AGENDA Council 2020-06-24

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2020 3.00PM

MEMBERSHIP

Her Worship (Chairperson)

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

Noce is given that a meeng of the Masterton District Council will be held at 3.00pm on Wednesday 24 June 2020 at Waiata House, 27 Lincoln Rd, Masterton.

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

19 June 2020 1 AGENDA:

The Order Paper is as follows:

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

2. Apologies

3. Public Forum:  Tuia Programme representatives Waiaria Pitau and Martel Anderson  Youth Council  Jeremy Logan, Wairarapa Extinction Rebellion

4. Late items for inclusion under Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

5. Items to be considered under Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:  Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 27 May 2020  Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 4 March 2020  Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 20 May 2020  Report of the Awards and Grants Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 17 June 2020  Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process  Masterton District Council Appointments to the Montfort Trimble Foundation  Belgravia Leisure 6. Confirmation of Minutes of the Council meeting held on 27 May 2020 (070/20) Pages 101-109

7. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 June (Speed Limit Review Deliberations) (084/20) Pages 101-105

8. Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 4 March 2020 (028/20) Pages 401-407

9. Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 20 May 2020 (061/20) Pages 401-406

10. Report of the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting held on 10 June 2020 (074/20) Pages 301-303

11. Report of the Awards and Grants Committee meeting held on 17 June 2020 (083/20) Pages 601-602

DECISION

12. APPOINTMENTS TO COUNCIL ORGANISATIONS POLICY – MONTFORT TRIMBLE FOUNDATION (076/20) Pages 121-123 2

13. RURAL ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE (079/20) Pages 124-136

14. COMBINED WAIRARAPA DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – CONSULTANCY APPOINTMENT (080/20) Pages 137-141

15. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTERTON DISTRICT METERED PARKING AREA SCHEDULE (081/20) Pages 142-153

16. LGFA SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING (082/20) Pages 154-159

17. OPAKI WATER RACE STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL (087/20) Pages 160-172

18. GRANT FUNDING POST COVID-19 To be circulated separately

19. MASTERTON REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT STEERING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE To be circulated separately

NOTE: After Agenda item 19 the meeting will move into public excluded to consider Public Excluded Agenda Item 28 Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process, then the meeting will move out of public excluded to consider Agenda items 20 and 21

20. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL PLAN 2020/2021 (086/20) Pages 220-224

21. RATES RESOLUTION 2020‐21 (085/20) Pages 225-230

INFORMATION

22. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT (088/20) Pages 231-255

23. MAYOR’S REPORT A verbal report will be provided 3 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Town Centre Upgrade Tender 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Process information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be Belgravia Leisure without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the 4 negotiations (including disclosure of information commercial and industrial for which good reason negotiations) for withholding would exist under Section 7.

Masterton District Council 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of s48(1)(a) Appointments to the Montfort Trimble natural persons, including that That the public conduct Foundation of deceased natural persons). of this item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7 101 070/20 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 27 MAY 2020 AT 10.00AM

PRESENT

Mayor Lyn Patterson (Chair), Councillors G Caffell, B Gare, D Holmes, B Johnson, G McClymont, F Mailman, T Nelson, T Nixon, S Ryan, C Peterson and iwi representatives Tiraumaera Te Tau and Ra Smith

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Manager Strategic Planning, Manager, Community Facilities and Activities, Communications and Marketing Manager, Governance Advisor and two media representatives.

Ra Smith opened the meeting with a karakia.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Councillor Nelson declared an interest as a member of the Henley Trust. Councillor Nixon declared an interest as a Trustee on the Wairarapa Regional Irrigation Trust.

APOLOGIES There were no apologies.

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

The meeting was advised of late items for inclusion in the agenda:

 2020-21 Annual Plan – Rates Increase Options Supplementary Information Report 068/20

The supplementary information had not been available for inclusion with the agenda and could not be held over until a later meeting.

Moved by Councillor Nixon that in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the items be dealt with at this meeting. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED.

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

 Minutes of the Council meeting held 1 May 2020 with the public excluded Moved by Councillor G Caffell That in terms of section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the items be dealt with at this meeting. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED 102

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 1 MAY 2020 (044/20)

Moved by Councillor T Nelson That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 1 May 2020 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF ANNUAL PLAN AND SPEED LIMIT REVIEW HEARINGS HELD ON 6 MAY 2020 (046/20)

Moved by Councillor D Holmes That the minutes of the Annual Plan and Speed Limit Review hearings held on 6 May 2020 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 20 MAY 2020 (059/20)

Moved by Councillor G Caffell That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 20 May 2020 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED

2020-21 ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – OVERVIEW (062/20) The report providing Council with an overview of the Annual Plan process, a summary of the consultation undertaken, the relevance of the COVID-19 situation and other changes since the baseline data was developed was presented by the Chief Executive.

(Tiraumaera Te Tau joined the meeting at 10.16am)

Moved by Councillor T Nixon That Council: i. Receives Report 062/20 ‘2020-21 Annual Plan Deliberations – Overview’. ii. Requests the Chief Executive continues a watching brief of the Masterton community for particular sectors that require more assistance that is not filled through the government relief packages and regularly report to Council. iii. Requests the Chief Executive continues a watching brief of the building activity statistics and regularly report to Council. iv. Approves the ringfencing of $200,000, from reserves, to be available as an economic and community wellbeing stimulus fund (criteria to be developed) for Council to allocate when required through the 2020/21 financial year. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED 103

ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS - CIVIC CENTRE PROJECT (063/20)

The report providing submitters’ feedback on the Civic Centre proposal, providing new information received and seeking a decision from Council regarding the Civic Centre project for the 2020/2021 Annual Plan was presented by the Chief Executive, who noted that that staff recommendation was to demolish the building and start planning for the future.

Councillor Mailman proposed an alternative course of action by moving a motion to defer the decision to demolish and determine what a new civic centre looks like before any further decision was taken. Councillor Mailman noted that the results of the consultation weren’t conclusive and the staff recommendation was premature when there was no plan about what a future civic centre might look like.

Those who supported the motion thought that a multipurpose community facility was an important facility for the community and Council needed to decide what a new facility looked like before demolishing the existing buildings. The motion didn’t exclude demolition in the future but allowed Council to move forward with the development and design of a facility which may or may not be on the current site.

Those who didn’t support the motion thought that Council needed to be decisive and make a decision one way or another about the building, the town had lived without a facility for four years and there were other priorities for the community to deal with, demolition was the most cost effective option and in the current circumstances Council needed to be mindful of that as the difference between demolishing and keeping the façade and buildings was at least $4m.

In response to a question it was advised that whether the Civic Centre Steering Group would be re- established would be discussed, but it was noted that some kind of working group would be useful.

Moved Councillor F Mailman

That Council: 1. Agrees that a multi-purpose community facility, incorporating a Town Hall, be built in Masterton.

2. Approves proceeding with the development and design plans with costings, including fitout, for a new multipurpose facility, with an option for a library either on the existing site or another suitable location.

3. Investigate the potential use of the Municipal Building and Civil Defence Building with relevant costings.

4. Requests that a budget be allocated within the 2020/21 annual plan for the design, development plans and costings to be completed within the next twelve months.

104 5. Requests the Chief Executive to pursue applications to secure funding assistance for the development and design plans to reduce future rating impacts. Seconded Councillor S Ryan and CARRIED

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

ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – HENLEY LAKE PROPOSAL (064/20) The report presenting the feedback received from submitters on the Annual Plan proposal relating to Henley Lake, providing new information received and seeking a decision from Council in relation to the consent was presented by the Chief Executive.

Deputy Mayor McClymont proposed a motion which amended the first clause in the report recommendation to provide budget of $50,000 for consent application costs, but to otherwise leave the lake as is, without adaptation work, as he would prefer the lake to remain as it was as a passive recreation lake. Adaptation work such as planting and boardwalks may limit use in the future.

Most members supported the motion, preferring to keep the lake as it was. The alternative view was that the budget for adaptation work needed to be retained as some preliminary work was still needed.

The Manager Assets and Operations advised that part of the budget in the report’s recommendation was for automation of the intake and if elected members supported that, the budget of $50,000 would need to be increased. With the agreement of the mover and seconder the motion was amended to provide that the initial budget in 2020/2021 would be $80,000.

Moved Councillor G McClymont That Council: i. Agrees to modify the current resource consent application (WAR170189) to take water from the Ruamāhanga River above minimum flow with an initial budget of $80,000 in 2020/2021 for consent application costs and automation of the intake. ii. Continues to work with the Henley Lake Trust and users on the immediate issues with the lake and surrounding area to develop a management plan for the area with the community; and iii. Continues to pursue external funding assistance and funding partners to reduce the Council contribution to this project. Seconded Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED 105

Councillor Peterson requested his vote against the motion be recorded.

The meeting adjourned at 11.13 am and reconvened 11.27 am

Members present when the meeting reconvened were Mayor L Patterson, Councillor G Caffell, Councillor Gare, Councillor Holmes, Councillor Johnson, Councillor McClymont, Councillor Mailman, Councillor Nelson, Councillor Nixon, Councillor Peterson, Councillor Ryan and iwi representatives Tiruamaera Te Tau and Ra Smith.

ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – SKATEPARK PROPOSAL (065/20)

The report presenting the submitter feedback on the Annual Plan proposal relating to the skatepark proposal, providing new information received and seeking a decision on the project was presented by the Chief Executive.

Members supported the report’s recommendation noting that it was an opportunity to do something for Masterton’s youth, the project would support domestic tourism and possibly employment, and would add to the attractions in Queen Elizabeth Park.

Moved by Councillor Caffell That Council: Approves proceeding with the full Skatepark Revamp discussed in the 2020/21 Annual Plan Consultation Document at an estimated cost of $1.35 million including contingency, with $300K to be funded via reserve contributions and the balance loan funded, noting that Council expect to attract at least 50% grant funding for this project. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED

ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – OTHER TOPICS (066/20)

The report presenting feedback from submitters on other items and topics in the Annual Plan consultation was presented by the Chief Executive.

The recommendation was taken in parts as some members did not support revisiting the community’s appetite to pay for a dog park as part of the Long Term Plan. Recommendations (i) to (viii) and (x) to (xii) were taken first, then item (ix) Recommendation 3D in relation to the dog park.

Moved by Councillor T Nixon That Council: Adopts the following recommendations contained within the report for the topics raised by submitters that were outside the key Consultation Document proposals. These are: i. Recommendation 1A: That Council continues to support the Water Resilience Strategy, noting that the strategy will help to inform future decisions regarding water storage options; and also notes that domestic water storage options will be considered as part of the review of the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. ii. Recommendation 1B: That Council consider its renewals programme as part of the development of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. This will allow more time to 106 understand the potential implications of Covid-19 and economic recovery on contractor availability to undertake this work. iii. Recommendation 1C: That Council continue to align its position on fluoride with Ministry of Health advice, noting decisions relating to fluoride may become the responsibility of DHBs in the future. iv. Recommendation 2A: That Council consider options for Millard Avenue/Andrews Street once designs and costs estimates are available and as part of the Long term Plan 2020-21 process. v. Recommendation 2B: Council is progressing work in the Upper Plain area given development. Staff will investigate the feasibility of installing a footpath from the new development towards town, and further footpath improvements will be prioritised as funding allows. vi. Recommendation 3A: Council note that suggestions regarding the cycle trails and Wairarapa connections have been passed on to the Wairarapa Trails Action Group; and comments regarding urban trails in the Masterton district have been passed on to the Community Facilities and Activities Team for consideration as part of their 2020/21 planning for urban trails. vii. Recommendation 3B: Council note that reserve contributions are required in areas of development, and that the need for further parks in the Upper Plain area, and for facilities within parks, will be considered when the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy is completed, with this information feeding into the review of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan as part of the Long Term Plan process. viii. Recommendation 3C: That Council staff follow up with the submitters to further discuss their proposal for the Taranaki Street reserve and how this could compliment the work that has been progressed on that site and/or opportunities to get involved in other projects that are underway. ix. Recommendation 3E: Council note that the parks budget is aligned with current levels of service, and that there will be an opportunity to review levels of service for all Council activities as part of the development of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. x. Recommendation 4A: Council notes extensive consultation and engagement took place with the community during the development of the Town Centre Strategy. The projects are now at detailed design stage. No further consultation on these projects is planned. xi. Recommendation 4B: Council notes that there is a bylaw in place that relates to graffiti; and that Council has a procedure for managing graffiti on Council owned properties including parks and reserves, playgrounds, street signs, roads and footpaths. Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

Recommendation 3D (ix) was moved but failed for the want of a seconder.

107

ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – FEES AND CHARGES (067/20)

The report presenting Council with a summary of submitters feedback on the Fees and Charges proposal, providing new information and seeking a decision regarding the Fees and Charges for the Annual Plan was presented by the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive advised that a change was required to the Planning Limited Notification Fee to correct a typographical error in the attachment to the report ($357 was the correct amount, the fee was listed as $537).

Moved by Councillor T Nixon That Council: i. Notes that all fees and charges decisions that were made as part of the Council’s Covid‐19 relief package will stand for the durations specified. ii. Approves the permanent removal of Library charges and fines with the exception of new book fees and cost recovery on any books that are lost or not returned. iii. Approves the extension of the 100% subsidy on replacement woodburner consent fees to 31 December 2020. iv. Adopts all other fees and charges increases/changes included in the 2020/21 Fees and Charges Statement of Proposal, with the exception of dog fees and the Planning Limited Notification Fee. v. Sets the Planning Limited Notification Fee to $357. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED

Agenda Item 15 was taken before Item 14

DOG REGISTRATION AND ASSOCIATED FEES 2020/21 (069/20)

The report seeking Council approval of the fees and charges for Council’s Animal Control activity for the 2020/2021 financial year was taken as read.

Moved by Councillor G Caffell That Council: i. receives Report 069/20 ‘Dog Registration and Associated Fees 2020/21’; ii. adopts the proposed dog registration fees, and associated fees, for 2020/21 as specified in Attachment 4 to Report 069/20. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 12.00 pm and reconvened at 12.10 pm

2020-21 ANNUAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS – PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGES (068/20) 108 The report providing background on proposed changes to the 2020/2021 budgets and seeking approval of the proposed budget changes and the supplementary paper seeking Council agreement for the 2020/2021 rates increase were presented by the Chief Executive and Manager Finance, noting that the budgets would need further revision based on the decisions Council had made at the current meeting. The supplementary report provided the information requested by elected members in relation to different options for average rate increases. Members who supported a zero percentage (no change) rates increase acknowledged the current tough financial situation and thought that Council needed to support the community as much as it could, noting that other councils around the country had also supported zero percentage rates increases. Those who supported the alternative 2% average rates increase noted that Council still had a business to run and thought that the financial impact of COVID-19 was as yet not fully known and preferred to leave a buffer in case further relief was needed in the future.

The recommendations in Report 068/20 and Supplementary Report 068/20 were combined and then taken as follows:

Moved Councillor B Johnson That Council: i. receives Report 068/20 ‘2020‐21 Annual Plan Deliberations – proposed budget changes’. ii. approves the proposed budget changes contained within Report 068/20 for the 2020/21 financial year. iii receives the report ‘2020-21 Annual Plan - Rates Increase Options Supplementary Report’ dated 27 May 2020. Iv agrees to apply $1,210,000 from reserves to achieve no change (0.0% as an average) to rates and to consider whether Council will repay the funds to the Reserve as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031. Seconded Councillor T Nixon and LOST

VOTES FOR VOTES AGAINST Councillor B Johnson Mayor L Patterson Councillor G Caffell Councillor B Gare Councillor D Holmes Councillor G McClymont Councillor F Mailman Councillor T Nelson Councillor T Nixon Councillor C Peterson Councillor S Ryan

Moved by Councillor C Peterson That Council: i. receives Report 068/20 ‘2020‐21 Annual Plan Deliberations – proposed budget changes‘. 109 ii. approves the proposed budget changes contained within Report 068/20 for the 2020/21 financial year. iii receives the report ‘2020-21 Annual Plan - Rates Increase Options Supplementary Report’ dated 27 May 2020. Iv agrees to apply $620,000 from reserves to achieve an average rates increase of 2% and to consider whether Council will repay the funds to the Reserve as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 Seconded Councillor B Gare and CARRIED VOTES FOR VOTES AGAINST Mayor L Patterson Councillor B Johnson Councillor G Caffell Councillor D Holmes Councillor B Gare Councillor F Mailman Councillor G McClymont Councillor T Nixon Councillor T Nelson Councillor C Peterson Councillor S Ryan

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED AT THE MEETING OF MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 27 MAY 2020

MOVED BY: Councillor D Holmes

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

Confirmation of Minutes 16. Confirmation of Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded 1 May 2020

General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in section 48(1) for considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution Confirmation of Minutes Refer to page 105 Refer to page 105 of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 1 May 2020

SECONDED BY: Councillor S Ryan and CARRIED

The meeting moved into public excluded at 12.50 pm The meeting moved out of public excluded at 12.56 pm The meeting closed at 12.56 pm

Confirmed at the Meeting of the Council held on Wednesday 24 June 2020

………………………………………………… 101

084/20 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 2020 AT 10.00AM

PRESENT Mayor Lyn Patterson (Chair), Councillors G Caffell, B Gare, B Johnson, F Mailman, T Nelson, S Ryan, C Peterson and iwi representative Ra Smith. IN ATTENDANCE Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Strategic Planning, Communications and Marketing Manager, Roading Manager, Assets and Operations Administrator, Governance Advisor, one media representative.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Councillor Mailman declared that he was a member of the Wairarapa Road Safety Council. APOLOGIES Moved by Councillor Johnson That the apologies for non-attendance received from Councillor Holmes, Councillor McClymont and Councillor Nixon be accepted. Seconded by Councillor G Caffell and CARRIED

LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 There were no late items.

ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 48(1)(A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 There were no items to be considered with the public excluded.

2019/2020 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW DELIBERATIONS (075/20) The report providing council with a summary of submissions received on the 2019/2020 Speed Limit Review and providing advice to Council in relation to proposed changes to the speed bylaw schedules for the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw was presented by the Roading Manager. The speed change for Riversdale was discussed as the proposal was for the speed limit to progress straight from 100kph to 30kph. Staff advised that there would be advanced signage to make sure people were aware of the change ahead and slowed down. There had been requests for more speed humps at Riversdale and staff would evaluate the need for this once the changes are in place. 102

The variable speeds around schools were discussed and members supported reducing the variable 40km/h limit to a safer variable 30km/h limit. Councillor Johnson proposed a motion which amended the table in report recommendation c to change the variable speeds around schools from 40km/h to 30km/h. A correction was made to the table in the motion as the speed limit for Whareama in the table should have included “variable” before the 60km/h. Staff advised that where there were fixed 40km/h speeds around two schools (MIS and Douglas Park), lowering those limits could be looked at in Stage 2 of the speed review which would be Wairarapa wide.

Where submitters had raised issues that related to roads that were under NZTA control, like SH2 north of Masterton, staff advised that those submissions had been sent to NZTA for a response.

