a more prominent issue, particularly for households on the lowest incomes.

Despite ongoing and repeated lobbying over a number of years from councils and LGNZ, and a commitment from the current government to reconsider IRRS policy settings, local authorities are still unable to access IRRS. This remit recognises the inequitable situation this has created for a significant number of vulnerable households, and the negative impact it has had on the overall supply of social housing owned by local authorities.

36

226 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

Napier City Council

This remit supports LGNZ’s Housing 2030 policy and programme, in particular the Social Housing and Affordable Housing workstreams. Housing 2030 is one of LGNZ’s four strategic projects. This remit reinforces and supports that initiative.

LGNZ recently hosted a Social Housing workshop with both local and central government agencies to discuss the issues and opportunities and the future role councils could play in the provision of social housing. There was agreement that a partnership approach that recognises local situations with a range of options for support from government (both funding and expertise) would be most suitable.

Wellington City Council

By working with central government, local authorities, and a range of other stakeholders, the current LGNZ housing work programme seeks to establish a central local government housing partnership and improve housing outcomes. The work programme includes three key focus areas: housing supply; social and community housing; and healthy homes.

As part of the ‘social and community housing’ focus area, LGNZ have already signalled an intention to work with government agencies to enable local authorities to access IRRS. This remit would however provide specific mandate from member councils on this point.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

Napier City Council

As the proposer of this remit, Napier City Council, has undertaken an S17A Review of its own provision of community housing, with further investigation underway. In addition, both at a governance and management level, we have taken part in numerous conferences, symposiums and workshops on the matter in the last two years. We lead a local Cross Sector Group – Homelessness forum and take part in the Hawke’s Bay Housing Coalition. We have provided housing for our community for over five decades, supplying just under 400 retirement and low cost rental units in Napier.

Wellington City Council

Wellington City Council, along with a number of other councils and LGNZ have already made a number of formal submissions to central government regarding this issue. To date, central government has advised that no changes will be made to IRRS policy settings at this stage.

37

227 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

Napier City Council

This remit supports, as a matter of urgency, the further investigation by central government and LGNZ of the opportunities identified at the workshop and any other mechanisms that would support councils provision of community housing in New Zealand.

It is designed to strengthen LGNZ’s advocacy and would provide a reason to approach the Government in the knowledge that local government as a whole is in support.

Wellington City Council

LGNZ, on behalf of member councils, would increase efforts to formally advocate for local authorities to be able to access Income Related Rent Subsidies for all eligible tenants that they house, with implementation within a two year timeframe.

38

228 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

11 Procurement

Remit: That LGNZ investigate the ability of the sector to collaborate in procuring open-source designs and plans for bulk infrastructure that are largely similar, with an initial approach to look at water and wastewater treatment facilities. Proposed by: Council Supported by: Central Hawkes Bay District Council District Council Council Stratford District Council Thames-Coromandel District Council Council Wellington City Council Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

At present, every local authority in New Zealand undertakes bespoke procurement for its own infrastructure despite there being little difference in the infrastructure provided. Each local authority then receives a slightly different product that largely achieves the same outcome.

2. Background to its being raised

Local authorities often face similar challenges, albeit at different times. Local authorities often procure similar infrastructure that deal with the same inputs and outputs, but are bespoke products designed at significant cost.

A good case example, and a useful starting point, is water and wastewater treatment plants. The Government’s Three Waters Reform programme received a report from Beca that identified the number of water treatment plants that are non-compliant with water standards. While not all of these plants will require replacement, some of them may do so.

39

229 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

The report identifies that 17 large plants (10,001+ people), 13 medium plants (5,001-10,000 people), 140 minor plants (501-5,000 people), 169 small plants (101-500 people) and 153 neighbourhood plants (25-100 people) are not compliant with standards. A similar story emerges with wastewater treatment plants.

At the same time, the sector is aware of the upcoming increase in renewals across water and wastewater treatment plants (including plants currently compliant with standards). There are a considerable number of plants coming near to the end of their useable lifespan in coming years. Often these plants have to be replaced with an entirely new plant so as to keep the existing plant operating during the replacement’s construction.

While there may be some local variation, new water and wastewater treatments plants being built in the future will either be large, medium or small. The increasingly prescriptive regulatory framework will invariably reduce scope for choices and options in plant design. All plants will need to meet the same output quality standards, and will require the same treatment processes (with some minor variations to reflect any local preferences or unique circumstances).

Local authority procurement is a ‘hot topic’ for the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG). The OAG have signalled a forthcoming report Procurement workforce capacity and capability in local government that will aim to encourage greater collaboration between local authorities. Similarly, there is a strong focus on procurement within central government, including all-of- government procurement in which local authorities can choose to be involved.

Local authorities should collaborate now to procure a number of standardised open-source options for water and wastewater treatment plants for the future. These would then be available to all local authorities to use when required, rather than having to go to the market for a new design. These would be tested and implementable designs – the risk of failure would be lower than a bespoke design. The processes used would need to be customisable (such as whether drinking water is fluoridated, or to address particular issues in incoming water). Scalability would, of course, be critical. Council procurement would be limited to build-only contracts.

A collaborative procurement process for standardised designs could lead to significant cost savings. Even a small saving of one or two per cent would result in millions of dollars of savings across the sector. Over time, there would be further consequent savings, such as not having to retrain staff when transferring between authorities or even the capacity for further collaboration through shared services.

If successful, the sector would be well-placed to look at other areas where collaborative procurement processes for standardised designs would be useful. These could include solid waste resource recovery and separation facilities, roading assets, or other significant assets.

40

230 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

LGNZ has placed significant time and energy into the Three Water Reform programme. LGNZ’s position paper on these reforms notes strong support for improving the regulatory framework for drinking water. LGNZ oppose the mandatory aggregation of water assets.

This remit will also contribute to the LGNZ strategic policy priorities: Infrastructure; Risk and Resilience; Environmental; and Economic Development.

4. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The Three Waters Reforms are likely to result in significant legislative reform that impacts on water and wastewater treatment plants.

41

231 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

12 Single use polystyrene

Remit: That LGNZ advocates to the Government to phase out single use polystyrene. Proposed by: City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Expanded polystyrene is bulky and does not break down. While some technologies exist to reduce the bulk of polystyrene prior to landfill, or to recycle it (for example, to make insulation material), these interventions offer only a partial solution to the prevalence of polystyrene. Single-use polystyrene (such as used in food containers) has further contamination issues, meaning that landfill remains the only means of disposal.

Palmerston North City Council's own Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 prohibits the use of polystyrene or styrofoam containers or cups at events held on council land or with council funding. This has encouraged the use of more sustainable substitutes. However, while the council can control, to some small extent, the use of polystyrene and its disposal (for example, by refusing to collect it), in practice its influence is limited. This is because most of the supply of polystyrene originates outside of the city, and the Council has limited ability to ensure it doesn't end up in the waste stream (for example, it can be inside rubbish bags).

2. Background to it being raised Under section 23(1)(b) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Government is empowered to ban or regulate certain problematic or wasteful products. This provision is currently being used to phase out single-use plastic shopping bags.

This remit proposal meets both LGNZ remit policy criteria. As with single-use plastic bags, the national regulation of single-use polystyrene products would be more effective in beginning to address their use in the first place, rather than being addressed (as at present) as a city-level waste issue.

Single-use polystyrene contributes significantly to landfill in New Zealand, and it is the view of the Palmerston North City Council that a nationwide ban would reduce the environmental impact of these products.

42

232 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

13 Local Government Act 2002

Remit: That LGNZ pursue an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 to: a. Re-number sub-sections 181 (5) and (6) to sub-sections (6) and (7); and b. Introduce a new sub-section (5) to read: For all purposes the term “any work” in subsection 4 means any works constructed before xx Month 20xx; and includes any works that were wholly or partly in existence, or work on the construction of which commenced, before xx Month 20xx. Proposed by: Council Supported by: Zone Three

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Historic assumptions that there is statutory authority for the siting of Three Waters infrastructure on private land do not reflect the complete picture.

Questions arise:

 May an infrastructure asset owner notify further works on private land where the original works are not protected by written consent (or notification)?  Does an infrastructure asset owner have authority to restrict a landowner’s ability to build over a non-protected asset?  What is the potential cost to infrastructure asset owners to remedy the absence of enforceable authority?

2. Background to its being raised

An example in the Rangitikei – Hunterville urban and rural water schemes

a. The rural scheme was constructed in the 1970’s (government grant involved). b. Construction was a collective project (county and scheme users). c. The urban supply draws bulk (raw) water from the rural scheme. d. Infrastructure is sited on numerous private landholdings.

43

233 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

e. Conscious decision that landowner consents not required (relied on “the Act”). f. Urban supply treatment, storage, reticulation sited on one member’s land. g. Land has changed hands (twice) since urban supply infrastructure developed. h. Current owners seek renegotiation of access rights as well as compensation. i. Council and owners negotiating (little progress after seven years). j. Substantial costs to survey and register easement.

The issue is not unique to Rangitikei a. Several local authorities from Waikato and Bay of Plenty to Otago have emailed to comment. All record similar experiences to Rangitikei’s, both historic and ongoing’. One noted that such incidents arise, on average, monthly. b. All comments received have noted frustration at the potential costs to formalise previously ‘casual’ but cordial and workable arrangements with prior landowners.

The power to construct is constrained

 Local Government Act (2002) sections 181 (1) and (2) empower a local authority to construct Three Waters works on private land.  Section 181 (3) specifies the local authority must not exercise the power to construct unless it has the prior written consent of the landowner (or it has followed the prescribed notification process).  Similar provisions that existed in previous legislation were repealed by the 2002 Act.

Effect of the law

 The Act provides power to construct; it is the owner consent (or notification process) that provides the authority to enter private land to exercise its power to construct.  A local authority cannot claim absolute right of access without evidence of owner consent or compliance with the notification requirements.  The High Court considered the need for fresh consent from, or notice to, subsequent owners (Re Watercare Services Ltd [2018] NZHC 294 [1 March 2018]). The Court’s Declaration was that “….it is not necessary either to obtain the written consent from the subsequent owner or give notice …… of the intention to construct the works before the work is done.”

Other infrastructure owners

• The Electricity Act 1992, the Gas Act 1992, and the Telecommunications Act 2001 all provide retrospective authority for siting of infrastructure on private land. • No record has been found of the rationale behind those retrospective authorities. • The thread of these authorities could be brought into the Local Government Act.

44

234 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

 Local Government Act (2002) section 181 (4) authorises entry to any work constructed under the Act or the corresponding provisions of a prior Act.  The effect of the Court’s (Watercare) Declaration is to confirm that a local authority must have evidence of prior written consent (or notification) for the original works on that land.

45

235 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

14 Campground regulations

Remit: That LGNZ request the Government to amend the Camping - Ground Regulations to allow councils to approve remote camp facilities on private property, subject to any such conditions as deemed required by a council, including the condition that any approved campground is x distance away from an existing campground, unless the existing campground operator agrees to waive this condition in writing. Proposed by: Thames-Coromandel District Council Supported by: City Council Council New Plymouth District Council Council Hamilton City Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Currently the ‘remote camp site’ definition means a camping ground: ‘in a national park, state forest, state forest park or public reserve or on Crown Land.’ As the provision is only for public land there is no opportunity to provide such an experience on private property.

2. Background to its being raised

Ratepayers, through their council, are having to provide areas for camping for increasing numbers of what are being called ”freedom campers”, with associated increasing costs to ratepayers and community both regarding environmental and financial considerations.

Unfortunately for councils there is nothing for free, and to provide any public facilities there is a range of costs to provide and maintain the facilities including power, water, waste collection, maintenance, cleaning, and compliance monitoring and enforcement etc. Those costs are increasing.

46

236 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Enforcement for compliance is increasingly problematic and costly and in addition, social media is sending the wrong messages for our communities who must contend with freedom campers in their area. The result is that prime beach front sites are being degraded through overuse, and abuse of sites available.

While reserve areas can be either managed or leased for a remote camp facility, councils are constrained by the lack of public land where a remote site can be established, particularly in more remote locations. Remote camps have far fewer regulatory requirements than usual campgrounds.

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

There is work underway regarding freedom camping in New Zealand which is looking at a range of issues in relation to freedom camping.

The Responsible Camping Working Group comprises central and local government representatives, as well as other interested parties, and is currently looking at a number of matters, including the Camping Ground Regulations. A review of the Regulations was one of the recommendations of the Working Group and work is underway specifically on this.

4. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The remit seeks an amendment of the Camping - Ground Regulations to broaden the definition of remote camp site to allow councils to authorise remote camp sites on private land, taking into account distance from existing campground facilities. A new definition would enable sites to be established where, for a modest fee, an operator would be able to provide basic facilities and recover some of the cost of provision and maintenance.

In addition the 2016 annual general meeting agreed to ask the Government to change to s14(3) of the Camping Ground Regulations 1985 (made under s120B of the Health Act 1956) to allow broader exemptions to the need for provision of camping facilities for those that wish to freedom camp in all areas and not just at “remote” camps; this is yet to be actioned but is being considered by the joint officials body.

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

Amend the Campground Regulations definition for remote sites to allow councils to authorise remote camps on private land taking into account distance from existing campground facilities.

By providing sites where a modest fee is required, the operator provides the basic facilities at no cost to ratepayers or the environment.

47

237 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

15 Living Wage

Remit: Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members consider engaging with the Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Movement when developing policies on payment of the Living Wage. Proposed by: Wellington City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

According to the Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand, “Over the last 30 years New Zealand has gone from one of the most equal countries in the developed world to one of the most unequal. Wages have stagnated while New Zealanders are working harder and longer than ever before. Growing poverty and inequality hurts us all; workers and their families, employers, business, the Government and society as a whole.”

The Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand was formed in 2012 to generate a conversation about working poverty in Aotearoa. It brings together community, union and faith based groups to campaign for a Living Wage.

The Living Wage is defined as: “The income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society”. The Living Wage is an independently researched hourly rate based on the actual cost of living and is reviewed annually. The official 2019 New Zealand Living Wage is $21.15 and will come into effect on 1 September 2019.

Research from around the world shows that paying a Living Wage brings benefits to employers, to the community and most importantly to workers who need it the most.

2. Background to its being raised

The Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand has an accreditation system available to employers who meet the criteria to become a Living Wage Employer. In order to use this trade mark, employers must sign a license committing the organisation to paying no less than the Living Wage to directly employees and contracted workers, delivering services on a regular and ongoing basis.

48

238 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

This remit recognises that a number of local authorities across New Zealand are currently taking steps towards becoming Living Wage councils.

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

LGNZ is committed to working alongside central government and iwi to address social issues in New Zealand’s communities, including disparity between social groups.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

In September 2018, Wellington City Council became the first council in New Zealand to be accredited as a Living Wage Employer. This was the culmination of implementing a Living Wage and working with the Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand since 2013, in summary:

 Following a decision in 2013, from January 2014 the Council implemented a minimum wage rate of $18.40 for all fully trained directly employed staff.  On 1 July 2014, WCC implemented its decision to introduce the Living Wage (at $18.40 per hour) for council and Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) staff.