Moved by Councillor B Johnson That Council: a. Receives Report 075/20; b. Determines that it has followed consultation requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 and Local Government Act 2002; c. Having considered the requirements under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limit 2017 and the Local Government Act 2002, approves the changes in the table below to the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019, Part Eleven - Speed Bylaw Schedules which includes: i. Amendments to ‘Location from/to’ descriptors for the following areas: Upper Plain area, School Variable Speed Zones, School Fixed Speed Zones, North Lansdowne, and Coastal Settlements; ii. The inclusion of route positions for Bruce Street, King Street, Park Street, Lincoln Road, Church Street, Perry Street, Bannister Street, Jackson Street; iii. Further proposed speed limit changes to: a) All settlement roads within the Riversdale urban traffic area including Riversdale Terraces: from 40km/h to 30km/h (refer Location from/to); b) Riversdale Road: Move urban traffic area further out on Riversdale Road to Route position 2.420m in conjunction with advanced speed slowing warning sign to indicate a change from 100km/h to 30km/h (refer Location from/to); c) All settlement roads within Castlepoint urban traffic area: from 40km/h to 30km/h (refer Location from/to); d) Masterton Castlepoint Road: inclusion of an additional traffic zone that changes the speed limit outside of the Castlepoint urban traffic area to 50 km/h for 150m; e) Tauweru Township: from 60 km/h to 50 km/h. 103

Road Name Location from/to Proposed New Speed Limit (km/h) Tararua Drive From Upper Plain Road to road end 80 Evans Road Entire road 80 Skeets Road Entire road 80 Westbush Road 2.5km mark to road end 80 Totara Park Drive Entire road 80 Upper Waingawa Unsealed section 60 Road Upper Manaia Road Entire road 80 Chamberlain Road Extension of 50 km/h limit to 50 accommodate future development area 480m from Upper Plain Road Queen Street 72m north of Bruce Street to 32m 30 (RP 0.45km to north of Worksop Road 1.24km) Bruce Street Queen Street to Dixon Street 30 (RP 0.03km) King Street Queen Street to SH2 30 (RP 0.09km) King Street Service Service lane – entire lane 30 Lane Park Street Queen Street to Dixon Street 30 (RP 0.11km) including Cricket Street Lincoln Road Queen Street to SH2 30 (RP 0.03km) Church Street Queen Street to Dixon Street 30 (RP 0.10km) Church Street Service lane – entire lane 30 Service Lane Perry Street Queen Street to SH2 30 (RP 0.09km) Cricket Street Entire length 30 Bannister Street Queen Street to Dixon Street 30 (RP 0.09km) Jackson Street Queen Street to RP 0.085m 30 (RP 0.09km) Queen Street Crayne Street to High Street (Kuripuni 30 CBD) First Street SH2 to Cooper Street 30 Fernridge, Upper Upper Plain Road in front of the Variable Plain school from 30 Road 2.165m to 2.540m 104

Road Name Location from/to Proposed New Speed Limit (km/h) Solway, From North Edwin Feist Place Variable Ngaumutawa (4.200m to just 30 Road and Edwin before High Street SH2 (4.420m) Feist Place Te Kura Kaupapa Johnstone Street (0.140m – 0.560m) Variable Māori o to Clyde Street to River Road 30 Wairarapa, including some of Wairarapa Makora Road (0.000m - 0.345m) Teen Parent Unit, Makoura College, Johnstone Street and Makora Road Masterton Primary, South Road (0.350m – 0.590m) Variable South Road Taranaki Street to Millard Avenue 30 Lakeview, Colombo Te OreOre Road (0.700m – 0.970m) Variable Road, Te OreOre from Churchill Avenue to just past 30 Road Colombo Road including some of and Churchill Colombo Road (0.000m - 0.250m) Avenue Whareama, Langdale Road north (5.940m) and Variable Langdale south (6.520m) of the school (subject 60 Road to NZTA approval) MIS, Intermediate On Intermediate Street (0.038m- 40 Street, Lowes Place 0.540m) (includes Lowes Place and Daniell Street (Entire Place) and Daniell Street (Entire Street) Douglas Park, Cole Cole Street (0.970m – 1.500m), 40 Street, Kummer Kummer Crescent (entire crescent) Crescent South Road From RP1.575 to end of road, RP2.500 60 All settlement roads Residential roads with adjustment to 30 within the Riverdale urban traffic area urban traffic area including Riversdale Terraces Riversdale Road Redefine the boundary of the urban 30 traffic area to route position 2.420m Riversdale Road 105

Road Name Location from/to Proposed New Speed Limit (km/h) All settlement roads Residential Roads redefine urban 30 within Castlepoint traffic boundary to route position urban traffic area 61.650m Masterton Castlepoint Road Masterton Redefine the boundary before 50 Castlepoint Road Castlepoint township, route postion 61.500 to 61.650 (150m) Ardsley Lane Redefine urban traffic boundary to 50 include this entire Road Manuka Street From Milford Downs to Ardsley Lane 50 (redefine urban traffic boundary to include remainder of Manuka Street and Ardsley Lane Milford Downs Redefine urban traffic boundary to 50 include this entire Road Tauweru Township On Masterton Castlepoint Road 80 through settlement RP 9.604 km to RP 10.80km Tauweru Township Surrounding streets in the Tauweru 50 township from 100 km/h to 50 km/h Masterton Extend existing 70 km/h past Te Ore 60 Castlepoint Ore Road and Te Bideford Road, align with Speed Rule OreOre 2017 and Road Intersection reduce the speed limit from 70 km/h to 60 km/h

d. Notes that staff will need to seek approval from the New Zealand Transport Agency for the proposed variable speed limit for Whareama School on Langdale Road; and e. Notes that staff will investigate a gateway treatment for the 80/50 threshold for Chamberlain Road, Tauweru Township, Castlepoint, and Fernridge School; and f. Notes that staff will complete a stocktake of all roads raised by submitters to be considered for inclusion in the second stage of the speed limit review. Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.11am 401

028/20 REPORT OF THE AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH AT 2.00PM

PRESENT

Philip Jones (Chair), Councillors G McClymont, T Nixon, T Nelson, C Peterson and iwi representative Tiraumaera Te Tau (from 2.28pm).

IN ATTENDANCE Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Manager Strategic Planning, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Communications and Marketing Manager, People and Capability Manager, Properties and Facilities Manager, Governance Advisor, Audit NZ Audit Manager and one media representative.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts were declared

LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 There were no late items.

APOLOGIES Moved by Councillor G McClymont That the apologies from Mayor L Patterson be received. Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING TO BE RECEIVED (237/19) Moved by Councillor T Nixon That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee held 20 November 2019 be received Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED Due to the attendance of representatives from Destination Wairarapa, Sports Wellington Wairarapa and Connecting Communities, Item 7, in relation to the Second Quarter and Six- monthly Reports, was taken before Item 6.

ITEM LEFT TO LIE ON THE TABLE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING - AUDIT REPORT TO COUNCIL ON THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2019 (227/19) (021/20) The report uplifting the item from the previous meeting in relation to the Audit Report to Council on the Year ended 30 June 2019 and providing additional information was presented by the Manager Finance.

Masterton District Council’s Audit Manager from Audit NZ was in attendance to answer questions about the Audit comment in relation to what should be included in the Annual Report. She advised that the comment was about the decluttering of financial statements and to encourage Council to look at what readers of the report would be interested in and to look to using plain English and avoiding jargon. 402

It was noted that there were legislative and accounting standards requirements around what needed to be in the Annual Report, but the Committee agreed that Council would work towards simplifying the Annual Report for the 2021-2022 year and an addition to the recommendation to that effect was agreed by the meeting.

The Audit comment on the RID Masterfile changes was also discussed and a report back was requested, outlining what the process was, what was high risk, what was low risk and what is being checked. The report back needed to identify where the risks of an error occurring are – e.g. in manual changes or electronic updates.

[Note to minutes: the report back requested on the Audit comment on the RID Masterfile changes is attached to the minutes as Minutes Attachment 1]

Moved by Councillor T Nixon That the Audit and Risk Committee i. Agrees that the item left to lie on the table at the 20 November 2019 Audit and Risk Committee meeting in relation to the Audit Report to Council on the Year Ended 30 June 2019 (Report 227/19) be uplifted from the table ii. Notes the additional information provided in report 021/20 and staff’s commitment to simplify and streamline future Annual Reports as far as possible, while still meeting legal requirements and without losing essential information to tell the story of Council’s performance. iii. That Council moves to simplification of the Annual Report for the 2021-2022 financial year. Seconded by Tiraumaera Te Tau and CARRIED

SECOND QUARTER REPORTS (023/20) The Second Quarter Reports were taken as read. The Manager and Community Development Manager Connecting Communities Wairarapa, the General Manager and Regional Development Manager from Sports Wairarapa, and the new Manager Destination Wairarapa (Anna Neilson) were in attendance to present their reports

Connecting Communities A request was made for the dates of Neighbourhood Planning Group meetings to be provided to elected members.

(Tiraumaera Te Tau joined the meeting at 2.28pm) Moved by Councillor T Nelson That Council receives: (a) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from the Aratoi Regional Trust. (b) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Destination Wairarapa; (c) the six-monthly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Connecting Communities Wairarapa (d) the six-monthly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Sport Wellington Wairarapa Seconded by Philip Jones and CARRIED

403

2019/20 SIX MONTHS TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT (025/20) The 2019/2020 Six Months to Date Financial Report was taken as read.

It was noted that financial contributions were at a similar level to the same time last year as subdivision activity was still happening. The contributions go into reserves but must be spent in particular areas like roading and infrastructure.

Moved by Tiraumaera Te Tau That Audit & Risk Committee receives the 6 months to date financial report and commentary, including Operating and Capital Expenditure Statements contained in Report 025/20. Seconded by Councillor G McClymont and CARRIED

AUDIT PLAN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2020 (024/20) The report providing the Committee with a copy of the Audit Plan for the year ending 30 June 2020 was presented by the Manager Finance.

The Chair noted that Masterton District Council had one of the shortest audit periods in the country. The Audit Manager advised that the reason they have proposed those dates was the confidence they had that they would receive a good quality annual report from staff.

Procurement and contract management were areas of interest that the office of the Auditor General would be focusing on. In that context, the auditors would be looking at the procurement and management of Council’s roading contract. Elected members could also raise any other areas of concern with Audit NZ. Moved by Councillor T Nelson That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Audit Plan for the year ending 30 June 2020. Seconded by Philip Jones and CARRIED

HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT (022/20) The report providing information to assist elected members in carrying out their role under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 was taken as read.

A request was made to add more detail to the report around how Council gains assurance that contractors are complying with their own Health and Safety Plans e.g. how Council is checking and monitoring and how many audits Council has completed. Moved by Councillor C Peterson That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Health & Safety report for the second quarter (1 October to 31 December 2019). Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2019-20 SECOND QUARTER REPORT (026/20) The Manager Strategic Planning presented the report advising the Committee of performance against non-financial measures for the first six months of the 2019/20 financial year.

404

Moved by Tiraumaera Te Tau That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Quarter 2 non-financial performance report for the 2019-20 financial year. Seconded by Philip Jones and CARRIED

POLICY REVIEW WORK PROGRAMME (027/20) The report providing the Committee with information about two policy reviews was presented by the Manager Finance.

A review of the Treasury Management Policy would come to the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting and, dependent on the outcome of a workshop, a report seeking to define the scope of a Rating Review would come to the next Council meeting.

Whether Council had received any response to the letters written to banks in relation to the banks’ investment in fossil fuels was raised. Staff would check and report back.

[Note to minutes: no responses have been received to the letters written to banks] Moved by Philip Jones That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the update on the policy review work programme. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED

Moved by Tiraumaera Te Tau That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:-

Under section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the following matters will be taken with the public excluded :-  Receive the Report of the previous meeting held with the public excluded 20 November 2019. General Business 12. SMT Risk Discussion

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

General subject of each matter Reason for passing this Ground(s) under section 48(1) for to be considered resolution in relation to each the passing of this resolution matter 405

Minutes of Previous Meeting See page 404-406 s48(1)(d) That the exclusion held 20 November 2019 of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceeding to which this paragraph applies SLT Risk Discussion 7(2)(c)(i) s48(1)(d) The withholding of the That the exclusion of the public information is necessary to from the whole or the relevant protect information which is part of the proceedings of the subject to an obligation of meeting is necessary to enable confidence or which any the local authority to deliberate in person has been or could be private on its decision or compelled to provide under recommendation in any the authority of any proceeding to which this enactment, where the making paragraph applies available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. 7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED.

The public was excluded at 3.41 pm

The meeting returned to open session at 4.19 pm

The meeting concluded at 4.19 pm

MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 406

RID Masterfile Changes ‐ report back

1. The Audit comment on the RID Masterfile changes was also discussed and a report back was requested, outlining what the process was, what was high risk, what was low risk and what is being checked. The report back needed to identify where the risks of an error occurring are – e.g. in manual changes or electronic updates.

There are three types of RID maintenance and these may be done by either Quotable Value (QV), the Revenue Manager (RM) and the Finance Officer – Rates (FO). A description of the controls around each maintenance type follows.

Rating Valuations

Maintenance undertaken by Quotable Value is provided weekly in the form of an electronic file which is processed by the RM. The RM will contact QV at the time of processing if any error is identified. The RID alterations accepted from Quotable Value relate to rating valuations, areas and legal descriptions e.g. changes as the result of a building consent or a subdivision.

A reconciliation of valuations between the Council and QV databases is undertaken at least bi‐ annually by the RM and checked by the Manager Finance (MF). One of these reconciliations is always done in May so that there is certainty that the valuation figures being used to set rates are accurate. The reconciliation is later reviewed by Audit NZ as part of the annual audit.

The risks here are minimal. While there is potentially scope for errors to be made at the time valuations change these will be either identified by the RM, or by the ratepayer when they receive notification of the new valuation via post. The bi‐annual reconciliation will identify any possible errors made at the time in recording the new valuations.

Customer Names and Addresses

These are stored as part of core Council information and linked to the RID. A number of staff within Council (as well as the RM and FO) can update this information. Only the RM and FO can add or remove the link between the customer and the property. These links are made when a property changes hands or when a new property is created as the result of a subdivision. The new customer information is provided by Solicitors acting for the interested parties.

There is the potential for data capture errors but we have a link to NZ Post’s post code database and this will provide a warning of an invalid address. Also, the FO receives a regular customer database maintenance report and reviews changes made and checks for errors.

The risk here is low, but if a name or address is recorded incorrectly and not identified through our checks, it will usually be brought to our attention by the rate payer upon receipt of the rate assessment notice.

Property Information Including Rate Factors & Charges

This information is primarily maintained by the RM and more occasionally by the FO. Rate factors are attached to each property and are the basis of the rates charged on that property. Adding or removing rate factors or remissions is required to be done by staff within the Delegations policy.

407

These changes are recorded as part of the property maintenance record. The maintenance record is viewed and signed regularly by the MF.

Each year the RM does a reconciliation of the rating factors as part of the rates setting process. The reports generated will identify inconsistencies e.g. if a property has an urban Uniform Charge but a rural Roading Charge.

Risk ‐ properties are not all being charged the correct rates. This is mitigated through reconciliations which identify inconsistencies.

Risk ‐ fraud eg removing rate factors from a property without authorisation. This is mitigated by all maintenance being recorded and signed off by someone other than the person doing the maintenance.

Summary

RID maintenance errors can occur but there are checks in place to identify them. As is the case with all data entry, there is the potential for a human error, but they will be picked up with reconciliations or when Council is alerted by the customer/ratepayer.

401

061/20 REPORT OF THE AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD BY ZOOM (AND LIVESTREAMED) ON WEDNESDAY 20 MAY AT 2.00PM

PRESENT

Philip Jones (Chair), Mayor L Patterson, Councillors B Gare, G McClymont, T Nixon, T Nelson, C Peterson and iwi representative Tiraumaera Te Tau.

IN ATTENDANCE Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Manager Strategic Planning, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, People and Capability Manager, Governance Advisor, iwi representative Ra Smith (from 4.03pm) and Council’s appointed Auditor.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts were declared

LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 There were no late items.

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING TO BE RECEIVED (028/20) Moved by Councillor T Nelson That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee held 4 March 2020 be received. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED Due to the attendance of representatives from Aratoi and Destination Wairarapa Item 8, in relation to the Third Quarter Reports, was taken before Items 6 and 7.

THIRD QUARTER REPORTS (047/20) The Third Quarter Reports were taken as read. The Director, Aratoi (Susanna Shadbolt) and General Manager Destination Wairarapa (Anna Neilson) were in attendance to present their report and provide elected members with updates in the light of the COVIC-19 situation.

Moved by Tiraumaera Te Tau That Council receives: (a) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 March 2020 from the Aratoi Regional Trust. (b) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 March 2020 from Destination Wairarapa Seconded by Councillor Nixon and CARRIED 402

AUDIT ENGAGEMENT AND AUDIT PROPOSAL LETTERS FOR 2020, 2021 AND 2022 (048/20) The report providing the Audit and Risk Committee with copies of the Audit letters for the three-year period 2020-22 for review and endorsement was presented by the Manager Finance.

Council’s Auditor was in attendance to answer any questions.

The increase in audit fee was questioned in the light of the current COVID-19 situation. The Auditor advised that fee increases had been capped at 1.5% but acknowledged that wouldn’t have made a big difference for Masterton as the fee hadn’t been set to rise as much as it had for other councils. The Office of the Auditor General set the fee increase parameters and so was the appropriate place to raise any objections. A request was made for the Chief Executive to write to LGNZ to raise the matter of fee increases at a national level.

Moved by Mayor L Patterson That the Audit and Risk Committee reviews and endorses the Audit Engagement and Audit Proposal letters for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 financial years. Seconded by Philip Jones and CARRIED

Councillor Nixon and Councillor Gare asked for their votes against the motion to be recorded.

REVIEW OF TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY (055/20)

The report providing the Committee with the opportunity to review and update the Treasury Management Policy and to recommend its adoption to Council was presented by the Manager Finance. Brett Johanson from PWC was in attendance to answer questions. (Councillor McClymont left the meeting at 3.04pm) A request was made for further information about how debt is managed, what instruments Council uses, what instruments are available to use and how the Policy is used in practice. Staff would find some introductory guides for elected members and would include the topic in a future workshop. An amendment to bullet point 3 in Section 4 Principles Of Treasury Activity on page 1 of the Policy (page 441 of the Agenda) was requested to clarify that council wasn’t restricted from using a corporate approach where a lump sum is borrowed and allocated across all projects to “All Where debt is raised for a specific activity or project, and therefore the debt servicing and repayment is funded from the revenue mechanisms associated with that activity”. It was advised that the amendment to the Policy had been made to be transparent about current practice but wasn’t intended to be restrictive. The LTP review of the Revenue and Financing Policy was the appropriate place to have a further discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of the corporate approach to debt. 403

The investment side of the Policy, and whether Council wanted to change its risk in relation to what asset it invests in (e.g. in shares), was also flagged as a potential matter for discussion in the context of the LTP Financial Strategy review. Moved by Councillor B Gare That the Audit & Risk Committee i. receives Report 055/20 ii. recommends that Council adopts the changes proposed to the Treasury Management Policy, as set out in Report 055/20 and shown in the marked up Policy (Attachment 1 to Report 055/20) including a minor amendment made at the meeting as follows: Bullet point 3 in Section 4 Principles Of Treasury Activity on page 1 of the Policy (page 441 of the Agenda) to “All Where debt is raised for a specific activity or project, and therefore the debt servicing and repayment is funded from the revenue mechanisms associated with that activity”. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

[Note to minutes: The amended Treasury Management Policy is attached as Minutes Attachment 1] The meeting adjourned at 3.37pm The meeting reconvened at 3.42pm

Members present when the meeting reconvened were Philip Jones, Mayor Lyn Patterson, Councillors B Gare, T Nixon, T Nelson, and C Peterson and iwi representative Tiraumaera Te Tau.

2019/20 NINE MONTHS TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT (049/20) The 2019/2020 Nine Months to Date Financial Report was presented by the Manager Finance who advised that based on the information to hand, most of the surplus reported would be taken up by lost revenue by the year end.

In relation to the consent for the decommissioning of the old wastewater treatment ponds staff advised that the consent needed to be lodged and would be reported back to Council.

Moved by Councillor T Nixon That Audit & Risk Committee receives the 9 months to date financial report and commentary, including the Operating and Capital Expenditure Statements contained in Report 049/20. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2019-20 THIRD QUARTER REPORT (050/20) The report advising the Committee of performance against non-financial measures for the first nine months of the 2019/20 financial year was taken as read. 404

In response to a question about the not achieved measure for non-urgent customer service requests it was advised that the non-urgent service request definition would be looked at when Council considered performance measures for the next LTP.

(Ra Smith joined the meeting at 4.03) Moved by Councillor T Nelson That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Quarter 3 non-financial performance report for the 2019-20 financial year. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

FINANCE UPDATE (051/20) The report providing the Audit and Risk Committee with an update on three aspects of Council business that are relevant to risk and costs of Council operations was presented by the Manager Finance. It was noted that delivery of rating valuations to property owners may be delayed until January 2021. Moved by Mayor L Patterson That the Audit & Risk Committee receives the report and notes the information regarding: - rating valuations (QV contract and revaluations) - LGFA changes - Council’s insurance programme for 2020/21. Seconded by Tiraumaera Te Tau and CARRIED

NZTA INVESTMENT AUDIT REPORT ACTION UPDATE (052/20) The report providing the Audit and Risk Committee with an update on the July 2019 NZTA Investment Audit recommendations was taken as read. Moved by Mayor L Patterson That the Audit and Risk Committee notes the action update on the July 2019 NZTA Investment Audit Report July 2019 recommendations. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT (022/20) The report providing information to assist elected members in carrying out their role under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 was taken as read. In response to a question about how staff potentially working long hours from home was managed in an unsupervised environment, it was advised that the Senior Leadership Team had been proactive in ensuring staff wellbeing was being looked after. 405

Moved by Tiraumaera Te Tau That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Health & Safety report for the third quarter (1 January to 31 March 2020). Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

EXCEPTION TO PROCUREMENT POLICY (054/20)

The report advising the Audit and Risk Committee of an exception to procurement over the value of $50,000 as required by the Procurement Policy was taken as read. Staff were asked whether local contractors had been approached to do the work. It was advised that the staff had tried to source the work locally but that no local contractors had expressed an interest in quoting.