 On 15 May 2015, the Council’s Governance, Finance and Planning Committee passed a resolution to increase the $18.40 rate to reflect annual inflation movement.

 On 28 October 2015, WCC extended the living wage (at $18.55 per hour) to security and core cleaning contractors.

 In July 2017, the Council implemented the New Zealand Living Wage ($20.20 at the time) for staff, CCOs and core contractors as they come up for renewal.  In September 2018, WCC was accredited as a Living Wage employer.

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

Member councils who are developing policies on payment of the Living Wage will consider engaging with the Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand to understand the criteria for becoming a Living Wage accredited employer.

49

239 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

16 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act

Remit: LGNZ, on behalf of its member councils ask for a review of the effectiveness of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 in reducing alcohol harm (eg price, advertising, purchase age and availability) and fully involve local government in that review. Proposed by: Wellington City Council and Hastings District Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Wellington City Council

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was introduced in 2012 and has not as yet been reviewed.

There is now considerable experience in how it is working in practice and it is timely that a review is undertaken to ensure it is meeting the outcomes that were sought when it was introduced and that any anomalies that have emerged from regulation under the Act are addressed.

Addressing anomalies: an example of such an anomaly that has become apparent is the definition of ‘grocery store’ in the Act, where a business is only a grocery store if its largest single sales group (by turnover) is a specified type of food/groceries. In hearings the focus is often more on the accounting statements of an applicant, rather than about alcohol effects.

An established operator for whom the highest turnover item was topping up Snapper cards ahead of groceries applied for a renewal of their licence. The Act requires the District Licensing Committee (DLC) to use turnover as the measure to define the type of business and there is no discretion allowed to the DLC. In effect the DLC had the choice of declining the liquor licence or saying they could only retain their liquor licence by stopping Snapper top ups. They were not a grocery store by definition as Snapper card top ups was the highest turnover item. The obvious decision was to stop the Snapper top ups, to meet the “grocery store” definition, and retain the liquor licence. The overall outcome of considering the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol; and the minimisation of harm was not achieved.

50

240 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

This is one of a range of issues. The District Licensing Committees all report each year to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. This addresses the issues of the operation of the Act. After five years this now provides a considerable base of information that can be used in a wider review to improve the effectiveness of the Act.

Better regulation: The current regulations are tightly prescribed (eg setting maximum penalties or fees), leave little flexibility for local circumstances and have not been reviewed. The process of establishing local alcohol policies has also not been effective.

The Council developed a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy which was notified on 21 January 2014. Appeals were lodged by eight parties which were heard by the Authority over eight days between 20 October and 5 November 2014. The Authority released its decision on 20 January 2015 which asked the Council to reconsider elements of its PLAP. In 2016, the Council resolved that it should not at that time resubmit the PLAP to the Authority, and should instead continue to monitor alcohol-related data in Wellington, work with key stakeholders, and consider future Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) decisions on other PLAP appeals prior to determining if the Council requires a local alcohol policy.

This experience is not uncommon and it has been difficult to establish a comprehensive Local Alcohol Policy which was a key building block of the regulatory framework. As at November 2018 while 34 of the 67 territorial authorities have an adopted LAP, this only covers 28 per cent of the New Zealand population. The majority of New Zealand communities have not been able to achieve the level of community input that was envisaged under the Act. This process needs to be reviewed in light of the experience of how the Act is operating in practice.

2. Background to its being raised

Wellington City Council

This remit recognises that almost all local authorities across New Zealand are currently managing this issue through the licensing powers under the Act. They can bring practical experience of the operation of the Act and help enable communities to benefit from a review of the provisions of the Act.

Hastings District Council

Hawke’s Bay faces significant social challenges as demonstrated in the following statistics:  25 per cent of Hawke’s Bay 0-4 year olds live in a household receiving a main benefit (compared with 18 per cent nationally).  40 per cent of Hawke’s Bay tamariki Maori aged 0-4 years live in a household receiving a main benefit.  250 Hawke’s Bay children are in the care of Oranga Tamariki.  Hawke’s Bay rates of violent crime continues to be higher that the New Zealand average and is twice the rate of New Zealand as a whole.  There were 9,932 family violence investigations by the Eastern Police District in 2017.

51

241 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

 Suicide; o Is a major cause of premature, avoidable death in Hawke’s Bay. o From 2010 to 2015, suicide was the second highest reason for premature death for those aged 0 to 74 years. o Since 1 July 2018, 29 people have committed suicide in Hawke’s Bay.  Drugs; o Synthetic substances are a serious concern for many whanau. o Fewer youth are smoking but more Hawke’s Bay adults smoke than nationally.

A contributing factor of these negative statistics is the significant problem that the Hawke’s Bay community has with alcohol consumption. For our region the issues manifested by alcohol consumption are a problem across the whole community including for young newly-born babies, infants and children, young people, adults and seniors across the generations. Local alcohol statistics are alarming and include:

 29 per cent of Hawke’s Bay adults drink at harmful levels compared to 21 per cent nationally, and this rate is increasing over time.  41 per cent of young people aged 15-24 are drinking hazardously.  Over half of young men are drinking hazardously.  The number of 15 years and older hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol; see the below graph. Note, there is an increasing rate of people being admitted to hospital due to alcohol.

 Alcohol intoxication or a history of alcohol abuse are often associated with youth suicide.

The statistics relating to our alcohol harm impact negatively on other key community safety concerns including health issues; death and injury; violence; suicide; assault and anti-social behaviours. This is why addressing the harm of alcohol is such an important issue for our community to address.

52

242 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

The harm that alcohol causes across New Zealand is also a significant issue for the country and as with Hawke’s Bay the harm that alcohol causes within the community is pervasive. National statistics include:

 About four in five (79 per cent) of adults aged 15 years or more drank alcohol in the past year (in 2017/18).  21 per cent of New Zealand adults drink at harmful levels.  In 2017/18, 25 per cent of adults aged 15 years or more who drank alcohol in the past year has a potentially hazardous drinking pattern, with men (32 per cent) more likely to drink hazardously than women (17 per cent).

At a local level there are some tools available to territorial authorities and their respective communities to combat alcohol harm. For example, Local Alcohol Policies (LAPs) are permitted in accordance with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Unfortunately for many LAPs there are significant delays in these becoming operational due to long appeal processes.

There are typically commercial implications for businesses particularly supermarkets and these often result in appeals being lodged. Appeal processes have not allowed for more local input and influence by community members and groups, but have instead allowed larger companies, with more money and resources, to force councils to amend their LAP’s reducing the potential impact on harm minimisation.

Of course, local tools available to territorial authorities are also limited by what is permitted within our national laws. We consider that current statutes and their content are not strong enough and need to be strengthened so that alcohol harm within our communities can be more effectively addressed.

The most significant drivers of alcohol-related harm include:

 The low price of alcohol.  Levels of physical availability.  Alcohol advertising; promotion and sponsorship.  The minimum legal purchase age (18).

Therefore this remit seeks a focus on effective national level strategies and interventions that prevent or minimise alcohol-related harm in regards to:

 Pricing and taxing (minimum unit pricing for alcohol).  Regulating the physical availability.  Raising the purchase age.  Restrictions on marketing, advertising and sponsorship.  Drink driving countermeasures.  Treatment and early intervention services.

53

243 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

We consider that significant changes in national policy and law that address key issues pertaining to alcohol harm are needed to create significant impact on reducing the harm that alcohol causes both in Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand.

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

Wellington City Council

LGNZ has a priority to work, in partnership with central government, for local areas to develop innovative and place-based approaches for dealing with social issues. While the operation of the Act is not directly listed as one of the social issues covered by the current work programme, the intent of the Act was to allow place-based approaches to the management of alcohol related harm.

Hastings District Council

This remit links to the social policy priority; community safety.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

Wellington City Council

We are actively involved. The Council was proactive in initiating the development of a Local Alcohol Policy. We administer licencing functions under the Act and the DLC reports each year to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority on its functions.

We have not directly progressed work on a review at this point as it requires central government leadership with the input of local authorities across New Zealand.

Hastings District Council

The Napier City and Hastings District Councils have a Joint Alcohol Strategy 2017-2022 (JAS) and have started to implement the JAS Action Plan with support from the JAS Reference Group (local stakeholder organisations that also contribute to this strategy). Some actions completed thus far include:

 Removal of alcohol advertising on bus shelters in Hastings and Napier;  Funding obtained to identify and develop youth-driven alcohol harm prevention projects;  Creation and distribution of an alcohol network newsletter (bi-monthly) to make the licensing process more accessible to the community;  A move to notifying liquor licence applications online; and  Funding obtained to create brand and resources for alcohol free events and alcohol free zones.

54

244 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Hastings District and Napier City Councils have completed a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy that was notified in July 2016. The Provisional Local Alcohol Policy has been before ARLA as a result of appeals. A position has been negotiated with the appellants. That position has been considered by ARLA and will be notified to the original submitters once ARLA is satisfied with the final wording. If no one seeks to appeal the revised version it will become the adopted Local Alcohol Policy.

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

Wellington City Council

That LGNZ would, on behalf of its member councils, form a working group to work with central agencies to review the effectiveness of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Hastings District Council

 Actively monitor opportunities to submit to central government with respect to review of statutes and regulations that relate to alcohol.  Prepare submissions to central government review processes that relate to the key drivers of alcohol harm as outlined in this remit.  Write to and meet with the Minister of Justice and officials to promote changes to laws and regulations that will address the key drivers of alcohol harm.  Create a national action plan to reduce harm caused by alcohol.  Engage and support councils nationwide to implement strategies, policies and actions that are aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm. This could include delivering workshops; providing statistics and information on the harm alcohol causes and developing templates for policies and strategies that can be easily implemented.

55

245 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

17 Greenhouse gases

Remit: Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members collectively adopt the position that government should revise the Resource Management Act 1991 to adequately consider the impact of greenhouse gases when making decisions under that law and to ensure that the Resource Management Act 1991 is consistent with the Zero Carbon Bill. Proposed by: Wellington City Council Supported by: Metro Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The Act seeks to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while: • Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; • Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and • Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Under the RMA, most decisions are decentralised to local and regional levels to enables public participation in decision-making.

The emissions trading scheme is a national framework. Because of this, there is a disconnection between decisions taken under the RMA and the emission of greenhouse gases. Emissions are not consistently contemplated when decisions are taken; there appears to be a gap, however the Council currently doesn’t have a formal position on this.

2. Background to its being raised

Wellington is proposing a substantial change in urban form and transportation in order to accommodate anticipated growth and to meet community expectations around carbon emissions. Planning for this growth has highlighted the regulatory gap described above.

56

246 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

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

In planning for growth the Council is setting out to develop a future Wellington that is low carbon and resilient. Decisions will be taken under the RMA, yet the need to reduce carbon emissions is not currently a requirement under our key planning legislation.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

The Council has developed a draft plan, Te Atakura – First to Zero, that would establish the Council’s advocacy position in favour of significantly boosted consideration of emissions in the RMA. This draft was released for consultation on 15 April 2019 and is to be considered for adoption on 22 June 2019.

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

The Minister for the Environment is aware of the gap, and has publicly stated:

“The Government intends to undertake a comprehensive review of the resource management system (Stage 2), which is expected to begin this year.”

“Cabinet has already noted my intention to consider RMA changes relating to climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) within the scope of this review.”

Local government will have an opportunity to advocate for the inclusion of climate change effects through this process.

This remit asks councils to work together in engaging with government to amend the RMA to require decision makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

57

247 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

18 Climate Change – policy framework

Remit: That LGNZ recommends to government that they establish an independent expert group to develop a new policy framework for adapting to climate change impacts as recommended by the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group (CCATWG). This new expert group would be supported by a secretariat and stakeholder advisory group. Proposed by: Greater Wellington Regional Council Supported by: Regional Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

New Zealand will need a new policy framework to enable effective, efficient and equitable long- term adaptation to the many challenges posed by climate change. Any such framework must be comprehensive, fit for purpose, and facilitate flexible and dynamic responses.

While there is broad agreement that the current policy framework for climate change adaptation, and especially sea level rise, is inadequate, there has been little attention given to securing a consensus among the stakeholders on the core features of a new framework.

Some small initiatives have been taken by a few local councils and academics towards the formulation of a new framework.

There are a large number of separate, yet interconnected issues that require investigation in parallel or in sequence. It is very likely to take several years to formulate a new, well-designed policy framework, followed by the drafting and enactment of legislative reforms, before the process of implementation can begin. Given the amount of work that is involved and that climate change impacts are already making themselves felt, it is important that this process is started without further delay.

58

248 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

2. Background to its being raised

Sea level rise constitutes a particularly serious challenge due to irreversibility of the near-term impacts. Already many low-lying coastal communities around New Zealand are facing a growing threat to their homes and livelihoods, public infrastructure and private businesses. This and other impacts on human and natural systems related to more intense rainfall, heat, wind, and pathogens and disease vectors, will increase and become disruptive. They will increase the financial burden on the state at all levels and create inequities across society.

For further discussion of the issues and options for developing a new policy framework, from which the proposed remit was derived, see the discussion paper by Jonathan Boston (VUW) and Judy Lawrence (VUW), dated 4 February 2019.

3. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

A recent report by LGNZ found an estimated $14 billion of local government assets are at risk from climate change impacts. It has called on central government to create a ‘National Climate Change Adaptation Fund’. It has also recently published a legal opinion by Jack Hodder QC regarding the potential for local government to be litigated in relation to its actions or inaction in relation to climate change. A key risk raised by Mr Hodder’s report was the absence of national climate change adaptation guidance (or framework) in New Zealand, which in effect is leaving it to the courts to decide how to remedy climate change related harms. This will be an uncertain and inefficient means of doing so.

The Government has received the recommendations of the CCATWG, but is yet to act upon them. The CCATWG recommendation to the Government (quoted below) was to set up a specialist group to define funding arrangements for funding adaptation.

“We recommend that a specialist group of practitioners and experts undertake this action (formulate a new policy framework for adaptation funding). These should be drawn from central and local government, iwi/hapū, sectors such as banking, insurance, and infrastructure; and have expertise in climate change, planning and law, public finance, capital markets, infrastructure financing, and risk management. The group should be serviced by a secretariat with officials across relevant public sector and local government agencies and include significant public engagement.”

4. Suggested course of action envisaged

That LGNZ issue a news release explaining the content of the remit, and that they engage with central government directly (in face to face meetings) to discuss the setting up of an independent expert group to progress the development of a new policy framework for adapting to climate change impacts.