Moved by Philip Jones That the Audit and Risk Committee notes the exception to the procurement (in relation to maintenance work on the Queen Elizabeth Park Kids Own Playground Flying Fox) reported in Report 054/20. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED

Moved by Philip Jones Under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the following matters will be taken with the public excluded :-

15. Minutes of the Previous meeting held with the public excluded 4 March 2020 (028/20PE) 16. Risk Register Update 17. SLT Risk Discussion

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

Minutes of the meeting held See page 404-405 s48(1)(d) with the public excluded 4 That the exclusion of the public March 2020 from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceeding to which this paragraph applies 406

Risk Register Update 7(2)(c)(i) s48(1)(d) The withholding of the information That the exclusion of the public SLT Risk Discussion is necessary to protect information from the whole or the relevant which is subject to an obligation of part of the proceedings of the confidence or which any person meeting is necessary to enable has been or could be compelled to the local authority to deliberate provide under the authority of any in private on its decision or enactment, where the making recommendation in any available of the information would proceeding to which this be likely to prejudice the supply of paragraph applies similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. 7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

Seconded by Tiraumaera Te Tau and CARRIED.

The public was excluded at 4.42 pm

The meeting returned to open session at 5.35 pm

The meeting concluded at 5.35 pm 061/20 MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1

Treasury Management Policy

Including Liability Management Policy & Investment Policy

20 May 2020

CONTENTS

1 Purpose ...... 3 2 Objective ...... 3 3 Scope ...... 3 4 Principles of Treasury Activity ...... 3 5 Delegation of Authority ...... 4 6 Liability Management Policy ...... 4 6.1 Borrowing Limits...... 4 6.2 Borrowing Mechanisms ...... 5 6.3 Security ...... 5 6.4 Debt Repayment ...... 5 6.5 Guarantees, Contingent Liabilities and Other Financial Arrangements ...... 5 6.6 Internal Borrowing ...... 5 6.7 New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Limited ...... 6 7 Investment Policy ...... 6 7.1 Acquisition of New Investments ...... 6 7.2 Equity Investments ...... 7 7.3 Property Investment ...... 7 7.4 Financial Investments ...... 7 7.5 Internal Loans/Investments ...... 9 7.6 Investment Management and Reporting Procedures ...... 9 8 Risk Recognition/Identification Management ...... 9 8.1 Liquidity and Funding Risk ...... 10 8.2 Interest Rate Risk on External Borrowing ...... 10 8.3 Financial Investment Interest Rate/Maturity limits ...... 12 8.4 Counterparty Credit Risk ...... 12 8.5 Financial Instruments ...... 12 9 Other ...... 12 9.1 Foreign Currency ...... 12 9.2 Operational Risk ...... 13 9.3 Legal Risk ...... 13 10 Measuring Treasury Performance...... 13 11 Exceptions ...... 13 12 Review of Policy ...... 13 13 Reporting ...... 14 14 Definitions ...... 14 15 Related Documents ...... 15 16 Version Control ...... 15

Appendix 1: Approved Financial Instruments Appendix 2: Investment Counterparty Limits

Adopted by: Masterton District Council (as recommended by the Audit and Risk Committee Date of Approval: 24 June 2020 Policy Number: MDC025 Review Date: 20 February 2022

1 PURPOSE The purpose of the Treasury Management Policy is to ensure Masterton District Council (MDC) undertakes its borrowing and investment activities, prudently, efficiently and in accordance with the requirements of the: • Local Government Act 2002 (LGA); • Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014; • Trustee Act 1956; and • Liability Management Policy and Investment Policy as outlined within this document.

2 OBJECTIVE The objective of this Policy is to control and manage borrowing costs, investment returns, liquidity and risks associated with managing the Council’s financial assets and liabilities.

3 SCOPE This policy applies to all MDC borrowing and investment activity (referred to as treasury activity). This policy does not apply to other aspects of MDC’s financial operations (eg transactional banking and systems of internal control)

4 PRINCIPLES OF TREASURY ACTIVITY MDC will undertake all treasury activities in accordance with the LGA and the following principles: • To prudently manage MDC’s Treasury liability and investment policies, and all identified treasury risks within policy limits and parameters. • Minimise costs and risks in the management of MDC’s borrowing through flexibility and spread of debt maturities. • Where debt is raised for a specific activity or project, the debt servicing and repayment is funded from the revenue mechanisms associated with that activity. • Manage investments to optimise returns in the long term whilst balancing risk and return considerations. • Safeguard MDC's financial assets and investment capital through restricting assets classes to low risk and accepting lower returns that will result. • Maintain appropriate liquidity levels and manage MDC’s cash flows to meet known and predictable funding requirements. • To minimise exposure to credit risk by dealing with and investing in credit worthy counterparties. • Ensure that financial planning will not impose an unequitable spread of costs/benefits over current and future ratepayers. • To ensure adequate internal controls exist to protect MDC’s financial assets and to prevent unauthorised transactions. • Ensure compliance with all risk control limits, financial ratios, and external lender requirements. • Develop and maintain relationships with financial institutions, LGFA, investors and investment counterparties.

MDC is risk averse and will avoid risk in its treasury management activities. MDC seeks to manage, not capitalise on, any risk associated with interest rates, liquidity, funding, default or credit, and operations. Any activity which may be construed as speculative in nature is not permitted under this policy.

5 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY MDC will ensure effective controls over treasury management and segregation of duties controls are in place. All treasury activities will be undertaken in accordance with the authority limits set out in the Governance Delegations Manual and the Chief Executive and Staff Delegations Manual.

6 LIABILITY MANAGEMENT POLICY MDC may borrow in order to: • raise specific debt associated with projects and capital expenditure; • fund the balance sheet as a whole, including working capital requirements; or • fund assets whose useful lives extend over several generations of ratepayers

Borrowing provides a basis to achieve inter-generational equity by aligning long-term assets with long-term funding sources, ensuring that costs are met by those ratepayers benefiting from the investment.

6.1 Borrowing Limits MDC will manage external borrowing within the limits detailed in the table below.

Item Borrowing Limit Net External Debt/Total Revenue <150% Net Interest on External Debt/Total Revenue <10% Net Interest on External Debt/Annual Rates Income <15% Net Interest on Internal and External Debt/Annual Rates Income <20% Liquidity (External term debt + unutilised committed loan >110% facilities + cash and cash equivalents / External term debt)

Borrowing limit definitions are outlined within the Appendices. Financial covenants are measured on MDC only, there is no consolidated group. Disaster recovery requirements will be met through the liquidity ratio and special reserve funds that held as term investments. Net External Debt is defined as Total External Borrowing less all Financial Assets (as listed in the Statement of Financial Position) and is consistent with the LGFA’s definition. See Section 13 of this policy for the LGFA’s definition of Net Debt. Approval of Borrowing New debt and the debt repayment programme is approved at the time of adopting the Long Term Plan (LTP) or Annual Plan. MDC’s Financial Strategy (as included in the LTP) depicts the impact of the changing levels of debt and investments over the future ten year period. All projected external borrowing is approved in advance by the Council as part of the Annual Plan or LTP process, or by resolution of the Council.

6.2 Borrowing Mechanisms MDC will use the most appropriate and cost effective borrowing method available. Approved borrowing mechanisms include: • issuing stock/bonds; • commercial paper (CP) and debentures; • direct bank borrowing; • bonds issued by New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA); • accessing the short and long-term wholesale/retail debt capital markets directly or indirectly (including LGFA bespoke and short-term lending); • accessing stand-by facilities with the LGFA; and • internal borrowing – offset by cash holdings of reserves and special funds.

6.3 Security MDC’s security is provided by a charge over rates revenue, offered through a Debenture Trust Deed. Under the Debenture Trust Deed, MDC’s borrowing is secured by a floating charge over all MDC rates levied under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The security offered by MDC ranks equally with other lenders. With Council approval, security may be offered by providing a charge over one or more of MDC’s assets. Physical assets will be charged only where: • there is a direct relationship between the debt and the purchase or construction of the asset, which it funds (e.g. project finance); or • Council considers a charge over physical assets to be appropriate. Any pledging of physical assets must comply with the terms and conditions contained within the security arrangement.

6.4 Debt Repayment All portions of debt will be progressively repaid or refinanced as it falls due, in accordance with the applicable borrowing mechanism. Subject to the appropriate approval and debt limits, a loan may be rolled over or re-negotiated as and when appropriate.

6.5 Guarantees, Contingent Liabilities and Other Financial Arrangements MDC may act as guarantor to financial institutions on loans or enter into incidental arrangements for organisations, clubs, Trusts, or business units, if the purposes of the loan are in line with MDC’s strategic objectives. MDC will not guarantee loans to Council-Controlled Trading Organisations, in accordance with the LGA (s.62). MDC will ensure that sufficient funds or lines of credit exist to meet amounts guaranteed. Guarantees given will not exceed any amount agreed by Council or Council committee. The Manager Finance will monitor guarantees and report annually to Council. Conditions to financial arrangements, such as loan advances, are detailed later in this document.

6.6 Internal Borrowing Internal loans are sourced from MDC’s cash investments and are recognised as a valid means of funding projects, minimising the cost of borrowing while providing a market return on investment funds. 5

6.7 New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Limited Regardless of any other provision in this policy, MDC may borrow from the LGFA and, in connection with that borrowing, may enter into the following related transactions to the extent it considers appropriate: • contribute a portion of its borrowing back to the LGFA as an equity contribution to the LGFA e.g. borrower notes; • provide a guarantee over the indebtedness of the LGFA and to the extent of the MDC’s shareholding percentage in the LGFA itself; • commit to contributing additional equity (or subordinated debt) to the LGFA if required; • secure its borrowing from the LGFA and the performance of other obligations to the LGFA or its creditors with a charge over MDC's rates and rates revenue (using a Debenture Trust Deed), or • subscribe for shares and uncalled capital in the LGFA.

7 INVESTMENT POLICY MDC’s primary objective is to protect its investment capital and ensure that a prudent approach to risk/return is applied, in accordance with this policy. MDC may hold financial, property, forestry, and equity investments if there is strategic, commercial, economic or other valid reason (e.g. where it is the most appropriate way to deliver or administer a Council function). Generating a commercial return on strategic investments is a secondary objective. MDC will act effectively and appropriately to: • protect MDC’s capital; • ensure investments are available to benefit MDC’s current and future ratepayers; • ensure ethical investing principles are followed, where they may be applicable to an investment decision; • maintain a prudent level of liquidity and flexibility to meet both planned and unforeseen cash requirements; and • use investment funds to repay debt. MDC is a net borrower, meaning external debt is more than financial assets. There are strategic reasons to hold investments while also holding debt. However, MDC recognises that holding too much in financial assets, which generally earn less than the cost of the debt, is not prudent. A prudent maximum level of financial assets is regarded as between $14m and $16m and a medium term target level is reducing it to $12m. These totals exclude short term cash and deposits held for working cashflow purposes and any funds held and invested on behalf of related entities. Investment funds can be used to repay debt early and that debt/investment will be tracked using internal loans/investments. MDC will regularly review its approach to all major investments and the credit rating of approved financial institutions.

7.1 Acquisition of New Investments With the exception of financial investments, new investments are acquired if an opportunity arises and approval is given by the Council, based on advice and recommendations from MDC staff. Before approving any new investments, due consideration will be given to the contribution the investment will make in fulfilling MDC’s strategic objectives, and the financial risks of owning the investment.

The authority to acquire financial investments is delegated to the Chief Executive and Manager Finance. Financial investments are reported to Council annually. Refer to the Treasury Management Procedures.

7.2 Equity Investments Equity investments include investments held in CCO/CCTO and other shareholdings. Equity investments may be held where MDC considers there to be strategic community value. MDC may also acquire shares that are gifted or are a result of restructuring. MDC seeks to achieve an acceptable rate of return on all its equity investments consistent with the nature of the investment. Any purchase or disposal of equity investments requires Council approval. Unless otherwise directed by the Council, the proceeds from the disposal of equity investments will be used firstly to repay any debt relating to the investment and then utilised to reduce other MDC debt. MDC recognises that there are risks associated with holding equity investments and to minimise these risks Council, through the relevant committee, monitors the performance of its equity investments on a yearly basis to ensure that the stated objectives are being achieved. MDC seeks professional advice regarding its equity investments when appropriate. New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited Despite any other clause in this policy, MDC may invest in shares and other financial instruments of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA), and may borrow to fund that investment. MDC’s objective in making any such investment will be to: • obtain a return on the investment; and • ensure that the LGFA has sufficient capital to remain viable, meaning that it continues as a source of debt funding for MDC. MDC may invest in LGFA bonds and commercial paper as part of its financial investment portfolio. As a borrower, MDC’s investment is recognised through shares and borrower notes. As an investor in LGFA shares and as a Guarantor, MDC subscribes for uncalled capital in the LGFA.

7.3 Property Investment Property disposals are managed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and, where appropriate, consultation with local communities. MDC’s property holdings for the provision of services such as parks and reserves, sportsfields, senior housing, the district building, rural halls and housing of community groups are not considered property investments under this policy. MDC may acquire property related to the provision or expansion of a service i.e. sewage treatment land or a commercially leased portion of a MDC facility. Again, these will not be considered as property investments. Council may undertake property development initiatives and hold strategic property assets as it thinks appropriate within the local economy.

7.4 Financial Investments MDC may only invest in approved creditworthy counterparties. Credit ratings are monitored and reported quarterly to Council. MDC may invest in approved financial instruments as set out in Appendix 1. These investments are aligned with MDC’s objective of investing in high credit quality and highly liquid assets. 7

MDC’s investment portfolio will be arranged to provide sufficient funds for planned expenditure and allow for the payment of obligations as they fall due. MDC prudently manages liquid financial investments as follows: • Any liquid investments must be restricted to a term that meets future cash flow and capital expenditure projections. • MDC may choose to hold specific reserves in cash and direct what happens to that investment income. • Internal investments/borrowing can be used as an alternative to external borrowing. • Financial investments do not include shares. Special Funds and Reserve Funds Liquid assets are not required to be held against all special funds and reserve funds. MDC may internally borrow or utilise these funds where possible. Trust Funds Where MDC holds funds as a trustee, or manages funds in-trust, then such funds must be invested on the terms provided by the other party. If the other party’s Investment Policy is not specified then this policy will apply. Loan Advances MDC may provide advances to CCOs, CCTOs, charitable trusts and community organisations for strategic and commercial purposes. New loan advances are by Council resolution only. MDC may allow time for ratepayers to pay rates via postponement arrangements or other agreements to pay off debts over time. Those arrangements are governed by separate policies and are not regarded as Loan Advances. MDC does not lend money, or provide any other financial accommodation, to a CCO or CCTO on terms and conditions that are more favourable than those that would apply if MDC were borrowing the money or obtaining the financial accommodation. MDC does not lend to CCTOs on more favourable terms than what it can achieve itself, without charging any rate or rate revenue as security. MDC will not guarantee loans to CCTOs in accordance with the LGA (s.62). MDC reviews performance of its loan advances on a regular basis to ensure strategic and economic objectives are being achieved. The Manager Finance monitors loan advances and reports to Council annually. Borrowing mechanisms for council controlled organisations and council controlled trading organisations To better achieve its strategic and commercial objectives, Council may provide financial support in the form of debt funding directly or indirectly to CCO/CCTOs. Guarantees of financial indebtedness to CCTOs are prohibited, but financial support may be provided by subscribing for shares as called or uncalled capital. Any lending arrangement to a CCO or CCTO must be approved by Council. In recommending an arrangement for approval the Manager Finance considers the following: • Credit risk profile of the borrowing entity, and the ability to repay interest and principal amount outstanding on due date. • Impact on Council’s credit standing, debt cap amount (where applied), lending covenants with the LGFA and other lenders and Council’s future borrowing capacity. • The form and quality of security arrangements provided. • The lending rate given factors such as, CCO or CCTO credit profile, external Council borrowing rates, borrower note and liquidity buffer requirements, term etc.

• Lending arrangements to CCTO must be documented on a commercial arm's length basis. A term sheet, including matters such as borrowing costs, interest payment dates, principal payment dates, security and expiry date is agreed between the parties. • Accounting and taxation impact of on-lending arrangement. All lending arrangements must be executed under legal documentation (e.g. loan, guarantee) reviewed and approved by Council’s independent legal counsel.

External Funds Management Investments made through external fund managers will be to a maximum of $12 million. Investments must be limited to fixed income and cash/cash equivalent securities only. The current mandate is as follows:

Asset Allocation Credit Range ANZ Wholesale Sovereign Bond Fund 45% - 55% AA to AAA ANZ Wholesale High Grade Bond Fund 45% - 55% A- to AAA

The credit restrictions for funds placed with any one institution (per Appendix 2) do not apply to externally managed funds as the portfolio is held in wholesale bond fund products via a trustee. This policy allows the addition of other investment management products and fund managers to complement or replace the ANZ bond funds. Monthly and Quarterly Investment Reports provide a performance summary to ensure the investment guidelines are being adhered to. Interest Rate Risk Management This section refers to the externally managed investment portfolio which has a direct exposure to a change in interest rates, impacting the return and capital value of its fixed rate investments. Management of the bond fund products by the external fund managers assumes the use of interest rate risk management strategies as part of the day-to-day management of the bond fund portfolios.

7.5 Internal Loans/Investments Investment funds held by MDC may be invested in Council capital projects, subject to Council’s selection of debt funding for those projects, via the annual planning or LTP cycle. As a principle, no more than half of the value of special funds and reserves balances is available for internal borrowing/investment. Generally, smaller projects will be funded by way of internal loans.

7.6 Investment Management and Reporting Procedures Investments and associated risks are monitored and managed, and regularly reported to Council. Investments that are managed directly by MDC are a mix of term and current fixed interest investments, with sufficient minimum immediate cash reserves and a cash buffer maintained. The performance of investments is regularly reviewed to ensure MDC’s strategic objectives are being met. Both performance and policy compliance are reviewed through regular reporting.

8 RISK RECOGNITION/IDENTIFICATION MANAGEMENT The definition and recognition of liquidity, funding, interest rate, counterparty credit, operational and legal risk of Council is detailed below and applies to both the Liability Management Policy and Investment Policy. The following section excludes investment funds under external management outlined in section 6.5

8.1 Liquidity and Funding Risk Risk Recognition Liquidity risk management focuses on the ability to access committed funding at that future time to fund the gaps. Funding risk management centres on the ability to re-finance or raise new debt at a future time at acceptable pricing (fees and borrowing margins) and maturity terms of existing loans and facilities. Liquidity/Funding Risk Control Limits To ensure funds are available when needed MDC ensures that: • There is sufficient available operating cash flow, liquid investments and committed bank facilities to meet cash flow requirements between rates instalments as determined by the Manager Finance. • External term loans and committed debt facilities together with available cash/cash equivalents investments must be maintained at an amount of 110% over existing external debt. The liquidity ratio excludes externally managed funds. • MDC has the ability to pre-fund up to 18 months forecast debt requirements including re- financings. Re-financings that have been pre-funded, will remain included within the funding maturity profile until their maturity date. • The maturity profile of the total committed funding in respect to all external debt/loans and committed debt facilities, is to be controlled by the following system: Period Minimum % Maximum % 0 to 3 years 15% 60% 3 to 7 years 25% 85% 7 years plus 10% 60%

• A funding maturity profile that is outside the above limits, but self corrects within 90-days is not in breach of this policy. However, maintaining a maturity profile beyond 90-days requires specific approval by Council. • To minimise concentration risk the LGFA require that no more than the greater of NZD 100 million or 33% of a MDC’s borrowings from the LGFA will mature in any 12-month period.

8.2 Interest Rate Risk on External Borrowing Risk Recognition Interest rate risk is the risk that funding costs will materially impact projections included in the LTP or Annual Plan. This would adversely impact revenue projections, cost control, and capital investment decisions, returns and feasibilities. The primary objective of interest rate risk management is to reduce uncertainty relating to interest rate movements through fixing/hedging of interest costs. Certainty around interest costs will be achieved through active management of underlying interest rate exposures.

Interest Rate Risk Control Limits Exposure to interest rate risk is managed and mitigated through the risk control limits defined in the table below. Council’s forecast gross external debt should be within the following fixed/floating interest rate risk control limits. Forecast gross external debt is the amount of total external debt for a given period. This allows for pre-hedging in advance of projected physical drawdown of new debt. When approved forecasts are

changed (signed off by the CFO or equivalent), the amount of interest rate fixing in place may have to be adjusted to ensure compliance with the Policy minimum and maximum limits.

Debt Interest Rate Policy Parameters (calculated on rolling monthly basis) Debt Period Debt Amount Minimum Maximum Actual Compliant Ending Fixed Fixed Fixed (Y/N) Current 40% 90% Year 1 40% 90% Year 2 35% 85% Year 3 30% 80% Year 4 25% 75% Year 5 20% 70% Year 6 0% 65% Year 7 0% 60% Year 8 0% 50% Year 9 0% 50% Year 10 0% 50% Year 11 plus 0% 25%

A fixed-rate maturity profile that is outside the above limits, but self corrects within 90-days is not considered to be a breach of this policy. Maintaining a maturity profile beyond 90-days requires specific approval by Council. • “Fixed Rate” is defined as all known interest rate obligations on forecast gross external debt, including where hedging instruments have fixed movements in the applicable reset rate. • “Floating Rate” is defined as any interest rate obligation subject to movements in the applicable reset rate. • Fixed interest rate percentages are calculated based on the average amount of fixed interest rate obligations relative to the average forecast gross external debt amounts for the given period (as defined in the table above). • Interest rate swap maturities beyond the maximum LGFA bond maturity must be approved by Council through a specific approval. • Hedging outside the above risk parameters must be approved by Council. • Interest rate options must not be sold outright. However, one for one collar option structures are allowable, whereby the sold option is matched precisely by amount and maturity to the simultaneously purchased option. During the term of the option, only the sold side of the collar can be closed out (i.e. repurchased) otherwise, both sides must be closed simultaneously. The sold option leg of the collar structure must not have a strike rate “in-the-money”. • Purchased borrower swaptions mature within 18 months. • Interest rate options with a maturity date beyond 12 months that have a strike rate (exercise rate) higher than 2.00% above the appropriate swap rate, cannot be counted as part of the fixed rate hedge percentage calculation. (i.e. an ineffective hedge).

• Forward start period on swaps and collar strategies to be no more than 36 months unless the forward start swap/collar starts on the expiry date of an existing swap/collar and has a notional amount which is no more than that of the existing swap/collar. Hedging outside the above risk parameters must be approved by Council.

8.3 Financial Investment Interest Rate/Maturity limits The following control limits are designed to manage interest rate and maturity risk on the financial investment portfolio managed internally by MDC (i.e. excludes externally managed funds). The portfolio comprises treasury financial investments. An important objective of the financial investment portfolio is to match the portfolio’s maturity term to planned expenditure thereby ensuring that investments are available when required. Financial investments should be restricted to a term that meets future cash flow projections and be mindful of forecast debt associated with future capital expenditure programmes as outlined within the LTP.

Period Minimum % Maximum % 0 to 6 months 30% 80% 6 to 12 months 20% 70% 1 to 3 years 0% 50% 3 years plus 0% 20%

The repricing/maturity mix can be changed, within the above limits through sale/purchase of financial investments.

8.4 Counterparty Credit Risk Counterparty credit risk is the risk of losses (realised or unrealised) arising from a counterparty defaulting on a financial instrument where MDC is a party. The credit risk to MDC in a default event will be weighted differently depending on the type of instrument entered into. MDC will only borrow from strongly rated banks with a minimum long-term credit rating of at least “A” (S&P, or equivalent Fitch or Moody’s rating). Treasury related transactions will only be entered into with organisations specifically approved by the Council. Entities and financial instruments are outlined within the Appendices. Counterparties and limits are only approved on the basis of Standard & Poor’s (S&P, or equivalent Fitch or Moody’s rating) long and short-term credit ratings matrix provided within the Appendices.

8.5 Financial Instruments Approved financial instruments for cash management and borrowing, investments, interest rate and foreign exchange risk management are outlined in Appendix 1.

9 OTHER

9.1 Foreign Currency MDC has minor foreign exchange exposure through the occasional purchase of foreign exchange denominated services, plant and equipment. Generally, all individual commitments over NZ$100,000 equivalent are hedged using forward foreign exchange contracts, once expenditure is approved, legal commitment occurs and the purchase order is placed, exact timing, currency type and amount are known. Per the LGA, MDC will not borrow or enter into incidental arrangements, within or outside New Zealand, in currency other than New Zealand currency.

MDC does not hold investments denominated in foreign currency.

9.2 Operational Risk Operational risk is the risk of loss as a result of human error (or fraud), system failures and inadequate procedures and controls. Refer to the Treasury Management Procedures.

9.3 Legal Risk Legal risks relate to the unenforceability of a transaction due to an organisation not having the legal capacity or power to enter into the transaction usually because of prohibitions contained in legislation. While legal risks are more relevant for banks, MDC may be exposed to such risks. MDC will seek to minimise this risk by the: • use of standing dealing and settlement instructions (including bank accounts, authorised persons, standard deal confirmations, contacts for disputed transactions) to be sent to counterparties; • matching of third party confirmations and the immediate follow-up of anomalies; and • use of expert advice.

Agreements Financial instruments can only be entered into with banks that have in place an executed ISDA Master Agreement with MDC. All ISDA Master Agreements for financial instruments must be signed under seal by the Council. MDC’s CE and/or internal/appointed legal counsel must sign under seal all documentation for new loan borrowings, re-financings and investment structures. Financial Covenants and Other Obligations MDC will not enter into any transactions where it would cause a breach of financial covenants under existing contractual arrangements. MDC must comply with all obligations and reporting requirements under existing funding facilities and legislative requirements.

10 MEASURING TREASURY PERFORMANCE Measuring the effectiveness of MDC's treasury activities is achieved through a mixture of subjective and objective measures. The predominant subjective measure is the overall quality of treasury management information. The Chief Executive has primary responsibility for determining this overall quality.

11 EXCEPTIONS Exceptions to this policy are permitted if it would advance MDC’s broader social or other policy objectives. Any resolution authorising an investment under this provision shall note that it departs from MDC’s ordinary policy and the reasons justifying that departure.

12 REVIEW OF POLICY The policy is to be formally reviewed every three years, and annually for internal purposes. The Manger Finance has the responsibility to prepare the annual review report (following the preparation of annual financial statements) that is presented to the Chief Executive. The report will include: 13

• a recommendation as to changes, deletions and additions to the policy; • an overview of the treasury function in achieving the stated treasury objectives and performance benchmarks; and • a summary of breaches of policy and one-off approvals outside policy. The Council receives the report, approves policy changes and/or rejects recommendations for policy changes. The policy review should be completed and presented to the Council within five months of the financial year-end.

13 REPORTING Council and management reporting on treasury activities is based on comprehensive and regular communication of the following areas to ensure high standards of governance and control: • Policy compliance • Risk/exposure position • Performance Council ensures reporting of the Liability and Investment Management Policies is consistent with the requirements of the LGA. Full reporting of the policy compliance, investments held, their performance, debt positions and cost of debt is to be provided to Audit & Risk Committee with two months of the end of the financial year.

14 DEFINITIONS Net External Debt: Net debt is defined as total debt less liquid investments/cash equivalents. When calculating net debt, the LGFA allows the deduction of: • Cash, term deposits and any investments held within investment portfolios (whether these are ring fenced or not). Investment portfolios might include listed equities, fixed interest securities, listed property securities or units in managed funds. • LGFA borrower notes can be deducted. • Any council lending to a CCO or CCTO can also be deducted but only where the CCO or CCTO is a going concern and not dependent upon council financial support. Annual Rates Income: The amount equal to the total revenue from any funding mechanism authorised by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (including volumetric water charges levied) together with any revenue received from other local authorities for services provided (and for which the other local authorities rate). Cash/cash equivalents: Assets defined as being: • overnight cash deposits; • wholesale/retail bank term deposits no greater than 30-days; or • RCDs less than 181 days. Core External Gross Debt: The total external debt maturing beyond 12 months. Floating Rate: any interest rate obligation subject to movements in the applicable reset rate. Investment Property: Properties owned by MDC which MDC is actively seeking to sell/dispose or properties held for strategic purposes but are not part of MDC’s current service delivery needs. Liquidity Ratio: External term debt plus unutilised committed bank facilities, plus cash/cash equivalents, divided by current external debt. Net Debt: Total consolidated debt less cash/cash equivalents and financial investments.

Net Interest on External Debt: The amount equal to all interest and financing costs (on external debt) less interest income for the relevant period (and includes interest from MDC’s externally managed investment funds). Total Revenue: Cash earnings from rates, government capital grants and subsidies, user charges, interest, dividends, financial and other revenue and excludes non-government capital contributions (e.g. developer contributions and vested assets).

15 RELATED DOCUMENTS Governance Delegations Manual CE and Staff Delegations Manuals Corporate Risk Management Policy Treasury Procedures and Process Manual

16 VERSION CONTROL

Date Summary of Amendments Approved By

Appendix 1: Approved Financial Instruments Approved financial instruments (which do not include shares or equities) are as follows:

Category Instrument Cash management and borrowing • Bank overdraft • Committed cash advance and bank accepted bill facilities (short term and long term loan facilities) • Loan stock /bond issuance • Floating Rate Note (FRN) • Fixed Rate Note (Medium Term Note/Bond) • Commercial paper (CP)/Promissory notes • Committed stand-by facilities from the LGFA • Forward starting committed debt with the LGFA Investments • Bank call/term deposits • Bank registered certificates of deposit (RCDs) • Treasury bills • LGFA FRNs/bonds/CP/borrower notes • Local Authority/State Owned Enterprise (SOE) Medium Term Notes (MTNs)/CP/bonds and FRNs (senior) • Corporate CP/MTNs/FRNs bonds (senior) • Building societies short term deposits (up to three months) Interest rate risk management • Forward rate agreements (FRAs) on bank bills • Interest rate swaps including: - Forward start swaps/collars. Start date <24 months, unless linked to existing maturing swaps/collars - Swap extensions and shortenings • Interest rate options on: - Bank bills (purchased caps and one for one collars)

- Interest rate swaptions (purchased swaptions and one for one collars only) Foreign exchange management • Spot foreign exchange • Forward exchange contracts (including par forwards) • Purchased options and collars (1:1 only)

Any other financial instrument must be specifically approved by the Council on a case-by-case basis. All unsecured investment securities must be senior in ranking. The following types of investment instruments are expressly excluded; • Structured debt where issuing entities are not a primary borrower/ issuer. • Subordinated debt (other than Borrower Notes subscribed from the LGFA), junior debt, perpetual notes and debt/equity hybrid notes such as convertibles.

Appendix 2: Investment Counterparty Limits

Counterparty /Issuer Minimum S&P long Investments maximum per Risk management Total maximum Maximum investment term/short term counterparty instruments maximum per counterparty portfolio percentage credit rating per counterparty ($m) ($m) ($m)

NZ Government N/A Unlimited None Unlimited Unlimited

Local Government Funding AA-/A-1 10.0 None 10.0 < 35% Agency (LGFA) NZ Registered Bank (minimum A /A-1 6.0 10.0 20.0 100% rating) (with the exception of Council’s transactional bankers1 which may exceed this for up to 5 working days and when funds are held as pre-funding to match loan maturities)

Local authorities A /A-1 1.5 None 1.5 < 35%

SOEs and Corporates BBB /A-2 No more than $0.5m None 1.5 <35% exposed to

with any single issuer SOEs/ corporates with BBB credit rating. < 10% exposed to BBB credit ratings.

Building Societies, incl BB+ 2.5 None 2.5 < 15% 2 Note Wairarapa Building Society (long term)

Note 1: Limit for Council’s principal bankers (Westpac & ANZ) excludes balances in current and call accounts designated as working funds required for operational cash management purposes and deposits held as pre-funding of an up-coming loan maturity. Note 2: Limit excludes funds held and invested on behalf of other entities. In determining the usage of the above gross limits, the following product weightings will be used: • Investments (e.g. Bank Deposits) – Transaction Principal Weighting 100% (unless a legal right of set-off exists). • Interest Rate Risk Management (e.g. swaps, FRAs) – Transaction Notional Maturity (years) 3%. • Foreign Exchange - Transactional face value amount x (the square root of the Maturity (years) x 15%).

301 074/20 REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE 2020 AT 2.00 PM

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Communications and Marketing Manager, Properties and Facilities Manager, Library Manager, Governance Advisor, and one media representative.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Councillor D Holmes and Councillor T Nixon declared an interest in relation to the item on the Henley Lake Services Upgrade as board members of the A&P Association, and Councillor Nixon as a trustee of the Wairarapa Regional Irrigation Trust.

APOLOGIES

Moved Councillor Caffell That the Infrastructure and Services Committee accepts the apologies for non- attendance from Tiraumaera Te Tau Seconded Councillor McClymont and CARRIED

The Chair introduced the new Library Manager, Corin Haines and the new Project Delivery and Assets Manager, Sofia Craig.

PUBLIC FORUM

Kevin Benge and Peter George from the Wairarapa New Zealand Motor Caravan Association spoke in support of the recommendations in the Henley Lake Services Upgrade report and noted that if Mawley Park closed to the public before the proposed Henley Lake dump station was operational Masterton would lose its motorhome friendly status. They also advised that some funding might be available from the national body for a sump station

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

There were no late items. 302 ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 48(1)(A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

There were no items to be considered in public excluded.

HENLEY LAKE SERVICES UPGRADE (071/20)

The report seeking a decision from Council on dump station facilities in Masterton was presented by the Manager Assets and Operations.

The Manager Assets and Operations advised that the Henley Lake site would be open 24 hours and that it was not intended to close Mawley Park to the public until the Henley Lake site was operational.

With the agreement of the meeting, the recommendation was amended to make it clear that Mawley Park wouldn’t be closed to the public until Henley Lake Dump Station was operational.

Moved by Councillor Mailman

That the Infrastructure and Services Committee:

i. recommends that Council revokes the decision made on 28 February 2018 (035/18) to approve the construction of a new campervan dump station at the Solway Showgrounds; and

ii. approves funding of $30K to provide a publicly available dump station at Henley Lake; and

iii. recommends that Council approves a one-off grant to the A&P Society of $10K to assist with the installation of a dump station for use by their customers; and

iv. confirms that the Mawley Park site is only available for customers of the campground, with no requirement for the operators to provide a publicly available facility, once the Henley Lake Dump Station is operational.

Seconded by Councillor Caffell and CARRIED

INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (072/20)

The report providing the Committee with an update on key infrastructure projects and areas of focus was presented by the Manager Assets and Operations.

The Manager Assets and Operations was thanked for his leadership as Controller of the EOC.

A question was asked about the area between the Men’s Shed and the gate at Henley Lake and whether uses for that area could be moved forward. Staff would advise what was happening with the area.

303

Moved by Councillor B Johnson That the Infrastructure and Services Committee notes the information contained in Report 072/20. Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (073/20) The report providing the Infrastructural Services Committee with an update on key projects and summary of progress, including highlights and any new issues, was presented by Properties and Facilities Manager in the absence of the Manager Community Facilities and Activities.

A number of questions were asked in the community development area for staff to respond to:  What community leaders had Council had discussions with to determine how Council could best support them in the recovery process? (page 324)  Is the condensation inside the library learning centre windows being addressed?  Was the Matariki event on the QE Park Island going ahead again this year?  A request was made for a visit to the completed Library Learning Centre and cricket Grandstand to be arranged for elected members.

Staff were acknowledged for keeping everything on task over the last few months.

Moved by Councillor F Mailman That the Infrastructure and Services Committee notes the contents of Report 073/20. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

The meeting closed at 2.27 pm

601 083/20 REPORT OF THE EMERGENCY AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY17 JUNE 2020 AT 9.30AM

PRESENT

Councillor G Caffell (Chair), Mayor Lyn Patterson, Councillors B Johnson and S Ryan

IN ATTENDANCE

Manager Community Facilities and Activities and Governance Advisor.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No conflicts were declared.

APOLOGIES

Moved Mayor L Patterson That the apology for non-attendance received from Councillor Holmes be accepted. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE MEETING – WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 2020

Moved by Councillor B Johnson

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Awards and Grants Committee:-

• Civic Awards

General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in section 48(1) for considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution ______Civic Awards 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of s48(1)(a) natural persons, including that of That the public conduct of deceased natural persons). this item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7.

Seconded by Councillor S Ryan and CARRIED 602 The meeting went into public excluded session at 9.31 am

The meeting moved out of public excluded at 9.34am

The meeting closed at 9.35am 121

076/20 To: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillors

From: Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject: Appointments to Council Organisations Policy ‐ Montfort Trimble Foundation

DECISION

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

Purpose This report asks Council to agree to make appointments to the Montfort Trimble Trust without advertising the vacancies, as provided for in the Appointments to Council Organisations Policy. Context

The purpose of Council’s Appointments to Council Organisations Policy (the Policy) is to ensure Council follows an objective and transparent process for the selection, appointment and remuneration of Council Organisation directors. Montfort Trimble Foundation is a Council Organisation as Council has the right to appoint members to the Foundation.

The Policy’s appointment process provides that Council must decide in an open meeting whether to advertise a vacancy or to make an appointment without advertising. The Policy also provides that where an appointment is made without advertising, Council must record the decision (including the reasons for not advertising the position) in the minutes of the relevant meeting.

At its 30 October 2019 Inaugural Meeting Council reappointed the previous representatives to the Montfort Trimble Foundation with one appointment expiring on 30 October 2020 and the other on 30 April 2020. Due to the COVID‐19 lockdown no appointment has been made to fill the vacancy which arose on 30 April.

As the position has now been vacant for six weeks it is recommended that Council agrees to make a new appointment for the remainder of the triennium, as quickly as possible, without going through the advertising and appointment process in the Policy. At the same time, for efficiency and to provide certainty for the Foundation Board, it is also proposed that, even though not expiring for another four months, an appointment is also made for the other position to the end of the triennium without advertising that vacancy as well. 122

There are two candidates available with the required skills, knowledge and experience for the positions and Report 077/20 in the public excluded part of this agenda (24 June 2020) recommends those candidates be appointed if Council agrees that those appointments can be made without advertising.

The Policy also provides that the preferred candidate is to be appointed by Council resolution (which may be made in public excluded if required to protect the privacy of a natural person). If made in public excluded, a public announcement of the decision is to be published as soon as practicable.

Analysis and Advice As stated, the Policy’s appointment process provides that Council must decide in an open meeting whether to advertise a vacancy or to make an appointment without advertising. The Policy also provides for an assessment process to be undertaken by a specifically established sub‐committee who then make a recommendation to Council for the appointments. As there are two suitably qualified and experienced candidates available and one of the positions has already been vacant for six weeks it is recommended, in this instance, that Council agrees to make the appointments without advertising and considers the appointments in the public excluded part of this meeting rather than appointing a subcommittee to consider the candidates and make a recommendation to Council at a later date.

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

Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Agree to make two Council’s statutory obligation Appointments without appointments to the under the Act is fulfilled as one advertising may give rise to Montfort Trimble of the positions is currently the perception that Council is Foundation without vacant. not being objective and advertising. The two available candidates transparent if there are have the qualifications and others who might be experience to make a valuable interested in joining the contribution to the Board. Foundation’s board. 2 Do not make the Council follows an open and No other candidates may appointments proposed transparent process for the come forward for selection. and advertise the vacancy appointments when they arise. Cost will be incurred in the for the position which advertising and recruitment became vacant on 30 processes. April immediately and One position is currently advertise the remaining vacant and there will be position when the further delay if the appointment ends in advertising and recruitment October 2020. process is followed. 123

Recommended Option Option 1 is recommended. The appointments can be made immediately, providing certainty for the Foundation for the remainder of the triennium, and the candidates for appointment have the experience and qualifications necessary to make a valuable contribution to the Montfort Trimble Foundation Board.

Summary of Considerations Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Appointments are required to be made in accordance with Council’s Appointments to Council Organisations Policy. Council has therefore been requested to agree in the open part of the meeting to make the appointments proposed without advertising. Council is required by the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Act 2003 to appoint two representatives to the Foundation.

Significance, Engagement and Consultation The decision to appoint Council representatives is not a significant decision in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Communications/Engagement

The appointments will be publicly notified once they have been made.

Financial Considerations

Council does not remunerate Council Organisation appointees so there are no financial implications arising from the appointments themselves. Advertising the appointments, the recruitment process and appointing a sub‐committee as provided for in the Policy will require some expenditure and staff and elected member time.

Implications for Māori

If Council agrees the positions are not advertised Maori are in the same position as any other member of the public as they won’t have been able to apply for appointment as Council representatives on the Foundation Board.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations The decision to make the appointments proposed has no environmental/climate change impact or considerations.

124

079/20

To: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillors

From: Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject: Masterton District Council Rural Advisory Group

DECISION

Recommendation:

THAT Council

i. Receives Report 078/20 in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group. ii. Notes that Council agreed to establish a Rural Advisory Group for the Masterton District at its Inaugural Meeting on 30 October 2020. iii. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Masterton District Council Rural Advisory Group as attached to Report 078/20 (see Attachment 1). iv. Appoints Councillors [name to be added] and [name to be added] to the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group and Councillor [name to be added] as the Chairperson.

Purpose

To seek Council’s feedback on and approval of (with amendments if required) the draft terms of reference for the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group and, if agreeable, to appoint two Councillors to the Group to enable establishment to commence.

Executive Summary

Following Masterton District Council’s 2018 Representation review, where Council agreed to have all members elected at large, Council also agreed to explore the establishment of a rural reference or advisory group to address the issue of providing for a rural perspective in Council decision making.

At its Inaugural Meeting held on 30 October 2019, Council agreed to establish a Rural Advisory Group. It is now proposed that Council approves a Terms of Reference for that group and, if agreeable, appoints two councillors to the Group to enable establishment to commence.

Context

Prior to the 2019 election, when Council undertook a representation review, members were elected from a combination of at large, urban and rural wards. Following the 2018 review of its representation arrangements, Council proposed maintaining the number of councillors at 10 plus the Mayor and to have all members elected at large, based on the view that elected members acted 125

in the interests of the whole community regardless of which ward they were elected from. Four submissions were received and one submitter, Federated Farmers, requested to be heard.