59

249 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

19 Road safety

Remit: 1. That LGNZ acknowledges that the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA's), Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) is a comprehensive and robust document, and that NZTA ensures the CoPTTM system is regularly reviewed, refined and updated. However, in light of the recent road worker fatalities LGNZ requests NZTA, in partnership with Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs); a. Review afresh its Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM} to satisfy themselves that; i. The document provides sufficient guidelines and procedures to ensure approaching traffic are given every possible opportunity to become aware of the worksite ahead and to respond appropriately and in a timely manner. b. Review its CoPTTM Training System to ensure; i. Trainers are sufficiently qualified and adequately covering the training syllabus. ii. Site Traffic Management Supervisors (STMS's) and Traffic Controllers (TC's) are only certified when they can demonstrate competence in the application of CoPTTM. ii. A robust refresher programme is in place to ensure those in charge of Traffic Management on worksites remain current in the required competencies. c. Review its Site Auditing requirements to ensure the traffic management at worksites is independently audited at a sufficient frequency to ensure compliance, and that a significantly robust system is put in place to enable enforcement of compliance. 2. That LGNZ takes steps to remind its members of their duties with respect to their role as Road Controlling Authorities including; a. Appointing and sufficiently training and resourcing a Traffic Management Co•ordinator to ensure their obligations under the Health and Safety Work Act 2015, with respect to traffic management, are being met. b. Adequately resourcing and undertaking audits of road work sites to ensure compliance with CoPTTM.

60

250 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Proposed by: Whakatāne District Council Supported by: Council Hamilton City Council District Council Tauranga City Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Four road workers have been killed on New Zealand roads this calendar year, and we need to ask ourselves, are we doing all that we can to ensure those working on our roads are safe from harm.

There is an increasing level of public discontent with the level of discipline around traffic management being maintained on roadwork sites by contractors, particularly on unattended sites, where all too often the temporary traffic management on site does not seem appropriate, or to adequately inform motorists of the need for the restrictions, or is left in place for too long.

2. Background to its being raised

Frameworks for the safe management of roadworks have been in place for over two decades now, and during this time they have evolved and improved to keep up with the changing risks in the workplace environment.

The current framework is the New Zealand Transport Agency's Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management, fourth edition 2018 (CoPTTM).

This is a comprehensive document that applies a risk based approach to temporary traffic management, based on a road's classification and intensity of use, and the nature of works required to be undertaken on the road.

It is closely aligned to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, recognising the statutory duty of all those involved with activities on or adjacent to the road, to systematically identify any hazards, and if a hazard is identified, to take all reasonably practical steps to ensure no person is harmed.

It includes steps to eliminate risks to health and safety and if it is not reasonably practicable, to minimise risks to health and safety by implementing risk control measures in accordance with Health and Safety at Work (General risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2015.

61

251 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

CoPTTM also includes a risk matrix to help determine what the appropriate temporary speed limit is that should be applied to a worksite, whether attended or unattended. It further contains procedures for undertaking safety audits and reviews of worksites, including the ability to close down worksites that are identified as unsafe following an audit. There are no financial penalties for non-compliance, although there are a range of other penalties that can be imposed, including the issue of a notice of non-conformance to individuals or companies, and a 'three strikes' system whereby the issue of three non-conformances within a 12 month period results in sanctions being imposed. These can include: • Removal of any prequalification status. • Reduction of quality scores assigned in tender evaluations. • Forwarding of non-conformance to the appropriate standards organisation which may affect the company's 1S09000 registration. • Denial of access to the road network for a period of time. • Requirement for the company to have someone else provide their TTM. • Staff retraining for CoPTTM warrants.

In principle there would seem to be sufficient processes in place to ensure that traffic management on road worksites was appropriate and adequately provided for the safety of workers on site, the general public, and passing traffic.

However, this year has seen four road workers killed whilst working on our roads.

There is also a growing level of discontent from motorists regarding the appropriateness of signs that are left out on unattended sites.

Often these signs are perceived to be (any combination of) unnecessary, poorly located, incorrectly advising the condition of the road ahead, having an inappropriate speed limit, or being left out too long.

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

Local Government New Zealand has five policies in place to help achieve their sector vision: Local democracy powering community and national success.

Policy priority one is Infrastructure, which focuses on water, transport and built infrastructure. The transport statement states that a national policy framework is needed to achieve five outcomes. One outcome is 'a safe system, increasingly free of death and serious injury'.

This remit is aligned to this priority outcome as it is focused on reducing safety risks, death and serious injury in locations where road works are being undertaken.

62

252 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

4. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

The Whakatāne District Council has been working proactively with NZTA and its local contractors to review its own traffic management requirements, the level of compliance with those requirements, and the adequacy of its auditing processes and frequencies.

There has been positive engagement with NZTA and the local contracting sector on this matter.

The process has identified improvements that could be effected by both the Council and its contractors. A plan is being developed to socialise the outcomes with NZTA and other RCA's, and this remit forms part of that plan.

NZTA is also responding to the recent deaths by initiating immediate temporary changes to pertinent traffic management plans, and considering permanent changes through its standard CoPTTM review process.

There is currently no national initiative to require local government RCA's to review their practices in response to these deaths.

5. Suggested course of action envisaged

 Support NZTA's initiative to review CoPTTM in light of the recent fatalities.  Encourage NZTA to work closely with RCA's to ensure the CoPTTM review also covers local road Temporary Traffic Management. • Strongly encourage RCA's to work with NZTA, perhaps through the RCA Forum, on a review of local road Temporary Traffic Management. • Strongly encourage RCA's to adopt with urgency, any local road CoPTTM  Improvements that arise from the review.

63

253 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

20 Mobility scooter safety

Remit: That LGNZ requests that government investigate the introduction of strengthened rules to govern the safe use of mobility scooters, particularly in relation to speed limits and registration. Proposed by: Whanganui District Council Supported by: Zone Three

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The following issues have been identified: a. There is no opportunity to enforce a speed limit for mobility scooters, despite the fact that the top speeds of these devices can reach 40kmh. b. Mobility scooters are used too frequently on the road, even when a suitable footpath is available. c. There is no requirement for a mobility scooter user to have a license or any previous driving experience. d. There are no health related restrictions on who can operate a mobility scooter. e. There is no ability to track mobility scooters as no registration or Warrant of Fitness (WoF) is required. A supplementary issue is also acknowledged:  There is no restriction in terms of who can use a mobility scooter. For example, in some states of Australia mobility scooters can only be used by a person with an injury, disability or medical condition which means they are unable to walk or have difficulty walking. People who do not have difficulty walking are not permitted to use them.

2. Background to its being raised

Establishing the number of injuries and fatalities involving mobility scooter users can be difficult to isolate and this has been identified as an issue nationwide. However, coronial data shows that at least 20 people have died while using mobility scooters in New Zealand.

64

254 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Given the considerable lag between a death occurring and a coronial case on that death being closed, the actual number may be significantly higher. Notably NZTA reports that: “mobility scooters… have been involved with a number of fatalities (at least 20 in 2014-2015).”

For the period 2008-2012 the Ministry of Transport recorded eight fatalities and 141 injuries of mobility scooter users. NZTA records 12 fatalities, 19 serious injuries and 81 less serious injuries for the period 2009-2014. These figures do not include fatalities or injuries to persons other than the mobility scooter user.

It has been acknowledged by those working in this field that there have been a ‘surprising’ number of injury crashes involving mobility scooters over the last five years, including fatalities. More work on clarifying the extent of this problem is required and there has been general agreement nationwide from the region’s road safety co-ordinators, and other agencies such as NZTA and Age Concern, that mobility scooter safety is an emerging concern. This is the case throughout the country and is reiterated by both large and small centres, in urban areas and rural regions.

Some of the issues raised include:  Mobility scooters being driven on the road, at speed, with low visibility (eg without a flag) and like a motor vehicle (as opposed to like a pedestrian as is required).  No accountability around vulnerable elderly users, particularly those who have lost their licence. There is no established avenue to ascertain whether there are issues around dementia or other chronic conditions which could have an impact on their ability to use these safely.  No accountability around the purchase of mobility scooters, both in terms of being fit for use and training for safe handling. This is particularly the case when they are bought off the internet, eg there is no opportunity to ensure that the right scooter has been purchased for the user’s level of ability and that they are shown how to drive it according to the regulations.  No ongoing monitoring of use, particularly in the case of declining health.  No restrictions on the speed that mobility scooters can reach or the size of mobility scooters. With an increase in larger model mobility scooters being imported, there is less room for scooters to pass one another, or to pass other pedestrians. This leads to a greater likelihood of one or more of the footpath users needing to use the road rather than the footpath. Larger mobility scooters also require larger areas to turn. Given the size of many footpaths in New Zealand, this increases the risk that the user will enter the roadway at an angle and roll the mobility scooter, resulting in serious injury or death. Some centres have also identified an issue with the increasing prevalence and size of mobility scooters adding load to the footpaths. Furthermore, the contrast between New Zealand Post’s work on safety assurances with the use of Paxster vehicles on the footpath, and the lack of oversight over larger sized mobility scooters being used in a similar (but unmonitored) way has been drawn.

65

255 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

However, it is also important to note the significant role that mobility scooters play in granting senior people their independence. Any measures taken to address this remit’s concerns must balance this benefit with the need to ensure safety for users and other pedestrians.

3. New or confirming existing policy

The remit would strengthen existing central government policy. However, new legislation would be required to put in place an appropriate registration programme, both for mobility scooter users and for the mobility scooters.

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

Transport safety issues are not referred to specifically in the current LGNZ work programme. However, ensuring we have safe systems, increasingly free of death and serious injury and addressing the needs of an ageing population are each included under one of the five policy priorities (Infrastructure and Social, respectively).

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

This is an emerging issue and is acknowledged as such by those with an interest and involvement in road safety at both the local and regional level. Although discussions are underway about working with the Safe and Sustainable Association of Aotearoa/New Zealand (SASTA) and Trafinz on these concerns so that this can be addressed with the NZTA, it is understood that this work has not yet commenced.

The Marlborough Road Safety Mobility Scooter User Group has undertaken some useful research in this area. They have canvassed users in relation to training needs, safety, registration, injuries, facilities and the footpath network.

Although not all suggestions were supported, this survey did identify some relevant ideas and safety concerns, eg 71 per cent of respondents had seen a mobility scooter being used in an unsafe manner on the footpath or road, 19 per cent had been injured by a mobility scooter as a pedestrian and 78 per cent said that they or someone they knew has had a ‘near miss’.

Some ideas raised include focusing on licensing/registering drivers rather than the mobility scooters themselves, ensuring that any registration costs were low to ensure affordability, making mobility scooters easier to hear and introducing a speed limit.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

NZTA has the responsibility, via government, for mobility scooters in New Zealand and has a booklet available, titled Ready to Ride - Keeping safe on your mobility scooter. This is based on section 11 of the Land Transport (Road Use) Rule 2004.

66

256 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

The following provisions exist – it is recommended that these be expanded upon and strengthened:  Speed limits: Current New Zealand law says “A driver of a mobility device or wheeled recreational device on a footpath; a. Must operate the device in a careful and considerate manner; and b. Must not operate the device at a speed that constitutes a hazard to other footpath users.”

 Road usage: Current New Zealand law says; a. A driver must not drive a mobility device on any portion of a roadway if it is practicable to drive on a footpath. b. A pedestrian or driver of a mobility device or a wheeled recreational device using the roadway must remain as near as practicable to the edge of the roadway.

 Monitoring and registration: Current New Zealand law does not require users to have a driver licence or any form of medical approval to operate a mobility scooter and no warrant of fitness or registration is needed.

Further, current law does not require the use of any personal protective equipment such as helmets, despite these devices being capable of reaching similar speeds to mopeds and higher speeds than many bicycle users travel at.

This is particularly problematic given Canadian research that showed, of their sample group of mobility scooter users, 38 per cent had hearing impairments, 34 per cent had vision impairments, 19 per cent had memory impairments and 17 per cent had balance impairments. The study also found that 80 per cent of the mobility scooter users took four or more medications daily.

The Ready to Ride guidelines clearly spell out that mobility scooter users could be fined if they are found to be riding their scooter: “… carelessly, inconsiderately or at a dangerous speed. The fine may be higher if you do any of these things more than once. ” Furthermore, if a mobility scooter user causes a crash where someone is killed or hurt then they could be charged with “careless or inconsiderate use of a motor vehicle”. This brings penalties ranging from a severe fine to a prison sentence. However, these do not provide clear definitions or rules to inform a user’s decisions.

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

Speed limits

It is recommended that the approach taken in some Australian States, including Victoria be adopted. This states that mobility scooters: “must have a maximum capable speed of 10km per hour on level ground and a maximum unladen mass of 110kg”.

67

257 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Road usage

It is recommended that New Zealand Police be resourced to enforce the law. Local and regional councils throughout the country, as well as NZTA, road safety action groups and other key agencies, have highlighted serious concerns about mobility scooters riding on the road when a footpath is available, as well as riding on the road as if they are a motor vehicle.

Monitoring and registration

It is recommended that legislation is changed to require all mobility scooters to be registered and display a licence plate, with minimal or no cost imposed, to ensure compliance. It is further recommended that the legislation set a maximum power assisted speed and size for mobility scooters.

68

258 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

21 Museums and galleries

Remit: That central government funding be made available on an annual basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities with nationally significant collections. Proposed by: Whanganui District Council Supported by: Zone Three

Background information and research

3. Nature of the issue

The following issues have been identified:

 There is currently no central government funding for daily operating costs for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities.  Public museums and galleries often house nationally significant collections and taonga but are supported largely by their local ratepayers, often from a limited funding pool.  These facilities attract national and international visitors and service far more than the local area from which their funding is drawn.  Local authorities are severely challenged to adequately support the annual running costs required for these key cultural facilities due to the financial impost on ratepayers.  Support for the retention of these facilities in smaller regional centres, outside the larger cities, is important in terms of cultural accessibility and in keeping our provincial communities viable.

4. Background to its being raised

Regional museums and galleries are important to the cultural makeup of this country. They are recognised as critical hubs for communities and visitors and play a role that extends far beyond the display of images and artefacts:  They occupy a dynamic position in our national cultural life, encouraging us to think about our place in the world.  They stimulate discussion and debate. This enhances participation, creativity, community capacity and a sense of place.

69

259 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

 They generate economic activity; they are a driver of tourism and create jobs and vibrancy.  They contribute to key aspects of our community and national cultural identity; the nature of our bicultural society and other multicultural influences means that museums and galleries will act as an increasingly important link in reflecting and understanding the diversity of our communities.  They build social cohesion, creativity and leisure opportunities. They contribute to civic development and provide a focal point for gathering and interaction; acting as a key social destination.  They foster enrichment. Arts and culture are ‘good for you’. Having access to events and exhibitions is important, and this might be even more so in provincial centres.

Despite this, there is limited funding available, particularly for operating costs. This raises concerns about the ongoing ability of territorial authorities to:

 Provide adequate, appropriate and safe storage methods. Climate control and professional and timely care or repair of our treasures requires adequate funding to ensure the longevity of many of our special collection items (for example, paintings or heritage artefacts such as Māori cloaks).  Deliver the right display conditions. Without the right climate control, security and display methods, the public’s access to view these collections is severely limited. Instead of enhancing the visibility of, and connection to, our key collection pieces locally, nationally and internationally, this access is restricted by inadequate funds for exhibition. This is exacerbated by the limitations of funding at the local ratepayer level.  Preserving our stories. The collections available at public museums and galleries are not only often nationally significant but also reveal important aspects of our local identity. They are an education resource (both formally through school programmes and informally) and are a drawcard for tourism. Maintaining these collections retains our storytelling abilities, supports our unique identities and contributes to economic and social development.