The Federated Farmers’ submission noted that rural service expectations and demands of a district council differ from those of urban residents, for example, farmers want council to focus on things like rural road improvements and effective regulatory management in a rural context, rather than urban concerns like sewage reticulation, lighting and footpaths.

At the time the final representation proposal was confirmed, in order to address the issues raised by Federated Farmers, Council agreed to explore the establishment of a rural reference or advisory group outside the representation review process.

Discussion

A variety of arrangements exist across councils for rural input into council decision making. There are rural community boards, which usually consist of a mix of elected board members and councillor appointments, Auckland Council has a Rural Advisory Panel made up of representatives of a number of groups and Greater Wellington Regional Council has a Farming Reference Group managed by the Greater Wellington Regional Council Catchment Management Group. An independent Rural Advisory Group also exists in Marlborough, although is not supported by council. Marlborough District Council also have a Federated Farmers nominated appointment to their Environment Committee.

The Masterton District has 4,476 rural ratepayers (and 8,226 urban) and a number of rural communities like Bideford, Tinui, Mauriceville and Wainuioru and the beach settlements of Castlepoint and Riversdale.

Under the previous representation arrangements rural ratepayers could vote for the Mayor, one rural representative and five members elected at large. Under the new representation arrangements all ratepayers can now vote for the Mayor and all ten members. As the district no longer has a specifically elected rural representative Council decided at the 30 October 2019 Inaugural meeting to establish a Rural Advisory Group, with membership to be confirmed. Draft Terms of Reference have now been developed to enable the establishment of the group to occur.

Terms of Reference

A rural advisory groups’ purpose is to provide councils with a rural perspective on issues associated with Council services affecting rural communities.

It is proposed that Council will seek advice from the Masterton District Council Rural Advisory Group, where timeframes permit, on • The development of Council policies, plans and strategies as they relate to rural issues, • Council engagement with the District’s rural communities, and • any matter of particular interest or concern to rural communities connected with the functions of Masterton District Council, including, but not limited to, o rates, funding, rural roading, forestry, water resilience, water quality, the Wairarapa Combined District Plan, economic development, civil defence, climate change impacts, coastal issues, bylaws.

126

Where issues arise outside the scheduled meeting cycle requiring the Group’s input, Council will endeavour to seek feedback via email.

The Group’s advice will contribute to ensuring the wellbeing of the District’s rural communities is taken into account for Council policy decisions and planning for the District’s future.

In terms of Council’s governance structure, the Group will not be part of Council’s formal decision- making structure but will sit alongside the Iwi Governance Forum as an advisory group.

Council approval of the Terms of Reference for the Group sets out how the Group’s membership is to be made up and appointed and will give prospective members certainty over what is required of them. It is envisaged the Group will work with staff on the development of an indicative work programme for the term. The Terms of Reference also provide for a review of the Group’s operation after a year, and again at the end of the term, which the Group will also have input into.

Membership and Appointments

It is proposed the Group is made up of eight members including two elected members appointed by Council, one of whom will be the chair.

The other six positions will consist of two iwi representatives from the rural area (nominated by our two Wairarapa iwi - Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne respectively) and four from a publicly run expressions of interest (EOI) process. Although iwi representatives are proposed for the Group, staff are yet to discuss this with iwi.

In addition to public notification via newspapers and other channels, it is envisaged that contact will be made with organisations like the Castlepoint and Riversdale ratepayer associations, Federated Farmers and Young Farmers to seek their assistance in promoting the EOI process through their networks or in actually putting people forward for appointment to the Group.

Appointments will be made by the Mayor and the two Councillor appointees to the Group and will be confirmed by Council resolution.

The terms of reference also include a code of conduct for members and provide that membership is limited to two terms, and if a member doesn’t attend meetings regularly, they can be replaced.

Meeting Frequency

It is anticipated that meetings will be held quarterly commencing in the 2020-2021 financial year however frequency will be subject to review depending on the work programme.

Meetings

Meetings will have formal agendas and minutes in order to give the group some structure. Staff will work with the Group to put together an indicative work programme to enable staff to factor reporting to, and seeking feedback from the Group, into their existing work. Meeting dates will be set for the year in advance.

127

Feedback to Council

Elected members appointed to the Group will report to Council via the group’s meeting minutes which will be received by Council.

Staff support

In addition to a staff lead who will assist with putting together the work programme, coordinate reporting and agendas, and provide feedback back to the Group, administrative support will be provided (for meeting logistics, agenda compilation and minutes).

It is envisaged that a brief induction / introduction to Local Government will be provided to the appointed members before the meeting cycle commences.

Remuneration

It is proposed members are paid a meeting fee plus expenses, unless members are representing a group or organisation and are paid by that body. Elected members will not receive any additional payment for membership of the group.

Any travel expenses related to meeting attendance would be paid on the same basis as elected member expenses set out in the MDC Members Expenses and Reimbursing Allowances Expenses Policy.

Budget Budget of $4,800 has been included in the 2020-2021 Annual Plan for remuneration and expenses associated with the Group. It has been assumed that the cost of servicing the Group by staff will be met from existing positions and budgets.

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

Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Provide feedback on and Establishment of the group and approve the Terms of the beginning of a recruitment Reference (as amended if process can commence. required) attached to Report 078/20 and appoint two Councillors to the Group 2. Provide feedback but do The Terms of Reference can be Establishment of the group not approve the Terms of further developed as directed will be delayed Reference for the group

Recommended Option Option 1 is recommended. The approval of the terms of reference will enable the process of recruiting members and the establishment of the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group to commence.

128

Summary of Considerations Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications The advice of a rural advisory group will contribute to Council’s ability to achieve the objectives set out in the four strands of He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua (Social Development, Cultural Development, Environmental Development and Economic Development).

Significance, Engagement and Consultation The decision to approve the terms of reference does not amount to a significant decision in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Communications/Engagement

Communications will be required once the method of seeking members for the group is finalised.

Financial Considerations

As stated above, there is budget provision in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan for remuneration of members of the Group. Staff and administrative support will be provided from existing budgets.

Implications for Māori The terms of reference provide for iwi representatives to be appointed to the Group from each of the Wairarapa iwi.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations Environmental/climate change impacts and considerations will be issues the group will provide advice, information and recommendations to Council on from a rural perspective.

129 ATTACHMENT 1

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL RURAL ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Purpose ...... 2 3. Outcomes ...... 2 4. Work programme ...... 2 5. Membership and Selection Process...... 2 6. Meetings ...... 3 7. Quorum ...... 3 8. Meeting protocols ...... 3 9. Submissions...... 3 10. Engagement with Council ...... 4 11. Group resourcing ...... 4 12. Staff support ...... 4 13. Review ...... 4 Appendix A: Code of Conduct for Members Appointed to the Rural Advisory Group ...... 5 Appendix B: Qualifications of Members ...... 8 130

1. Introduction The terms of reference for the Masterton District Council Rural Advisory Group set out the purpose, role and protocols of the Group for the 2019-2022 term of council.

Group members must abide by the Code of Conduct for Members in Appendix A.

2. Purpose The Rural Advisory Group provides advice, information and recommendations to Masterton District Council on the following areas: • Council policies, plans and strategies as they relate to rural issues, • Council engagement with the District’s rural community, and • any matter of particular interest or concern to rural communities connected with the functions of Masterton District Council, including, but not limited to,

o rates, funding, rural roading, forestry, water resilience, water quality, the Wairarapa Combined District Plan, economic development, civil defence, climate change impacts, coastal issues, bylaws.

3. Outcomes The group’s advice will contribute to ensuring the wellbeing of the district’s rural communities is taken into account for Council policy decisions and planning for the district’s future. 4. Work programme An indicative work programme will be developed with input from the group.

5. Membership and Selection Process The group will have 8 members. Council appoints two elected members to the group (with one elected member as chair) to act as conduits to Council. The other six positions will consist of two iwi representatives (nominated by the two Wairarapa iwi - Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne respectively) and four from a publicly run expressions of interest (EOI) process.

The Mayor and the two elected members on the Group appoint the remaining group members who will be selected on the basis of their: • ability to provide expert advice on rural issues • understanding of the Masterton District rural community • association with a rural sector group, organisation or rural community • understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Qualification of members is set out in Appendix B.

The group’s term ends one month prior to the next local government elections in 2022. 131

The membership of a group member will cease if one or more of the disqualifying matters set out in Appendix B applies to the group member.

If a member attends less than half of the group meetings, breaches the Code of Conduct or otherwise under-performs in his/her duty as a member, the chair must first raise the issues directly with the member and try and resolve them by mutual agreement. If under-performance continues the chair can recommend to the Mayor that the member be removed from the group.

6. Meetings The group will meet at least three times per year, at a time and location deemed convenient by the majority of members. Unless circumstances require otherwise, scheduled meetings are open to the public and any Masterton District Council elected members.

7. Quorum The quorum required for a group meeting will be half the members if the number of members is even, and a majority if the number of members is odd.

8. Meeting protocols The Advisory Group is an advisory body established by Council. It is not a subordinate decision-making body of Council and does not have any decision-making power. Its role is to advise Council and staff on matters impacting on the rural community of the Masterton District.

Council appoints the chair, who is a councillor. The role of the chair is to lead the group meetings.

The chair is also the spokesperson for the group if external organisations, including central government or the media, seek the views of the group on specific matters. The chair can select a deputy chair who supports the chair to run regular meetings.

Any recommendations or advice to Council should clearly be shown in meeting minutes.

9. Submissions The group cannot make formal submissions to Masterton District Council on council strategies, policies and plans, for example, the annual plan. However, the group may be asked for informal feedback during a consultative process or during the development of a consultative process.

This does not prevent individual members being party to submissions to Council or other external organisations outside their role as group members. 132

10. Engagement with Council The group will raise any issues important to rural communities to Council through the elected member representatives on the group or through the meeting minutes.

11. Group resourcing Council sets an annual budget for the group to cover remuneration and meeting costs. Group members are entitled to meeting fees determined by the council unless: • they are on the group as a representative of an organisation or interest group which already pays them and/or • they are an elected member of Masterton District Council or a Masterton District Council iwi representative. Council will reimburse all members for travel costs to attend group meetings, in line with Council’s Members Expenses and Reimbursing Allowances Expenses Policy.

12. Staff support Staff Support involves: • co-ordinating the development of the group’s work programme • following up on meeting actions • acting as a conduit with relevant parts of organisation for the group • attending pre-meeting briefings with the chair • highlighting potential issues and risks • meeting report and agenda preparation, minute-taking and meeting procedure advice • ensuring guidance and advice from the group is clearly captured • providing subject matter expertise.

13. Review The form and functioning of the group will be reviewed after one year and at the end of the 2019-2022 triennium. 133

Appendix A: Code of Conduct for Members Appointed to the Rural Advisory Group

Purpose The Code of Conduct sets out expectations for the general conduct of the members the Rural Advisory Group.

Principles The principles underlying the expected conduct of members include:  Honesty and integrity Members have a duty to act honestly and with integrity at all times.  Impartiality and accountability Members should consider issues on their merits, taking into account the views of others. This means co-operating fully and honestly to ensure the best advice is provided to the council.  Openness Members should be as open as possible about their actions and advice. This includes having an open mind and a willingness to listen to differing points of view. This means giving reasons for advice given; communicating clearly; not being close-minded and taking personal ownership of comments made publicly.  Respect Members should treat others, including staff, with respect at all times. This means not using derogatory terms towards others, or about others, including in public-facing new media; not misrepresenting the statements or actions of others (whether they be other individual members, Council or Council staff); observing the rights of other people; treating people with courtesy, and recognising the different roles others play in local government decision- making.  Duty to uphold the law Members should uphold the law and, on all occasions, act in accordance with the trust the public places in them.  Stewardship Members should ensure that they and the council use resources prudently and for lawful purposes.  Leadership Members should promote and support these principles by example.

Relationships Chair The chair is the presiding member at the meetings and is the spokesperson for the group. The role of the deputy chair is to support the chair to run group meetings and perform any delegated tasks from the chair. 134

All members Members will conduct their dealings with each other in ways that: • maintain public confidence in the position to which they have been appointed • are open and honest • focus on issues rather than personalities.

Media Spokesperson The chair is the first point of contact for the official view of the group on any issue. Where the chair is absent, any matters will be referred to the deputy chair when applicable. No other member may comment on behalf of the group without having first obtained the approval of the chair. Response to media enquiries In the event that a group member receives a request for group comment directly from a journalist or media outlet, the member is required to forward the request immediately to Council’s Communications and Marketing Manager, as well as the group chair. Group members must not respond directly to media without prior agreement. Where a journalist or media outlet seeks an individual group member’s views, the group member will: • make clear that the views presented represent the personal views of the individual member • ensure that information presented is consistent with information provided to the group • maintain the integrity of the group and Council at all times.

Personal views Members are free to express a personal view in public or in the media, at any time. When doing so, they should observe the following: • comments must make clear that they represent a personal view and must not state or imply that they represent the views of the groups • where a member is making a statement that is contrary to a group policy, the member must not state or imply that his or her statements represent a majority view • comments to the media must observe the other expectations of general conduct, e.g. not disclose confidential information, or compromise the impartiality or integrity of staff.

Confidential information If members receive information that is confidential they must ensure it remains confidential. Confidential information is normally deemed to be such because its public release will cause some harm, either to Council or to other parties.

135

Ethics Members will: • claim only for legitimate expenses • not influence, or attempt to influence, any officer or employee to take actions that may benefit the member, or the member’s family or business interests • not use the resources of the groups for personal business • not solicit, demand, or request any gift, reward or benefit by virtue of the member’s position.

Members’ interests Members act in the interests of the group and not in their own interests. A financial conflict of interest arises when a member stands to benefit financially, either directly or indirectly, from advice given by the group. A non-financial conflict may arise from a personal relationship or association with another organisation or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination. In these situations a member may be influenced by interests that conflict with the duty to act in the best interests of the group. Members must declare any private interests or personal benefits relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts of interest in such a way that protects the public interest. This means fully disclosing actual or potential conflicts of interest; avoiding any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence them in the performance of their duties.

Complaints A complaint about a member’s conduct will be made to the chair of the groups in the first instance, who will counsel the member concerned. Alternatively, concerns about the conduct of any member or chairperson may be raised with the Chief Executive who will give advice on options available to resolve the concerns.

136

Appendix B: Qualifications of Members

To be a member of the Group, a person must

a. be a natural person, and b. consent to being appointed to the board, and c. not be a person disqualified as per the list below:

• a person who is under 18 years of age • a person who is an undischarged bankrupt • a person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or being concerned or taking part in the management of, an incorporated or unincorporated body under the Companies Act 1993, or the Securities Act 1978, or the Securities Markets Act 1988, or the Takeovers Act 1993 • a person who is subject to a property order under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 • a person in respect of whom a personal order has been made under that Act that reflects adversely on the person’s i. competence to manage his or her own affairs in relation to his or her property; or ii. capacity to make or to communicate decisions relating to any particular aspect or aspects of his or her personal care and welfare • a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of two years or more, or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any other offence • a current member of Parliament • a person who is disqualified under another Act.

137

080/20 To: Your Worship and Council

From: Angela Jane, Strategic Planning Manager

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject Combined Wairarapa District Plan Review – Consultancy appointment

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council: a. Receives the report ‘Combined Wairarapa District Plan Review – Consultancy appointment’ 080/20; and b. Approves the appointment of Boffa Miskell as the consultancy firm to provide support for the combined Wairarapa District Plan review.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to: 1. present Council with the recommended appointment of the consultancy to support the review of the combined district plan.

BACKGROUND Under section 79 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the review of a District Plan must commence at least every ten years. As the Wairarapa Combined District Plan became operative in May 2011, and has largely been unchanged, its review must commence by 2021. The current plan was the first Combined District Plan prepared under the RMA in New Zealand and the first, second generation plan to become fully operative. At the 2010 New Zealand Planning Institute Conference, the plan was awarded the Nancy Northcroft Award for Excellence in Planning Practice. Section 80 of the RMA provides an express power for local authorities to jointly prepare planning documents. The relevant clauses are listed below, the whole section is included in Attachment 1. (3) Two or more territorial authorities may prepare, implement, and administer a combined district plan for the whole or any part of their combined districts. (7) Without limiting subsections (1) to (6B), local authorities must consider the preparation of the appropriate combined document under this section whenever significant cross‐boundary issues relating to the use, development, or protection of natural and physical resources arise or are likely to arise. 138

(8) A combined document prepared under this section must clearly identify (a) the provisions of the document that are the regional policy statement, the regional plan, the regional coastal plan, or the district plan, as the case may be; and (b) the objectives, policies, and methods set out or described in the document that have the effect of being provisions of the regional policy statement; and (c) which local authority is responsible for observing, and enforcing the observance of, each provision of the document. (9) A combined document prepared under this section (a) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1; and (b) when approved by a local authority is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a plan or regional policy statement separately prepared and approved by that authority for its region or district, as the case may be.

Review commencement In May 2019 the Council’s Strategic Planning and Policy Committee was asked to consider the future review of the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. The Committee recommended that the review be undertaken jointly with Carterton and South Wairarapa district councils and that the review be commenced. The Council confirmed the resolution at its meeting on 15 May 2019 (minute excerpt below). That the Report of the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meeting held 1 May 2019 (080/19) including the following resolutions be confirmed: REVIEW OF WAIRARAPA COMBINED DISTRICT PLAN (068/19) That the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee recommend Council: i. Agree that the review of the Wairarapa Combined District Plan is undertaken jointly with Carterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council. ii. Approve commencement of a review of the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. Carterton and South Wairarapa district councils also confirmed to review the combined district plan as a joint review. The Strategic Planning and Policy Committee was also asked to consider the scale and the phasing of the review. A District Plan may be reviewed either progressively in parts, in what is usually referred to as a ‘rolling review’, or comprehensively through a full review under s 79(4) RMA. Many Councils across New Zealand have been undertaking ‘rolling reviews’ of their first‐generation plans, in principle to stagger the resourcing involved in such reviews, but also to enable a more focused, better researched and more thorough consultative approach to addressing their major resource management issues than that which occurred in the promulgation of first‐ generation plans. However, a rolling review can, cumulatively, result in a very lengthy and costly process, and leave those parts of a Plan that have yet to be reviewed becoming increasingly out of date. Further, many rolling reviews are never fully completed for example, the Wellington City District Plan review, started in 2003, was never fully completed. Wellington City Council are now about to commence a full review. New Plymouth has a similar history. 139

A full review was supported by the Committee and staff have been progressing with the procurement process for a consultancy to support the review process by working with all three councils to ensure the plan is both legally sound and innovative, and reflects best practice and the aspirations of the Wairarapa community. Scope of review and approach The review scope will include:  Giving effect to new or revised national policy statements and the revised Wellington Regional Policy Statement  Aligning the Plan with recent national environmental standards  Giving effect to the proposed national planning standards making any adjustments needed to the structure, definitions and zoning appellations  Giving effect to the proposed national planning standards to make the plan align with requirements for electronic plans and address any consequential amendments required  Rezoning areas to accommodate growth pressures and/or modify existing zones and standards to enable growth and conversely, if needed, to tighten up protection of resources of important values  Aligning the Plan with recent council strategies  Revising objectives and policies in response to any issues arising from their implementation or to respond to any statutory amendments (for example, the two new section 6 matters of national importance since 2009)  Revising any rules and supporting requirements in response to any implementation issues since 2011 The following three stages are envisaged for the review of the plan: Stage 1: Review, research and scoping Milestones include:  Project plan  Engagement and communication plan  Significant resource management Issues identified  Effectiveness of current District Plan recorded  Issues and options documents  Draft plan Stage 2: Consultation on possible changes through draft plan Milestones include:  Draft Plan for engagement Stage 3: Formal notification and submission process Milestones include:  Proposed District Plan for notification, including associated Section 32 reports  Summary of Submissions Report  Pre‐hearing meeting records and Section 42A Reports  Hearing minutes 140

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

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS Consultancy Request for Proposal (RFP) and budget Staff have conducted a ‘request for proposal’ procurement process which attracted 10 proposals. Two representatives from the three councils assessed the proposals received against the criteria within our request and an evaluation meeting was held to clarify the results and form a recommendation. The evaluation panel consisted of Sue Southey, Planning and Building Manager (MDC); Tim Munro, Managing Consultant (MDC); Russell O’Leary, Group Manager Planning and Environment (SWDC); Godwell Mahowa, Planning Manager (SWDC); Dave Gittings, Infrastructure, Services and Regulatory Manager (CDC); and Solitaire Robertson, Planner/Policy Advisor (CDC). The non‐price evaluation criteria included:  track record – demonstrated experience of a plan review and knowledge and understanding of the Wairarapa and/or districts with similar characteristics (weighted 35% collectively)  technical expertise – appropriate skillsets and professional expertise of individual consultants and skillset and experience in developing e‐plans (weighted 25% collectively)  capacity to deliver – ability to dedicate individual consultants for duration and to draw on additional consultants for peak work periods (weighted 25% collectively)  Project management skills and experience – both strategic and operational support (weighted 15%) The proposal from Boffa Miskell received the highest aggregate score, and also received the highest scoring from each of the evaluators. Boffa Miskell’s proposal was thorough and addressed all the matters raised in the councils’ request. The firm is well known to all three councils and has the added benefit of having worked on the current District Plan development. The evaluation panel was unanimous in their recommendation to appoint Boffa Miskell. The request for proposal asked for pricing information that included rates for the varying levels of expertise, an estimate of how many hours for each phase and an overall estimate for each phase. The recommended consultant was comparable to the other high scoring applications. Budget estimates for a complete review of a District Plan are difficult to predict accurately. The programme leading up to consultation can be more easily managed within time parameters, especially if the council officers and the council governance level (joint Committee) discussions are well facilitated. The workload post consultation is dependent on the quantum and nature of the submissions and the number and nature of appeals that could follow decisions on the final plan. The pricing and estimates provided in the consultant’s proposal for the stages up to formal notification are within the planned budget in the current Long Term Plan. The budget within the 2018‐28 Long Term Plan was $1.13 million. The budget was mostly spread over years 2019/20 to 2022/23. With delays in commencing the review the budget for 2019/20 has been reforecast to 2020/21 and the next Long Term Plan will revise the forward budgets to align with the plan review programme. 141

Staff seek Council’s endorsement to appoint the recommended consultant, Boffa Miskell, to provide support for the combined Wairarapa district plan review. Next steps Staff across the three councils, with Boffa Miskell, will develop a proposal for the three councils to consider on the appointment of a Joint Committee to act as governance advisors through the review process and act as the hearing panel following the formal notification process. A terms of reference will accompany the Committee appointments report which will include details on membership, quorum, chairing and responsibilities. It is intended to delegate the RMA functions to the joint committee to prepare the new District Plan and act as a hearings panel.

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental/climate change impact and considerations Environmental and climate change impacts is core content to be considered in the review of the District Plan. 142

081/20 To: Your Worship and Elected Members

From: Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Masterton District Metered Parking Area Schedule

DECISION Recommendation: That Council: i. Receives the ‘Proposed Amendments to the Masterton District Metered Parking Area Schedule’ Report 081/20; and ii. Adopts the proposed amendments to Schedule 2M (Metered Parking Areas) of Part 10 (Traffic) of the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019, as specified in Attachment 1, being: a) To add a permanent maximum parking time limit of 120 minutes (P120) to all metered parking spaces, effective immediately. b) To add ‘Free Parking 2‐hour limit’ to the window of all parking meters and to update the Metered Parking Zone signage to align with regulations, to reflect the ‘P120’ time restriction. c) To revert the ‘free parking’ back to fee‐paid parking from 1 September 2020 whilst maintaining the P120 time restriction.

Purpose

This report seeks Council to adopt an amendment to the current Traffic bylaw Schedule 2M to align with phase 2 of the Council relief package: Parking in the town centre will be free until 31 August 2020.

This report also sets out an amendment to the Traffic Schedule 2M for a 120‐minute maximum parking time restriction. This will enable ongoing enforcement of the 2‐hour maximum time restriction that is currently displayed on parking meters and remedy a previous omission in the schedule for the Perry Street (Town Square) carpark.

Background

The COVID‐19 pandemic is having a significant impact on the national and local economy. To assist with recovery, Masterton District Council approved a relief package on 1 May 2020 through resolution (see 044/20). Phase 2 includes providing free parking in all metered parking spaces from commencement of Alert Level 4 lockdown through to, and including, 31 August 2020. Council agreed to continue legal

143

enforcement of the 2‐hour maximum time limit indicated on parking meters to ensure turnover of parking spaces in the town centre during the fee‐free period.

The Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10 ‐Traffic and associated schedules, provides for the enforcement of infringement offences in the Masterton District. Schedule 2M documents the area or parts of streets that are declared to be metered zones. However, there is no documented time restriction in this schedule. Separate time restricted only parking areas are documented in Schedule 2L.

Section 5 of the bylaw provides rules to regulate parking in metered zones including the requirement to comply with instructions on parking meters and signs controlling the space, charging of fees and not exceeding maximum time limits. While the instructions on the parking meters state a 2‐hour maximum, the metered parking zone signage does not advise a time restriction. This inconsistency could lead to confusion for drivers taking the opportunity for the free parking and not seeing the meter signage advising of the 2‐hour maximum time restriction. Any enforcement of the time limit could therefore be considered unfair. (Refer to Attachment 4.)

Discussion and Options

Fee‐free parking would not on its own require any amendments to the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019. As it stands, the signage on parking meters could be updated to show ‘free parking applies until 31 August 2020’ and there would be no enforcement required. However, free parking in these high‐use areas may result in drivers parking vehicles for extended periods, including those working in the area. This would limit the turnover of vehicles and reduce available parking within the town centre. Parking meters currently have a sticker attached to the body of the meter advising of a maximum 2‐hour time limit. To enable legal enforcement of parking areas, whether metered, time‐limited or both, the rules providing the restrictions must align with legislation. Legislation that covers parking enforcement in Masterton includes:

 Land Transport Act 1998  Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999  Land Transport Road User Rule 2004  Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Time restricted and Zone Parking included as Attachment 2)  Local Government Act 2002  Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019; Part 10 Traffic (including Part 10A Traffic Schedule)

Bylaws governing the Parking Regulations relevant to this report are found in the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10 Traffic, Sections 4 and 5. (Refer to Attachment 3.) Traffic Schedule 2M (attached to the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10 ‐Traffic), provides the area or parts of streets that are declared to be metered zones, there is no documented time restriction in this schedule. Section 5 of the bylaw provides rules to regulate parking in metered zones including the requirement to comply with instructions on parking meters and signs controlling the space, charging of fees

144

and not exceeding maximum time limits. Whilst the instructions on the parking meters state a 2‐hour maximum, the metered parking zone signage does not advise a time restriction. This inconsistency could lead to some confusion for drivers taking the opportunity for free parking and not seeing the meter signage advising of the 2‐hour maximum time restriction. Any enforcement of the time limit could therefore be considered unfair. (Refer to Attachment 4.) Perry‐Chapel carpark (Town Square) listed in Schedule 2M ‐ Metered Areas, does not currently operate the installed Pay and Display parking meter. The decision to revert to 120‐minute maximum time restriction was made by Council resolution on 28 October 2015. Attachment 5 shows the relevant part of the Council meeting minutes 186/15. The schedule should have been amended at that time to add this parking area to Schedule 2L ‐ Time Restricted parking. However, an oversight meant it was not included. The proposed amendments to Schedule 2M will align this with the current P120 signage of that area and still provide the ability to reinstate the Pay and Display meter if required.

Options for consideration

Option 1

Do not adopt the changes to the Schedule 2M, including a permanent time‐restricted maximum parking time of 120 minutes (P120). This would mean there would be no time restriction infringements to deter users from parking longer the 120 minutes.

Option 2

Adopt the proposed change to Schedule 2M, including a permanent time‐restricted maximum parking time of 120 minutes (P120) to all currently metered areas to align with maximum 2‐hour signage. This option provides clear information to drivers of the time restriction and allows enforcement of overstayers.

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

Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Do not adopt the changes Minimal cost to council to Will not address the to the Schedule 2M, implement change to advise maximum 120‐minute (P120) including a permanent free parking on the parking time restriction. Enforcement time‐restricted maximum meter display. of drivers overstaying the maximum time limit could parking time of 120 minutes (P120) therefore be considered unfair.

Time restriction on metered areas is not documented in Schedule 2M. This includes the current P120 Perry St

145

(Town Square) carpark. This could lead to a reduced turnover of vehicles parked in the CBD, thereby limiting parking space for others. There would be reduced income from infringements issued for parking over the time restriction. 2 Adopt proposed change Aligns Schedule 2M with the Staff time and resource to to Schedule 2M including signage currently displayed on implement the change and inserting a maximum parking meters and section 5.5 remove the extra signage at parking time limit of 120 of the traffic bylaw. end of fee‐free period. minutes (P‐120) Enables enforcement of There would be costs permanently to all overstayers to ensure turnover associated with updating metered areas. of vehicles and can continue information on current when meters revert back to parking signage and providing paid parking. extra signage if it does not currently comply with the Provides clear information to Land Transport Rule Traffic drivers of the time restriction Control Devices 2004. and temporary fee‐free parking in the area.

Staff recommend Option 2. This option corresponds with the COVID‐19 Council Relief Package – phase 2 by providing fee‐free parking spaces in the currently metered town centre area. The proposed change to the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10A ‐Traffic schedule 2M will align the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10 ‐Traffic Bylaw Section 5 with the 120‐minute maximum time restriction signage displayed on the parking meters. It will also enable ongoing enforcement of overstayers.

Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications The Wairarapa Combined District Bylaws include provision to apply time restrictions to carparks by Council resolution publicly notified, in accordance with the Local Government Act (LGA). Under S156(1)(b) and S156(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 there is no longer a need to use the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) for all amendments to bylaws. The obligation to use the SCP is only where a significant matter is concerned (as identified by the significance and engagement policy) or where the local authority considers that there is likely to be a significant impact on the public due to the proposed changes (s.156(1)(a)).

Significance, Engagement and Consultation

The proposed change has been assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement policy. The assessment concluded that it is not significant given that:

146

 The provision for 120‐minute (P120) time restricted parking would align with the signage already displayed on the parking meters since their installation in 2011.

 Consultation with the wider community would not be required as the changes are only to fairly advise the enforcement of the time restriction that currently applies.

 The temporary removal of parking fees for the period to 31 August 2020 benefits the community while entering economic recovery from the COVID‐19 lockdown.

Financial Considerations

There will be a minor financial impact to cover the cost of parking signage which will need to be updated to reflect the changes, this will be covered by existing budgets. Some staff time will be required to implement the change; however, this is also expected to be minimal. There will be a more significant financial impact from the reduction of income from parking meters for the period of fee free parking. This has already been considered and accepted by Council as reflected in phase 2,a,viii of the Council relief package.

Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori

No implications specific to Māori have been identified in this decision.

Communications/Engagement Plan

The community will be notified of the changes to the parking bylaw by public notice as required under section 157 of the Local Government Act 2002. Updated signage will help promote the free parking and the 2‐hour maximum time limit (P‐120) already advised on the multi‐bay meters since installation in 2011.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations

No environmental/climate change impacts have been identified in relation to this recommendation.

147 ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment 1:

PROPOSED BYLAW SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendment will be to Schedule 2M (Metered Areas) of Part 10A Traffic‐Bylaw Schedule of the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019, and are as follows:

SCHEDULE 2M: Metered Areas P‐120

Location Description Date of The parts of streets that are declared to be metered zones Resolution with P‐120 minute maximum time limit shall be: The following areas are restricted to continuous parking of a maximum of 120 minutes Bannister Street Both sides of Bannister Street in the portion between Queen Street and May 2020 Dixon Street. Chapel Street The southeastern side of Chapel Street in the portion between Jackson May 2020 Street and Perry Street. Church Street Both sides of Church Street in the portion between Queen Street and May 2020 Dixon Street. Jackson Street Both sides of Jackson Street in the portion between Queen Street and May 2020 Chapel Street. Lincoln Road The northeastern side of Lincoln Road in the portion between Chapel May 2020 Street and Queen Street. Park Street Both sides of Park Street in the portion between Dixon Street and May 2020 Queen Street. Perry Street The northeastern side of Perry Street in the portion between Chapel May 2020 Street and Queen Street. Perry‐Chapel carpark The northwestern side of Lot 4 DP 85785 adjacent to (Town Square). May 2020 (Town Square) Queen Street The northwestern side of Queen Street in the portion between May 2020 Worksop Road and Jackson Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Jackson Street and May 2020 Perry Street/Bannister Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Bannister May 2020 Street/Perry Street and Church Street/Lincoln Road. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Church May 2020 Street/Lincoln Road and Park Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Park Street and King May 2020 Street.

148 ATTACHMENT 2

Attachment 2:

Land Transport Rule

Traffic Control Devices 2004

Rule 54002

Time‐restricted parking

12.4(10) A road controlling authority may restrict the parking of vehicles by designating an area of road to be time‐restricted.

12.4(11) A road controlling authority must indicate a time‐restricted parking area by providing, in accordance with 12.5, appropriate signs that comply with Schedule 1, and which must specify the time limit to which parking in the area is restricted.

12.4(12) A road controlling authority may mark a time‐restricted parking area that complies with Schedule 2.

Zone parking

12.4(13) A road controlling authority may restrict the parking of vehicles by designating a zone parking area, which is a defined area of roadway where parking is permitted or prohibited for a specified class or classes of vehicle or class or classes of road user (with or without a time restriction).

12.4(14) A road controlling authority must indicate a zone parking area by providing zone parking control notification signs and supplementary zone parking signs that comply with Schedule 1, and that must be:

 (a) installed at each entry point to the zone to which the zone parking control applies, and at each exit point from the zone;

 (b) provided at distances of not more than 100 m between any two signs;

 (c) installed on either side of an area within the zone marked by any of the parking signs specified in Schedule 1;

 (d) placed as close as practicable to the roadway facing the direction in which road users, on the side of the roadway on which the signs are installed, are approaching the signs.

12.5 General requirements for signing parking restrictions

12.5(1) Except as provided in 12.5(3), a road controlling authority must indicate a parking restriction, other than a zone parking restriction in 12.4(14), by providing parking signs, as specified in Schedule 1 and, if appropriate, with arrows or supplementary notices, defining their area or time of application:

 (a) at each end of the section of roadway affected; and

149

 (b) at or near both sides of any intervening intersection; and

 (c) at distances of not more than 100 m between any two signs.

12.5(2) Arrows, or signs incorporating arrows, to indicate the direction of application of a sign must be installed parallel to, or at an angle of not more than 45 degrees from, the side of the roadway to which they relate.

12.5(3) A road controlling authority does not have to provide signs to indicate a restriction on parking, or the extent of the restriction, if parking is controlled by parking meters that are located at, or adjacent to, each parking space.

12.6 Application of parking signs

12.6(1) A parking restriction that is indicated by a sign incorporating the letter ‘P’ on the top of the sign, or that relates to a loading zone, applies between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on days other than public holidays, unless otherwise specified on the sign or on a supplementary sign.

12.6(2) The expression ‘other times’, or an expression that has a similar effect, on a parking sign means that the restriction applies only during the time specified, but does not apply during the times specified by an immediately adjacent sign that notifies a different time restriction.

12.6(3) Parking signs, other than those in 12.6(1) and 12.6(2), apply at all hours of the day and night, unless a time period is specified on the sign.

12.6(4) Not more than two parking signs, or three parking signs provided one of them is a ‘Clearway’ or special vehicle lane sign, or one parking sign and one pedestrian sign, may be erected on the same pole or in the same location on the same building, wall or fence.

150 ATTACHMENT 3

Attachment 3:

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Part 10 Traffic, Sections 4 and 5: 4. Metered Areas, Parking Meter Zones, and Zone Parking 4.1. Metered parking spaces shall be indicated by white lines painted on the road in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. Pay and display zones and areas of zone parking shall be indicated by signs in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. 4.2. Parking meters shall be located within the metered area and areas of zone parking that they are to control. 5. Parking Fee to be Paid 5.1. No driver or person in charge of a vehicle shall park in a metered parking space or area of zone parking without having paid the appropriate fee and, where required, correctly activated the parking meter controlling the space, or in compliance with any instructions on any parking meter or signs controlling the space. 5.3. Council may from time to time by resolution, publicly notified, prescribe fees payable for the parking of vehicles within a metered space. 5.4. Parking fees must be paid when parking in accordance with schedules to this Part of the bylaw. 5.5. The driver or person in charge of a vehicle may occupy the metered parking space, provided that the appropriate fee has been paid and the maximum period for parking in that metered area is not exceeded.

151 ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 4:

Part - SCHEDULE 2L: Restricted Parking Areas

Description Parking Date of Location Areas set aside as restricted parking areas shall be: Restriction Resolution Lincoln Road The southwestern side of Lincoln Road, commencing at the P-120 11 April 2011 point 16.1 metres northwest of the intersection of Lincoln Road and Queen Street, extending in a northwestern direction for a distance of 21.0 metres.

Lincoln Road The northeastern side of Lincoln Road, commencing at the P-120 11 April 2011 point 20.9 metres northwest of the intersection of Lincoln Road and Chapel Street, extending in a northwestern direction for a distance of 35.9 metres.

Lincoln Road The northeastern side of Lincoln Road, commencing at a P-120 11 April 2011 distance 81.6 metres northwest of the intersection or Lincoln Road and Chapel Street, extending in a northwestern direction for a distance of 106.5 metres.

Lincoln Road The southwestern side of Lincoln Road commencing at the P120 30 September point 49.2 metres northwest of the intersection of Lincoln 2013 Road and Chapel Street and extending in a northwestern direction for a distance of 173.3 metres.

Park Street The southwestern side of Park Street starting at a point 4.2 P-120 11 April 2011 metres northwest of the intersection of Park Street and (adjacent to Cricket Cricket Street, extending in a northwestern direction for 2.4 Street) metres.

Perry Street The southwestern side of Perry Street, commencing at the P-120 28 October point 40 metres northwest of the intersection of Perry Street 2015 and Cole Street, extending in a north western direction for a distance of 197.2 metres.

Perry Street The southwestern side of Perry Street, commencing at the P-120 11 April 2011 intersection of Perry Street and Chapel Street, extending in a (extension by northwestern direction for a distance of 67.0 metres. Municipal Building)

Perry Street The car park situated on P-120 1 July 2008

(Health 2000) • Pt. Lot 1 DP 2806 (Off Perry Street) Queen Street The southeastern side of Queen Street, commencing at a P-120 11 April 2011 (opposite Regent point 126.7 metres northeast of the intersection of Queen Theatre) Street and Worksop Road, extending in a northeastern direction for a distance of 4.0 metres.

Queen Street The northwestern side of Queen Street, commencing at the P–120 11 April 2011 (Resene frontage) point 7.7 metres northeast of the intersection of Queen Street and Renall Street, extending in a northwestern direction for a distance of 23.6 metres.

Queen Street The southeastern side of Queen Street, commencing at the P-120 11 April 2011 (Russell Street to intersection of Queen Street and Crayne Street, extending in Crayne Street) a northeastern direction for a distance of 175.2 metres.

Queen Street The south eastern side of Queen Street, commencing at the P-120 15 May 2019 point of 10.0 metres southwest of the intersection of Queen (Secondary – Smith Street and Smith Street extending in a southwestern Street) direction for a distance of 116.7 metres.

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 44 Masterton District Council Traffic Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: 7 August 2019 152

SCHEDULE 2M: Metered Areas

Location Description Date of The parts of streets that are declared to be metered zones Resolution shall be: Bannister Street Both sides of Bannister Street in the portion between Queen Street and 1 July 2008 Dixon Street. Chapel Street The southeastern side of Chapel Street in the portion between Jackson 1 July 2008 Street and Perry Street. Church Street Both sides of Church Street in the portion between Queen Street and 1 July 2008 Dixon Street.

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 48 Masterton District Council Traffic Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: 7 August 2019

Jackson Street Both sides of Jackson Street in the portion between Queen Street and 1 July 2008 Chapel Street. Lincoln Road The northeastern side of Lincoln Road in the portion between Chapel 27 June 2012 Street and Queen Street. Park Street Both sides of Park Street in the portion between Dixon Street and 1 July 2008 Queen Street. Perry Street The northeastern side of Perry Street in the portion between Chapel 1 July 2008 Street and Queen Street. Perry-Chapel carpark The northwestern side of Lot 4 DP 85785 adjacent to (Town Square). 14 August 2013 (Town Square) Queen Street The northwestern side of Queen Street in the portion between 1 July 2008 Worksop Road and Jackson Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Jackson Street and 1 July 2008 Perry Street/Bannister Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Bannister 1 July 2008 Street/Perry Street and Church Street/Lincoln Road. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Church 1 July 2008 Street/Lincoln Road and Park Street. Queen Street Both sides of Queen Street in the portion between Park Street and King 1 July 2008 Street.

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 49 Masterton District Council Traffic Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: 7 August 2019 153 ATTACHMENT 5

186/15

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE FRANK CODY LOUNGE, MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL BUILDING, 64 CHAPEL STREET, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 28TH OCTOBER 2015 AT 3.00PM

PRESENT:

Mayor Lyn Patterson (Chair), Councillors Doug Bracewell, Garry Caffell, Brent Goodwin, Pip Hannon, Mark Harris, David Holmes, Jonathan Hooker, Simon O’Donoghue and Chris Peterson.

IN ATTENDANCE:

Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Manager Strategic Planning, Acting Manager Finance, Executive Assistant to Chief Executive, Communications and Marketing Advisor, Senior Advisor Wastewater Strategy and Compliance, Alastair Scott MP, three media representatives, Glenda Seville (Connecting Communities Wairarapa), Laura, Ashley and Anna (Wairarapa Youth Council), one member of the public and Minute taker.