This is supported by the following background information:

 Some collections are over 100 years old and need specialised climate control and storage facilities. Paint, canvas, fabric and fibres have unique requirements to ensure their preservation and longevity. The cost of doing so is huge and is a burden that many local communities cannot sustain. However, despite this, they are solely responsible for this care.  Some grants are available, on application, to deliver education programmes for school children. However, this funding is very limited and requires additional subsidisation by schools. As a result, not all children are gaining equitable access to our museums and galleries.  Limited grants are also available, on application, for storage and building upgrades, as well as for one-off restoration projects. However, there are no regular, reliable funds available to meet the significant and necessary costs of just running these institutions.

70

260 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

 Currently only the Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa receive an ongoing proportion of operating costs.

As an example, the Sarjeant Gallery in Whanganui has an annual operating budget of $2.285 million and the Whanganui Regional Museum a budget of $1.085 million. The value of their collections is $30 million across each institution, with their collections considered to be some of the best in New Zealand. Yet they are funded almost solely from the local Whanganui district ratepayer base. This is not sustainable if we are to make the most of New Zealand’s nationally significant collections and ensure their preservation for the future.

An example of public museums and art galleries currently operated by territorial authorities:

Institution Permanent collection?

Sarjeant Gallery - Whanganui  Whanganui Regional Museum  Auckland Art Gallery  Whangarei Art Museum  Te Tuhi Center for the Arts, Manukau City x Waikato Museum  Museum of Art & History  Tauranga Art Gallery  Whakatane Museum & Art Gallery  Govett Brewster Gallery/Len Lye Centre – New Plymouth  Percy Thompson Gallery – Stratford x Tairawhiti Museum – Gisborne  Hawke’s Bay Museum and Art Gallery – Napier  Aratoi Museum of Art & History –  City Gallery – Wellington x The New Dowse –  Millennium Art Gallery – Blenheim  Suter Art Gallery – Nelson  Christchurch Art Gallery  Coca – Centre for Contemporary Art – Christchurch  Aigantighe Art Gallery –  Forrester Gallery – Oamaru  Dunedin Public Art Gallery  Southland Museum and Art Gallery – Invercargill  Anderson Park Art Gallery – Invercargill  Eastern Southland Gallery – Gore 

71

261 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

5. New or confirming existing policy

The remit would require a policy shift by central government to provide funding for operating costs based on a set of clear assessment criteria.

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

The LGNZ work programme includes tourism as a focus area and addresses concerns about funding in relation to key facilities and amenities: “Without more equitable forms of funding there is a risk that visitors will lack the appropriate range of local amenities they need to have a positive experience.”

This is framed by the following statement: “The visitor industry is now New Zealand’s largest export industry however the speed of its growth is putting many of New Zealand’s smaller communities under pressure. It is a problem created by the way in which councils are funded as new facilities will be paid for out of property taxes while visitor expenditure, in the form of increased GST and income tax, benefits central rather than local government.”

7. What work or action on the issues has been done on it, and the outcome

Although there was work completed on a central government funding model for the ‘national collection’ in the 1990’s (that being, the collection held by all public museums and galleries in New Zealand) this did not progress. The United Kingdom has a centrally funded system for museums and galleries.

8. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

 Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996.  Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992.

9. Suggest course of action envisaged

That central government funding be made available on an annual basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities with nationally significant collections.

This would be in the form of an annual allocation for operating costs based on specific criteria to ensure the maintenance, preservation and development of collections with relevance beyond the local setting. This would provide the surety of a reliable income stream and could be set to a specified limit, eg 10 per cent of annual operating costs.

72

262 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Of particular interest would be those collections of national importance where the benefit of protection and enhancement would make a substantial contribution to New Zealand’s creative sector as well as our national cultural identity.

Priority funding would be given to museums and galleries which hold permanent New Zealand collections, rather than being solely exhibition galleries. Funding could also be based on the size and type of collection. This recognises the added burden of storage, care and maintenance for collections of a significant size and importance.

73

263 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

22 Resource Management Act

Remit: That the selection of all independent commissioners for Resource Management Act hearings be centralised to improve independence and enhance the quality of decisions. Proposed by: Whanganui District Council Supported by: Zone Three

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The following issues with the current system have been identified:

 There is potential for corruption and undue influence.  There is limited ability for newer commissioners to obtain experience.  There is opportunity for enhanced effectiveness and more robust decision-making.

2. Background to its being raised

The Resource Management Act (RMA) contains provisions for the appointment of independent commissioners to sit on panels to hear RMA matters, for example, resource consent applications, notices of requirement and District and Regional Plan Reviews, including plan changes (s39B).

Commissioners must be accredited to sit on RMA hearing panels and the Minister for the Environment must approve the qualification for accreditation. The certification process is called “Making Good Decisions” and is delivered on behalf of the Ministry.

The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) website sets out the areas covered by the accreditation and recertification processes and has a register of qualified commissioners.

74

264 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Although this system provides opportunity, in theory, for panel composition based on a balanced range of factors to ensure impartiality and relevant breadth of experience – in practice this is not the case. Instead, selection can be influenced by:

 Paid relationships. For example, commissioners being held on retainer.  Manipulation of focus areas. For example, panels being ‘stacked’ to increase the likelihood of support or sympathy for particular issues.  Existing connections. For example, the same commissioners being selected by the same councils, leaving little room for newer certificate holders and leading to questions of true independence.

As a result, the current system is open to both real and perceived issues of fairness based on concerns about:  The appropriateness of an ongoing financial arrangement for retained availability, as well as the ability of this relationship to really remain independent and impartial. For example, would an ‘unfavourable’ decision jeopardise the financial benefit for a commissioner in this position?  A balance of experience and expertise on the panel when many of the same commissioners, with similar backgrounds (planners, lawyers, elected members) are used on a consistent basis.  Missed opportunities to provide practical experience to a broader spread of certificate holders in a more even way (rather than the same familiar options being selected).  The ability to achieve genuine impartiality when commissioners can be picked based on prior relationships and knowledge of their position (and therefore likely decisions) on particular issues.  An absence of local and external collaboration on decisions – missing important opportunities to upskill lesser experienced commissioners and provide the right mix of local versus external perspectives to equally inform good decision-making.  A lack of standardisation in fee structures throughout the country, potentially leading to ‘cherry-picking’ of hearings.  Poor Māori representation on hearing panels in areas where co-management legislation does not yet apply.

There is also no process for receiving or addressing complaints about commissioner conduct.

3. New or confirming existing policy

The remit would require amendment to the RMA and the development of a centralised and independently managed appointment process to allocate commissioners in a systematic and fair manner. This would be supported by regulations which would set out the steps to be followed.

75

265 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Such provisions are already contained in legislation such as the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 (s25 and s28).

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

The work programme notes that ‘major reform’ of the RMA is required. It does not, however, specifically relate to the recommendations of this remit.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

No work has been undertaken specifically on this. However, the proposed model recommends use of the Victorian State Government approach: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and- committees/panels-and-committees

In addition, the New Zealand Environment Court uses a mixed model approach, with the Judge as chair and two or more court appointed commissioners. These commissioners have a varied background (across planning, ecology, landscape architecture, civil engineering, Tikanga Māori etc) and have all completed the “LEADR” mediation programme to assist the Court in mediated resolutions of court appeals. Many have also undertaken the “Making Good Decisions” programme.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

Resource Management Act (1991)

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

That the selection of all accredited commissioners for RMA hearings be centralised and independently managed by the Ministry for the Environment.