PERRY STREET PARKING (176/15 – Pages 615/618)

A survey of premise owners was undertaken in Perry Street, between Cole Street and Miller Place, regarding the proposal to impose a P120 parking zone.

The Senior Management Team recommended a P120 parking restriction be placed on the southern side of Perry Street and that the Town Square car park become a P120 area. It was noted that the Town Square car park may be coned off at times to allow for daytime events held at the Town Hall.

Members expressed their support for the proposal, and for the comprehensive report.

Staff will report back on whether the number of parking spaces at 46 Perry Street complies with the Wairarapa Combined District Plan.

Note to Minutes:

The number of parking spaces meets the requirements of the Wairarapa District Plan (one parking space for 45m2 of gross floor area).

Moved by Councillor G Caffell – That the Town Square car park be time restricted to P120 using signage instead of Pay and Display.

Seconded by Councillor M Harris and CARRIED.

Moved by Councillor G Caffell – That a section of P120 parking restriction be placed on the southern side of Perry Street between the Senior Citizens Hall and Miller Place to allow better turnover of parking in the area and that any kerb replacement and altered markings be carried out at the same time.

Seconded by Councillor S O’Donoghue and CARRIED.

154

082/20 To: Your Worship and Elected Members

From: David Paris, Manager Finance

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject LGFA Special General Meeting

DECISION Recommendation: That Council:

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

30 June 2020 <250%

30 June 2021 <300%

30 June 2022 <300%

30 June 2023 <295%

30 June 2024 <290%

30 June 2025 <285%

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

155

Purpose

To establish Council’s position on the matters being put forward for consideration at the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Special General Meeting (SGM) on 30 June 2020.

Background

LGFA provides debt funding to local authorities. Masterton District Council has an equity stake of 0.4% in the LGFA; is a borrower with net long‐term loans of $51.1 million and is a guarantor of any losses incurred by the LGFA from borrower defaults.

A Shareholders’ Agreement establishes a Shareholders’ Council (SC) to advise shareholders on relevant matters that require shareholder resolutions. The Shareholders’ Agreement also contains foundation policies for LGFA lending.

There are 54 council guarantors of the LGFA’s total lending, of which the Council has a 0.5% share (based on a proportionate share of rates income). Total debt issued by the LGFA is $10.8 billion; however, the LGFA has access to liquid assets of $1.56 billion before council guarantees are called.

This report proposes the following:

 appointment of the Manager Finance as proxy to vote at the Local Government Funding Agency’s (LGFA’s) Special General Meeting (SGM) on 30 June 2020; and  to vote in favour of the LGFA increasing its foundation policy financial covenant ‘Net Debt / Total Revenue’ from the current 250% to 280% for local authorities with a long‐term credit rating of ‘A’ equivalent or higher.

A range of reports and documents are available on request from the Manager Finance.

These include:

 an Investor powerpoint presentation from LGFA  a report considering the impact of this proposal from S&P Global Ratings  a memo from LGFA providing further information about incremental risks arising  a letter of recommendation from the LGFA Shareholders’ Council  the Special General Meeting agenda and proxy voting form

Discussion

The proposed change is to provide greater financial flexibility and borrowing capacity for Local Authorities as a result of the short‐term impacts of COVID‐19 and the medium‐term structural changes to the local government sector to meet additional demand for infrastructure investment. 156

Local Authorities are faced with short‐term revenue uncertainties as a result of the impact of COVID‐19 on the New Zealand economy. This will impact both rates revenue and non‐rates revenue for many Local Authorities.

The foundation policy and lending policy financial covenants were incorporated into the Foundation Policies in 2011 and have not subsequently been amended. Since 2011, Local Authorities have faced increased borrowing requirements to finance additional infrastructure to meet population growth, climate change and water quality issues. Central Government has also called upon Local Authorities to assist with additional infrastructure investment in the near term as part of the economic relief package post COVID‐19.

Foundation policy financial covenants When lending to local authorities, the LGFA sets covenants in place in order to minimise risk of default on repayment of debt which local authority borrowers must meet to avoid recovery action being taken. The covenants are shown in the table below:

Covenant Ratio Ratio Current Proposed

Net Debt / Total Revenue 250% 280%

Net Interest / Total Revenue <20% <20%

Net Interest / Annual Rates Income <30% <30%

Liquidity >110% >110%

Borrowers are able to apply for bespoke financial covenants that exceed the above targets. Loan agreements reached on bespoke terms require the approval of the LGFA board only.

The LGFA has two classes of local authority borrowers – those with long‐term credit ratings of ‘A’ equivalent or higher of which there are around 30 borrowing councils; and those without. Of total loans on issue, 90.1% are to councils with credit ratings.

Proposal details

The LGFA recognises that many local authorities will face COVID‐19 impacts of reduced revenue and increased capital demands for infrastructure over the next six years. It has therefore sought to assist the local government sector by seeking to implement the following measures for local authority borrowers with long‐term credit ratings of ‘A’ equivalent or higher as follows:

(a) Increasing the Net Debt / Total Revenue covenant from 250% to 280%, to be met by 2026 and to take effect annually thereafter. As this rate will become the prevailing rate from 2026, it requires an ordinary shareholder resolution; and 157

Increasing the Net Debt / Total Revenue covenant in the years 2021‐2025 between 250‐ 300% as temporary covenants to enable the relevant councils to meet short‐term pressures as a result of COVID‐19. These bespoke rates have been approved by the LGFA board and consequently do not require shareholder resolutions to implement. The proposed covenants are as follows:

Financial covenants for the council‐borrowers that do not have long‐term credit ratings of ‘A’ equivalent or higher are to remain unchanged at 175%.

Shareholder resolution

The LGFA’s shareholder resolutions at a SGM on 30 June 2020 are as follows:  To increase the Net Debt / Total Revenue foundation policy financial covenant from the current 250% to 280%, which applies to local authorities with long‐term credit ratings of ‘A’ equivalent or higher.  Such local authorities will not be required to comply with the revised Net Debt / Total Revenue foundation policy financial covenant until the financial year ending 30 June 2026.

Impact of the proposal

The following table notes the benefits and risks that the proposed change to the covenant will make to various parties:

Party Impact of increase in borrowing capacity LGFA Will be able to lend an additional $2.6 billion to the 30 councils with long‐term credit rating of ‘A’ equivalent or higher. Masterton District The Council does not have a credit rating so is not impacted by Council the changes proposed. The Council’s current Net Debt / Total Revenue ratio is 77%, well short of the 175%, giving significant headroom to manage the potential financial pressures over the next few years. 158

Other councils with Of the 30 relevant local authority borrowers, the highest ratio is long‐term credit 180.3%. Therefore, most have significant headroom to manage ratings of ‘A’ the potential financial pressures over the next few years. equivalent or higher Auckland Council is the largest borrower with a current ratio of 173%, and for which the increase in the covenant will create the ability for it to borrow an additional $1.1 billion. Guarantors of local The LGFA expects a maximum of five councils are likely to authority borrowings exceed the 250% covenant, based on LTP expectations. These and LGFA include growth councils – Auckland, Tauranga and Hamilton shareholders which together could borrow up to an additional $1.27 billion to reach the 280% ceiling by 2026. With a guarantee of 0.5%, the Council would be exposed to additional risk of $6.35 million. However, as noted above the LGFA has liquidity of $1.56 billion that it would access prior to reverting to guarantors. The LGFA has discussed the proposal with credit rating agencies who have advised that it will not change the LGFA’s overall rating of AA+ (and therefore its price of borrowing for on‐ lending to local authorities will not increase as a result of the increased financial covenant). Overall, the risk of a call to guarantee a council default remains negligible.

Shareholders’ Council recommendation

The LGFA’s Shareholders’ Council has provided its recommendation, which is to support the LGFA’s proposed shareholder resolutions. An excerpt from that letter follows: Before the Shareholders’ Council (SC) position was finalised, LGFA sought feedback from the main credit rating agencies to establish the level of support for the proposal. A report subsequently published by S&P Global Ratings is available. At that time, the SC agreed that while it broadly supported the proposed changes, more information was required about any incremental risks arising. However, given the positive response from the rating agencies we gave our qualified support at that time, and agreed that preparations for the proposal to be put to shareholders at a Special General Meeting should be progressed by LGFA. LGFA has responded to our request for further information. While this is not an independent assessment, the majority of SC members agree that this addresses our concerns and that the benefits of the proposal outweigh any associated risks.

159

Eight of the nine council members of the SC have voted to recommend that the proposal is supported, with one abstaining. The Government representative has also supported the SC recommendation, although it is noted that the Government is not a guarantor of LGFA. We therefore support the proposed changes and recommend that all shareholders do the same.

Financial/budget considerations

The Council will not be able to take advantage of the changes proposed as it does not have a credit rating. As noted above, the only financial impact on Masterton District Council is the increased debt the LGFA will carry on behalf of its shareholder councils. As stated above, the increased risk of a call on the Council’s guarantee is negligible.

Risks and other options

The only other option is for the Council to oppose the LGFA’s proposed shareholder resolution. The reason the Council might do so is if it considered its risk, as guarantor of debt repayments from other council borrowers, exceeds the expected benefits of additional borrowing headroom that other councils will receive under the LGFA’s revised financial covenants.

With negligible change in Council’s risk the conclusion can be draw that the benefits of the increased borrowing capacity for the LG sector outweighs the risk of this Council being called on its guarantee.

Significance and engagement

The decisions or matters of this agenda do not trigger the significance criteria outlined in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and the public will be informed via agenda publication on the website.

COVID‐19 Statement

The proposal is in specific response to the impacts COVID‐19 is having on councils across New Zealand and will allow some Councils to absorb the impact of declining revenue and/or allow for further borrowing if needed.

160

087/20 To: Your Worship and Elected Members

Phil Evans, Senior Advisor Wastewater Strategy and Compliance From: David Hopman, Manager Assets and Operations

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 26 June 2020

Subject: Opaki Water Race Statement of Proposal Recommendation: That the Council undertakes the Special Consultative Procedure and adopts the Statement of Proposal to close the Opaki Water Race in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on Adoption of a Statement of Proposal for the closure of the Opaki Water Race.

Executive Summary The Opaki Water race supplies stock drinking water to 54 properties in the Loopline / Paierau Road / SH2 area north of Masterton. The race is supplied by a water take from the Ruamahanga River, with the inlet close to Double Bridges. Note that although there are 54 properties on the race, some of those are leased out. Including the lease holders, there are 64 users of the race. The water take is subject to a Resource Consent issued by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC). The Consent has now expired, and Council has been working through the renewal. Issues with the renewal have arisen, with the requirement of GWRC to Notify the application. Concerns about the level of costs and uncertainty around that process have provided a driver to investigate alternative water supply options. Additionally, changes to the Regional Plan have created uncertainty around the long‐term use and viability of the race, although the final form of the rules have not yet been determined. Rules requiring fencing, riparian planting and efficient‐use will impact on the functionality of the race, as will proposals to increase minimum flows in the river. Currently, there is a mixed level of engagement with the multiple users, with a significant minority remaining silent. The outcome of the investigations that have been undertaken is that only a minority of users are fully reliant on the race for stock water. It is therefore recommended that Council take this opportunity to formally consult on whether the race should in fact be closed. A statement of proposal is attached to this report for adoption by Council. 161

Context The Opaki Water Race is one of five remaining water races used throughout the Wairarapa. Typically, these were constructed in the early 20th century to supply drinking water for stock in areas where there was no readily available alternative. The Opaki water race consists of a single intake located on the Ruamahanga River at Double Bridges which branches multiple times to provide 25km of water way. Excess water from the race eventually returns to the river system via four points along the Waipoua River and one point in Lansdowne at the head of the Hiona Stream. The race is unlined and loses a significant amount of water to the ground. Typical intake flow rates are around 120‐130 l/s, while the discharge rates vary from 0 to 5 l/s. At times of heavy rainfall, the race serves as a cross country drain, intercepting overland flows and diverting them back to the Waipoua River and Hiona Stream. Although the original purpose of the race was to provide stock drinking water, this is now only a function for approximately a third of properties. Land fragmentation means that many of the properties are now “lifestyle” types, with little or no stock. Some users view the race as having aesthetic value. Some were unaware of the nature of the race until contacted by Council staff. Much of the race is unfenced, or only fenced on one side. This is to allow stock direct access to the race for drinking water and is key to the design. Proposed rules in the Regional Plan, and in the National Environmental Standards, will require the race to be both fenced and riparian planted. This will cause significant problems with not only stock access for drinking water, but also for machinery access for maintenance. Only one property – Matahiwi Vineyards – has permission to take water from the race for the purpose of irrigation. This is subject to a range of conditions, including a prohibition on taking water when the river flows are low. A survey of users carried out in 2017, to which 41 out of 64 users responded, indicated that a minority saw the race as being vital for their stock water needs. Most of those properties do however have access to an alternative water source, such as the Opaki Water Scheme, water tanks or private bores. It is currently estimated, by Council staff, that only four properties are fully reliant on the water race for stock water, plus the vineyard for irrigation water. While this exact figure may be subject to change, the reality is that only a small number of users are fully reliant on the water race for the purpose it was intended. Council officers have been working on the renewal of the water take consent, with the initial intention of seeking a short term (5 year) consent in order to provide an opportunity for the Regional Plan Whaitua rules to come into effect. We have now been advised by GWRC that this consent will need to be notified, due to one party being unwilling to provide affected parties consent. The costs and uncertainty of the notified consent process have made this option unreasonable for a short‐term consent. It would only make sense to pursue this for a long‐term (15 to 25 years) consent. Council has deferred spending significant money on automated upgrades to the race, due to the current uncertainty. For instance, Council has not installed a control gate at the inflow point. This would allow 162

Council to vary the inflow in response to changes in the river level. Currently this is not possible and Council is occasionally in breach of its Resource Consent conditions because of this. The Water Race has struggled to comply with the terms of its Resource Consent and there have been multiple non‐compliances in terms of the discharge water quality and the intake water quantity. Regional Council has considered enforcement action against Council in the past and in 2017 served an Advisory Notice due to high levels of bacteria in the discharge. Although steps have been taken to improve water quality, further work and investment will be required if the race remains in operation. Significant investment is required to firstly renew the Resource Consent application and then to install automated flow controls. This investment will be required to be funded by the users. Alternatively, the race can be closed and landusers who have a requirement for stock water will need to source water from a different supply. Attempts to obtain a majority agreement from the users of the race on the best way to proceed have been unsuccessful, in part due to a significant number of users who choose not to engage. It is therefore not clear from current users which path the Council should be taking and there is currently no clear mandate for either option. It is recommended that the Council undertake the Special Consultative Procedure with the race users, with a recommendation to close the Race, which will result in a clear decision and a mandate for a pathway forward. The Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) is the formal consultation process under the Local Government Act 2002. Council must formally adopt a statement of proposal prior to consultation beginning.

Analysis and advice The purpose of local government is;

 To enable democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities; and

 To promote the social, economic and cultural well‐being of communities in the present and for the future. The Opaki Water Race is operated by the Council on behalf of the user group. Costs associated with the maintenance and operation of the race, including the costs of any infrastructure, consents or monitoring, fall entirely on the user group via a targeted rate. No funding is provided from the general rates. The function of the race is primarily the provision of stock water. Only one permit has been issued for irrigation. The existing Resource Consent has expired, and Council is currently working through the renewal. Although it was initially hoped that an application for a short‐term consent could be granted relatively easily, this has not been the case. The costs of a notified or limited notified application and the costs of additional infrastructure to achieve Consent conditions will result in a significant increase to the costs rated against the existing users. As noted above, the Race is subject to increasingly complex and onerous rules at both a Regional and National level. These relate to the requirement to install fencing, riparian planting and the need to 163

demonstrate efficient use. The cost of this work will need to be borne by the users but will create practical difficulties for accessing the race for maintenance. Land users who are reliant on the water for stock will need to install some alternative for access, such as pumping water from the race. Access for maintenance appears harder to resolve. Multiple attempts have been made to date to gain a consensus among users on an agreed pathway forward. This has not been successful. However, background work carried out as part of this has indicated that there may be a reasonable alternative for most of the water users. A private water supply scheme – the Opaki Water Scheme – operates through the same area, and already supplies water to most properties on the water race. Initial discussions with the Scheme operators confirmed that the Scheme could supply the existing stock water needs to all properties. It would not be possible to supply irrigation water through this system due to the volumes required. Council has the ability, under the Local Government Act, to undertake a consultation with the community on the proposal to close the race. This process would provide an opportunity for all users to have their say.

Options considered Council officers have considered multiple options for addressing the issues with the race. Option 1 – That Council pursue the long‐term consent irrespective of the costs and uncertainties. The costs of this will fall on the existing user group unless there is a change to the Councils funding policy. Council may choose to pursue this option but should be aware of the likely costs involved and determine where these costs should fall. In the event that this is the preferred option, consultation with the affected users will be important. Option 2 – That Council pursue the short‐term consent. There are similar costs and uncertainties to option 1, with no real benefits to seeking a shorter term. This option is not recommended for those reasons. Option 3 – The Council undertake a public consultation on the closure of the race. The mechanism for this is the Special Consultation Procedure (SCP) under the Local Government Act.

Option 3 is the recommended option. This will provide an opportunity for all affected parties to provide submissions and for the Council to make a determination.

Strategic, policy and legislative implications The water race is not a strategic asset but is operated for the benefit of a subset of ratepayers. Council does have a bylaw relating to the operation of the Race, and this forms the basis of the management of the race and the shared responsibilities of the users. There are no legal requirements for Council to operate the race or to provide stock water. However, as the race already exists, it is not possible for Council to simply cease operations without undertaking a formal consultation with the users. 164

The SCP is the formal consultation process under the Local Government Act, and there are legislative requirements that need to be followed.

Assessment of significance The decision to close the water race would be significant in terms of the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy for multiple reasons;

 Change to level of service – cessation of the provision of stock water via the race

 Specific geographic area affected – the users are confined to a specific area

 Council exiting an existing activity – cessation of the provision of stock water

 Difficult to reverse – the existing water race operates on an (expired) Resource Consent issued under the previous Regional Plan. New rules will be increasingly stringent and the water take would be difficult to reinstate.

As the closure of the race would be significant, an appropriate level of public engagement would be followed. This would be done via the SCP. Communications and engagement plan A communications and engagement plan will be drafted and used to manage the SCP and ensure that legal requirements are met.

Financial considerations There are financial impacts of consulting on closing the race. These include carrying out the public consultation and running a hearing to hear any submissions received. These costs would be met from existing operational budgets. As noted above, all costs are ring fenced to the race users. There is no input from the general rate. Typically, the operation of the Water Race costs in the range of $40,000 to $46,000 per annum, which includes approximately $5,000 for monitoring and consent compliance. However, additional work to keep the race operating during the past summer increased this to $62,000. This was due to the extreme dryness and low water levels in the river. Estimations of future costs are difficult to make. Council staff have estimated that the costs of progressing with the new consent, plus the costs of additional sampling and monitoring that will be required, will increase the annual costs by a factor of 2 to 3, for at least a 5‐year period. These costs will need to be borne by the users.

Impacts on Maori There are no apparent impacts that are specific to Maori. Representative of both local Iwi have expressed verbal support for the renewal of the existing Resource Consent, but only for a short term. Iwi representatives will be consulted directly prior to beginning the SCP. 165

Environmental impact and considerations The decision to engage with the users through the SCP does not involve any environmental impact. However, should a decision be made to close the race, there will be a range of environmental impacts, both positive and negative, which will need to be addressed. Positive effects will include stopping the impact of the water take on the Ruamahanga river at times of low flow and stopping any impact on the Waipoua River from the discharge. Negative effects include the loss of the water race itself as a habitat and the possible effect on the local ground water.

Next steps If Council agrees to engage with the water race users, and adopts the attached Statement of Proposal, then the next steps will be to commence the consultation with Iwi and users.

Attachments Opaki Water Race 2020 – Statement of Proposal 166

ATTACHMENT 1

Opaki Water Race 2020

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION The Masterton District Council is proposing to close the Opaki Water Race. The Opaki Water Race supplies stock drinking water to properties in the Opaki area north of Masterton. This proposal is a result of changes in legislation surrounding water use at both local and national levels and land use changes within the area supplied by the Water Race. These are affecting the ability to renew the Resource Consent that allows the Race to operate. Additionally it appears that only a minority of users are reliant on the water race for stock water. Maintaining the race will require support from all current users, and it is not clear that this support exists. The proposal is intended to obtain a clear decision on a pathway forward, with closure being the prefered option.