The new process could follow the Victorian State Government example. In essence this involves making an initial hearing panel application online, followed by a formal letter of request. A panel is then appointed by the Minister (or a delegate) in accordance with the specific details of the particular issue, eg the complexity of the topic, the number of submissions received or the special expertise required. This enables administrative ‘filtering’ to sort panellists according to their suitability across a spectrum of hearing complexities. For example, smaller and less controversial issues would be resourced differently to more difficult topics. This would also ensure a tailored mix of expertise and backgrounds – enabling greater Māori representation, a balance of newer and more experienced commissioners and a spread of local and external knowledge.

76

266 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

In Victoria the pool of available commissioners is managed by an ‘Office of Planning Panels’ acting as a conduit between panels and interested parties to “ensure an independent and transparent process is upheld”.

If MfE took this on it would also be expected to manage the contracts, oversee the effectiveness of the process, receive and adjudicate on any complaints about commissioner conduct and regulate the fee structure. It would also deliver administrative support for the process (although where hearings are cost recoverable from applicants then this would be managed accordingly). MfE could also maintain the register of accredited commissioners and chairs and ensure that it remained up to date, with sufficient information provided to ensure the effective appointment of panels.

77

267 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

23 Mayor decision to appoint Deputy Mayor

Remit: That LGNZ request the Government to amend S.41A of the LGA2002 to give mayors the same powers to appoint a deputy mayor as held by the Mayor of Auckland. Proposed by: Invercargill District Council and Whanganui District Council Supported by: Provincial Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Since 2013 mayors have had the power to determine who their deputy mayor should be, however a mayor’s choice of deputy can be overturned by a majority vote of councillors. Not only has this caused confusion the fact that councils can over turn a mayor’s choice undermines the original intent of the legislation.

2. Background to its being raised

The 2012 LGA 2002 Amendment Act introduced Section 41A which recognised mayors’ leadership role and gave mayors the authority to appoint their deputy as well as committee chairs. The select committee amended the original bill to provide councils with an ability to reverse a mayor’s decision. Not only did that change make a nonsense of the original intent it has also undermined the credibility of the legislation in the eyes of citizens who generally expect a mayor to be able to choose who their deputy will be, given the importance of that working relationship.

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

The problems mayors face with implementation of section 41A is not currently on the LGNZ work programme.

78

268 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

4. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The Government is re-drafting the Local Government Amendment Bill 2 which is expected to be given its second reading later this year. The Bill could provide a vehicle to amend S.41A in order to strengthen mayors’ ability to appoint their deputies without the risk of that decision being reversed.

79

269 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

24 Beauty industry

Remit: That LGNZ calls on the Government to develop and implement national guidelines, policy or regulations to achieve national consistency for the largely unregulated ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry. Proposed by: Council Supported by: Council Dunedin City Council Rangitikei District Council Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Over recent years, the ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry has seen tremendous growth and continues to expand rapidly. Unfortunately, there is no national legislation or guidance to regulate this industry.

The Health Act 1956 is currently the only legislative tool at the disposal of local authorities to deal with concerns and complaints. However, the powers under the Act are very limited, and do not relate specifically to quality and community safety.

Several councils have developed their own Bylaws to deal with the potential risks that this industry poses to its clientele, with varying degrees of success, but by large the industry remains unregulated. By contrast, national regulations to regulate the hairdressing industry have existed since the 1980’s. It is considered that the ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry faces much higher risks and challenges.

2. Background to its being raised

Nationally, as well as locally, Environmental Health Practitioners are dealing with an ever- increasing number of complaints about this industry and the fallout from botched procedures, as well as infections. Whilst, practitioners can address some of these concerns under the Health Act 1956, it is felt that specific legislation or guidance is the only way to regulate this industry and achieve national consistency.

80

270 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

In the absence of national legislation, territorial authorities such as the Whangarei District Council are unable to regulate the industry, except through the development of a specific Bylaw. The development of Bylaws is an expensive and time consuming process and the cost of that process and any complaint investigation, outside the Bylaw process, falls solely on ratepayers whilst creation of Bylaws can mitigate risk at local level, they do not result in national consistency.

3. New or confirming existing policy

New policy.

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

The issue aligns to the LGNZ Three Year Business Plan (2019/20 – 2021/22), that recognises quality and community safety as a key social issue, with social issues being one of the five big issues for New Zealand councils. Specifically, the commitment to “work alongside central government and iwi to address social issues and needs in our communities, including a rapidly growing and an ageing population, inequality, housing (including social housing) supply and quality and community safety.”

5. What work or action on the issue has been done on it, and the outcome

Aside from some council’s developing their own Bylaws, as far as the Whangarei District Council is aware, central government has no plan to develop legislation or guidance for this sector.

Notably, as New Zealand-wide complaints regarding the industry continue to rise and the serious risks associated with the industry continue to be better understood a national approach is needed to make any substantive progress on regulating the ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry in New Zealand.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

As described above, the Health Act 1956 is currently the only legislative tool at the disposal of local authorities to deal with concerns and complaints. However, the powers under the Act are very limited, and do not relate specifically to quality and community safety.

81

271 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

7. Suggested course of action envisaged

That LGNZ calls on the Government to develop and implement national guidelines, policy or regulations to achieve national consistency for the largely unregulated ‘health and beauty clinic’ industry.

It is also suggested that LGNZ engage directly with relevant ministers and ministries to ensure local government has an appropriate role in the development of nationally consistent legislation or guidelines to address the challenges the industry brings.

82

272 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

Remits not going to AGM

The remit Screening Committee has referred the following remits to the National Council of LGNZ for action, rather than to the Annual General Meeting for consideration. The Remit Screening Committee’s role is to ensure that remits referred to the AGM are relevant, significant in nature and require agreement from the membership. In general, proposed remits that are already LGNZ policy, are already on the LGNZ work programme or technical in nature will be referred directly to the National Council for their action.

1. Earthquake strengthening – tax relief

Remit: That LGNZ lobby central government to provide tax relief for buildings owners for the compulsory earthquake strengthening of their buildings either by way of reinstating depreciation or some other tax relief for earthquake compliance costs.

Proposed by: Council

Supported by: Zone Three

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to National Council for action

2. Benchmark Programme

Remit: That LGNZ investigate and implement an infrastructure delivery benchmark programme, including working with the Department of Internal Affairs to improve the Non-Financial Performance Measures Rules 2013 to be more meaningful measures of infrastructure service delivery.

Proposed by: New Plymouth District Council

Supported by: Central Hawkes Bay District Council; Otorohanga District Council; South Taranaki District Council; Stratford District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; ; Wellington City Council; Whanganui District Council

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for action

83

273 Council - 2019 LGNZ ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING REMITS

3. On-line voting

Remit: That LGNZ advocates to the Government for it to provide financial support for the Local Government on-line voting trial.

Proposed by: Palmerston North City Council

Supported by: Metro Sector

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for action

4. E-waste

Remit: That LGNZ advocates to the Government to introduce a mandatory product stewardship programme for e-waste.

Proposed by: Palmerston North City Council

Supported by: Metro Sector

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for action

5. Tourism Industry Aotearoa

Remit: That LGNZ actively consider the Tourism Industry Aotearoa Local Government Funding Model to Support Regional Tourism Growth.

Proposed by: Council

Supported by: Palmerston North City Council; Horizons Regional Council: New Plymouth District Council; Rangitikei District Council; Stratford District Council

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for action

6. Official business scheduling

Remit: That councils aim to schedule their official business in such a way as to making standing for office a more viable option for candidates.

Proposed by: Dunedin City Council

Supported by: Zone Five and Zone Six

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for action

84

274