What is the Water Race and why should you care? The Opaki Water Race was established in the early 20th century as a stock water supply for farms north of Masterton. The area supplied by the race does not include natural water bodies and the water race allowed this area to be developed for grazing. The race takes water from the Ruamahunga River and transports it to 54 properties via an open, unlined channel. No treatment of the water occurs and it is only suitable for stock drinking water purposes. In total, the race consists of 25km of channels. The water is separate from other natural water sources but may be linked to groundwater. It is not intended to be used as an irrigation supply, although one property has permission to take a limited amount of water for irrigation, subject to conditions. The diversion of water from the Ruamahunga River is subject to a Resource Consent granted by the Greater Wellington Regional Council. This consent has now expired, and the renewal process has been started. However, it is clear that the process to renew the consent will not be straight forward and is likely to incur significant costs to progress without any certainty of the outcome. 167

Why are we considering closure now? The Consent renewal process has identified a number of issues with the water take. The regulatory environment and community expectations have changed significantly and are continuing to change. Newly developed water use rules in the Regional Plan, along with national policy directions, are seeking to prioritise rivers over human activities which will make it increasingly difficult to justify the water take at times of low river flow. Under these same rules, water races will need to be fenced to keep stock out of the water, which will increase costs for the users and raise practical issues with access for maintenance and stock for drinking. The renewal of the consent has to be completed in this context, making it more complex and more costly. All costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the race are shared amongst the users, and this includes the Consent process. There is no contribution from the rest of the Masterton ratepayers. This means that the cost per property may vary from year to year depending on the budgeted costs and the property values. Annual costs range from $40K to $62K, depending on the amount of work that has to be carried out during the year. The costs are shared by users based on land value as a proxy for usage, so each property will pay a different amount - the larger the area serviced the higher the share of the costs. An average cost is in the range of approximately $740 to $1148, but some properties pay considerably more than this. A new consent, plus increased monitoring and compliance costs, may see this increase by 2 to 3 times. Because these issues are coming together at once, it is the right time to look at the future of the race before continuing with a potentially expensive Consent process. Attempts have been made to gain a consensus from the users of the water race on the best pathway forward, but this has not been successful. A minority of users wish to continue with the Race, while a majority either do not or have remained silent. On this basis, it is difficult for Council to justify the expense in keeping the water race open. If the water race is closed, it will not be possible to re-establish it at a later date due to increasingly stringent regulations surrounding water takes and use. This may have an impact on the users who are fully reliant on the race for stock water. However, the volumes of water being extracted from the Ruamahunga River are substantial, and at times of low river flow are likely to be having an adverse effect on the river. 168

Additionally, land fragmentation into smaller farmlets and lifestyle blocks has occured since the Race was constructed, meaning that it is difficult to access and maintain all of the Race. Not all users are engaged with the Council or meeting their obligations to maintain their sections, which is compromising the supply to downstream users.

Who is affected by this closure? Council is consulting with those people who have a section of the water race on their property and therefore contribute to the ongoing costs of operating it. It is not proposed to consult wider than this, other than with local Iwi. The key issue that this proposal seeks to address is the impact of the closure on these properties. Specific consultation with Iwi will be undertaken in order to ensure that the decision takes into accout the their relationship with water, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

Does this proposal apply to CDC and SWDC? No. Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils operate their own water races which are completely separate to the Opaki water race. This proposal only relates to the Opaki Water Race.

Options Considered by Council In accordance with section 77 of the LGA, Council has considered all reasonable options available. The advantages and disadvantages associated with each option are detailled in the table below.

Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Pursue a long term Would provide Significant costs in resource consent to long term preparing and take water from the certainty to progressing the Ruamahanga River. users of the consent, which water race. would be borne by the users. No clear mandate from the users. 169

Uncertain outcome due to changing rules around water takes and use. Continuing need to maintain and operate the race. 2 Pursue a short term Would provide Similar costs and consent to take some certainty disadvantages as water from the for users. for option 1, with no Ruamahanga River. obvious benefit. 3 Closure of the water Provide Requirement for race and ceasation certainty. users reliant on the water race to find of water take. Remove an alternative ongoing water source. compliance and monitoring costs for users. Avoid costs of Consent renewal. Remove impact on the Ruamahanga and Waipoua Rivers.

The preferred option is Option 3 – Closure of the water and ceasation of the water take.

170

How you can have your say We want to hear what you think about the proposal. Submissions can be made in writing by 4:30pm, Friday 31 July 2020.

Submissions can be sent to;

Masterton District Council PO Box 44 Masterton 5840 Attn: Phil Evans

Or emailled to; [email protected]

171

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Does this mean that the Water Race will definitely be closed? No. The purpose of this consultation is to determine whether there is support for closing the Race. The decision on whether or not to close the Race will be made by the Council following a public hearing.

What about an alternative water supply? Alternative supplies are not part of this consultation. A number of alternatives do exist, and some people are already using these. Anyone reliant on the water race would need to make their own arrangment in the event that it is closed.

Will MDC provide an alternative if the Race is closed? There is no proposal to do this, and is outside the scope of this proposal. Council is not obligated to provide a supply, but is obligated to consult on the closure of an existing one.

Why do we need a Resource Consent for the Water Race? This is a legal requirement under the Resource Management Act and the Regional Plan. Any use of water needs to comply with these requirements. The Opaki Water Race uses a significant amount of water and as such needs to operate under this legislation.

How is the legislation changing? Changes from both central and regional government is moving to protect natural water ways from human activity and to prioritise leaving water in the river over extraction and use. This complicates any consent applciation as we will need to demonstrate how we can comply with these requirements while continuing to operate the race.

How much does the Race cost Ratepayers? The costs of operating the Water Race fall entirely on the properties that are serviced by it, via a targeted rate. No funding is provided from the general rates. This means that the cost per property may vary from year to year depending on the budgeted costs and the property values. Annual costs have ranged from $40K to $62K, depending on the amount of work that has to be carried out during the year. The costs are shared by users based on land value as a proxy for usage, so each 172

property will pay a different amount - the larger the area serviced the higher the share of the costs. An average cost is in the range of approximately $740 to $1148, but some properties pay considerably more than this. A new consent, plus increased monitoring and compliance costs, may see this increase by 2 to 3 times.

Hearing

A hearing will be held on X XXXX 2020. Any person or organisation who makes a written submission will be given an opportunity to be heard at that meeting.

We will contact anyone who wishes to speak at the hearing after submissions close in July to confirm the time. Hearings will be held at the Masterton District Council offices on Lincoln Road.

WANT MORE INFORMATION?

If you have any questions about the proposal or the consultation process, please contact Phil Evans at [email protected] or phone 06 370 6300.

TIMELINE

24 June 2020 – Adoption of Statement of Proposal 26 June 2020 – Publication of SOP and opening of consultation process 31 July 2020 – Closure of consultation process and preparation of report TBC – Public Hearing of submissions

220

086/20

To: Your Worship and Elected Members

Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning From: David Paris, Manager Finance

Endorsed By: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject: Adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21

DECISION

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

Purpose To seek Council adoption of the Annual Plan for 2020/21, including Fees & Charges. The final plan once adopted provides a formal and public statement of Council’s intentions in relation to the matters covered by the Plan and will set the rates to be taken for the year. A copy of the 2020/21 Annual Plan document is included as Attachment 1 (provided under separate cover), noting design work will be completed once the Plan is adopted.

Background The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires councils to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year. Section 95 of the Act states that the purpose of the Annual Plan is to:

 contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the annual plan relates;

221

 identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s long‐term plan in respect of the year;  provide integrated decision making and co‐ordination of the resources of the local authority; and  contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

Discussion and Options The Annual Plan 2020/21 is Year 3 of the 2018‐2028 Long‐Term Plan (LTP). If there are significant or material differences between the proposed annual plan and the corresponding year of the LTP then the Council is required to consult with the community on the annual plan. The proposed 2020/21 Annual Plan did contain differences to Year 3 of the 2018‐28 LTP that warranted consultation.

Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Process Council adopted the Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document, Supporting Information and the Fees and Charges Statement of Proposal on 11 March 2020. Consultation ran from 16 March to 20 April 2020. New Zealand moved into Alert Level 4 lockdown due to the Covid‐19 pandemic during this period requiring Council to change its intended consultation approach. Planned ‘face to face’ sessions were replaced with additional social media and newspaper advertising, including publishing most of the consultation document in the Midweek which is delivered free to households in the District, and submissions were received over the telephone as well as online and in writing. In total 332 submissions were received, and 20 submitters spoke to their submissions at the Hearing held via Zoom on 6 May 2020. Council considered submitters’ views and feedback, as well as staff advice and new information such as the implications of the Covid‐19 pandemic on our community, when making their decisions at the Deliberations meeting held on 27 May 2020.

Key Proposals Decisions on key proposals included:

 Committing to build a new multi‐purpose facility incorporating a Town Hall and deferring a decision regarding demolition of any of the buildings on site until further investigation is undertaken. $250K has been included in the 2020/21 budget for concept designs and options analysis.

 Pursuing a modified water take consent from the Ruamāhunga River for Henley Lake and automating the water control structures to maximise the benefit of the water take allowed in accordance with the consent.

222

 Progressing with the full skatepark revamp and seeking external funding for half the cost of this. $675K funding from loans and reserves has been included in the 2020/21 budget for this project.

Covid‐19 Pandemic Response New Zealand’s borders were closed on 19 March 2020 and alert levels introduced on 21 March 2020. Since then New Zealand has moved through the full range of levels from Alert Level 1 to 4 and back to Alert Level 1 again from midnight on 8 June 2020. The pandemic, and movement through the Alert levels, has impacted our economy and our community’s wellbeing. Council has responded with a phased response package and the commitment to develop a Wairarapa Recovery Plan in collaboration with Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils. Phase 1 and 2 of Council’s response included removing rates penalties, suspending or subsidising some fees and charges, and rent relief for specified durations, with some of these decisions reflected as reduced income in the Annual Plan 2020/21. A provision of $200K, to be drawn from reserve funds, has been allowed to enable further action. Council has committed to investigating a range of initiatives for a potential Phase 3 response. The outcome of this investigation, and the Wairarapa Recovery Plan, will guide future actions. The proposed Annual Plan 2020/21 was reviewed to reduce the rates impact without reducing service levels, while also being mindful of progressing projects that could assist in our community’s recovery. In total, $977K was removed from the initial budget, primarily through deferring non‐ essential work and carrying forward unspent funds from 2019/20. A further draw on Council’s financial reserves to the extent of $620K has been included in the Plan to enable an average increase in rates of 2%. The projects that are included in the 2020/21 Annual Plan are essential works that cannot be deferred or are expected to ensure on‐going services are delivered and assist our community’s recovery, economically and/or socially.

Annual Plan 2020/21 Financial Considerations As a result of changes made, the Annual Plan 2020/21 includes an average rates increase of 2% (after growth in the rating base). This compares to the 6% that was proposed in the Consultation Document and 5% that was forecast in the LTP. The use of reserve funds to keep the rates increase at 2% means the Council will not meet the balanced budget benchmark test. Operating Revenue (excluding financial contributions) will be 99% of operating expenditure. The Council made the decision, in response to the COVID‐19 impacts, to not charge a late payment penalty on arrears at 30 June 2020, or on the unpaid rates on the 1st instalment due on 20 August 2020. The impact of that reduced revenue has been factored into the 2020/21 budgets. Rates increases across properties will vary from the 2% average, with most urban property rates increasing 1.6%, coastal properties at Riversdale Beach and Castlepoint going up 4.5% and other rural properties increasing on average 3.0%. The reasons for the variations are the greater level of

223

growth in the urban ward over the last 12 months and the targeted nature of the Council’s rating system where higher costs of roading and coastal sewerage schemes impact rural and coastal properties more than urban properties.

Conculsion The 2020/21 Annual Plan incorporates the decisions made by Council at the Deliberations meeting and results in an overall average rates increase of 2%. Adopting the Plan will enable Council to meet its obligations under the Local Government Act to adopt an Annual Plan by 30 June, and will enable Council to set the rates for the 2020/21 financial year. The true impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic will continue to unfold for at least another year. Adopting the Plan does not oblige Council to act on any of the matters included in the Plan should circumstances surrounding COVID‐19 require a different approach. It is therefore recomended that Council adopt the Annual Plan 2020/21. It is also recomended that the Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated authority to make any minor amendments or corrections (that do not change the intent of the 2020/21 Annual Plan) to the 2020/21 Annual Plan document prior to publication.

Supporting Information Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Council’s adoption of the 2020/21 Annual Plan will ensure that Council meets its obligations under the Local Government Act to adopt an Annual Plan for the 2020/21 financial year by 30 June 2020. It will also enable Council to set the rates for the 2020/21 year. Significance, Engagement and Consultation The decision to adopt the 2020/21 Annual Plan is considered significant as adoption will approve the budget and the consequential setting of rates for the 2020/21 financial year. Community consultation following the Special Consultation Procedure as prescribed in Section 83 of the Local Government Act was undertaken to inform the Annual Plan 2020/21 as the plan differed from what was set out for year three of the Long Term Plan and included changes that were assessed as significant and/or material. Financial Considerations The Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document proposed an average rates increase of 6%. In response to Covid‐19 and the economic environment Council reviewed the proposed Annual Plan and have reduced the average rate increase from 6% to 2%, after allowing for growth in the rating database. This is 3% less than indicated in the 2018‐28 Long‐Term Plan for the 2020/21 year. Council have achieved this by deferring non‐essential work, carrying forward funding from the 2019/20 year and drawing on Council financial reserves. Reserves are not often applied in this way and the decision to do this reflects the unusual circumstances associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic.

224

Rates are set based on the budget approved as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori The proposed rates increase may have affordability implications for Māori (as well as the wider Masterton District), however these have been minimised given Council’s decision to off‐set the rates increase in the 2020/21 year. The Henley Lake consent decision, in particular, may have cultural and environmental implications for mana whenua. Communications/Engagement Plan Final decisions on key projects that were included in the Consultation Document and the adoption of the 2020/21 Annual Plan will be communicated to our community via the media and online. In addition, a letter will be sent to all submitters who provided email or postal addresses. A copy of the 2020/21 Annual Plan will be available within one month of adoption, as required by legislation. Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations There are no direct environmental impacts/considerations relating to the decision to adopt the 2020/21 Annual Plan. The environmental considerations associated with the Henley Lake consent will be considered through the consenting process.

225

085/20 To: Your Worship and Elected Members From: David Paris, Manager Finance Endorsed Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive by: Date: 24 June 2020

Subject Rates Resolution 2020‐21

DECISION Recommendation: That Council, having adopted the 2020‐21 Annual Plan for Masterton District, adopts the 2020‐ 21 Rates Resolution as set out in this report.

2020-21 MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL RATES RESOLUTION

That, pursuant to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Masterton District Council, hereby sets the rates and charges as set out in this resolution in respect of rateable properties in the Masterton District for the period of one year commencing on 1st July 2020 and ending on 30th June 2021.

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

RATES HEREBY SET IN THE DISTRICT:

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

All section references are references to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. 1. RATES SET ACROSS THE DISTRICT

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

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

U1 (0.001777 per dollar of land value) raising $1,884,000 U2 (0.003554 per dollar of land value) raising $ 711,000 R1 (0.001709 per dollar of land value) raising $3,098,000 Total $5,693,000 226

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. TARGETED UNIFORM CHARGE (TUC) A differential targeted rate [referred to as a Targeted Uniform Charge in the Funding Impact Statement] set in accordance with section 16(3)(a) and (4)(b) on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit, with a differential between urban and rural properties based on allocation of costs between rating areas, as detailed in the Revenue & Financing Policy and as follows: U1 & U2 $330.00 per part of rating unit, raising $3,168,000 R1 $486.00 per part of rating unit, raising $1,873,000 Total $5,041,000

3. CIVIC AMENITIES RATE

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

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

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

4. UNIFORM ROADING CHARGE (ROADING CHARGE)

4.1 A differential targeted roading charge will be set in accordance with sections 16(3)(a) and (4)(b) 17 and 18. This rate is in addition to the (land value) Roading Rate, and will be set on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit. 227

4.2 The Uniform Roading Charge will be as follows:

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

5. WATER SUPPLY RATES AND CHARGE Targeted on a Uniform Basis and a Capital Value Rate

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

5.2 The rates are as follows: Uniform Water Supply Charge (i) Connected $ 102.00 Raising $ 975,000

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

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

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

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

5.4 The metered rates are as follows: (i) Minimum charge for use per quarter for 50 cubic mtrs or below $57.50 (ii) Price per cubic mtr for consumption between 50 and 100 cubic mtrs per quarter $1.40 (iii) Price per cubic mtr for consumption over 100 cubic mtrs per quarter $1.80

6. SEWERAGE RATES AND CHARGE Targeted on Uniform Basis and Capital Value Rate

6.1 According to sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(a) and (b), 17, and 18 Council will set a targeted capital value rate on connected and serviceable rating units, plus a uniform charge for sewerage disposal for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit throughout the Masterton serviced area where rating units are connected to the urban sewerage system. Note: connected properties will be liable for both rates. 228

6.2 The rates are:

Uniform Sewerage Charge

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

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

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

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

7. RECYCLING COLLECTION CHARGE

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

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

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

8. RURAL TARGETED SERVICES RATES & CHARGES

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

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

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

Raising a total of $ 63,300

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

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

Raising a total of $ 14,000

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

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

Raising a total of $ 206,800

229

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

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

Raising a total of $ 10,000

8.5 Riversdale Beach Sewerage Capital Contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

230

9. OUT-OF-DISTRICT WATER & SEWERAGE CHARGES

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

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

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

11. INSTALMENTS, PENALTIES

Invoice Dates and Due Dates: There will be four instalments for rates assessed as follows:

Month of Invoice Last Day to Pay (i) 1st instalment July 2020 20th August 2020 (ii) 2nd instalment October 2020 20th November 2020 (iii) 3rd instalment January 2021 22nd February 2021 (iv) 4th instalment April 2021 20th May 2021

Penalty Charges - Pursuant to section 57 and 58(1)(a) a penalty as listed below will be added to such part of each instalment of rates which remain unpaid on the due date as follows:

Penalty % Date Penalty Added (i) 1st instalment 0% 21st August 2020 (ii) 2nd instalment 10% 23rd November 2020 (iii) 3rd instalment 10% 23rd February 2021 (iv) 4th instalment 10% 21st May 2021

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

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

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

231

088/20 To: Your Worship and Elected Members

From: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 24 June 2020

Subject: Chief Executive’s Report

FOR INFORMATION

Recommendation: That Council notes the information contained in the Chief Executive’s report 088/20.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update (as at 12 June 2020) on Council operations and changes in the national and regional context for Council since the last CEO report to Council (13 May 2020, which was a briefing).

Chief Executive’s Overview It is with great pleasure that I start this report with recognition of the achievements of our staff.

Gareth Winter was recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours with a Queen’s Service Medal for services to historical research. Typically of the Gareth, he sees the honour as reflecting what the Wairarapa Archive has achieved, however the honour is well-deserved recognition of his work over 23 years to develop the Wairarapa Archive into a fantastic community resource, one that attracts 2,000 visitors a year, and is regarded as the premier provincial Archive in Australasia. Gareth has written hundreds of newspaper stories on local history, authored and published many books and under his leadership, the Archive now includes more than two million photographs, 23,000 of which have been digitised and has been entrusted with a photocopied record of 40 volumes of Native Land Court Minutes that are an important record of the whakapapa of Wairarapa Māori. For a fuller account of his many achievements and dedication that earnt him the award please see the honours list (https://dpmc.govt.nz/honours/lists/qb2020-qsm), suffice to say that we are immensely proud and very grateful to Gareth for all that he has done and continues to do for our communities, our history and identity.

Earlier this month Council received a silver award in the short-term project category for its VOTE 2019 campaign and the overall Prize for Excellence in Research, Evaluation and Measurement – at the PRINZ Awards. These awards recognise excellence in the New Zealand’s public relations and communications industry, promoting continuous improvement and celebrating outstanding work. The overall prize for Excellence in Research, Evaluation and Measurement is a new award for those that best demonstrate the outcomes/impact of their work and the winner is picked from all the award finalists. I’d like to congratulate all the staff that were involved in the planning and execution 232

of the campaign but especially Shanna Vatselias, who led the team and also was recognised and received the top graduate award for the Accreditation in Public Relations for her year. Details about the awards and all of the winners can be viewed at https://www.prinz.org.nz/News/Category?Action=View&Category_id=944 (it was a virtual awards ceremony).

I have kept the usual content in this report, but focused also on national, regional and local recovery initiatives. Updates in the future are likely to come as separate agenda items.

National / regional context

COVID 19 Response and Recovery At midnight on Monday 8 June, New Zealand moved to Alert Level 1 and the Minister of Civil Defence terminated the National Transition Period at 1.53pm that day (8 June 2020); the transition period supports a transition from response into the initial recovery phase.

Unfortunately, just prior to going to print with this report, on 16 June 2020 the Government has confirmed that New Zealand has experienced two new cases of COVID-19 as a result of recent travel from the UK. Both cases are connected. Potential contacts are being traced. We will watch this situation closely as it may have implications for the future.

The Government has produced a range of initiatives targeting recovery. A snapshot is contained in Attachment 1 Central Government COVID-19 Recovery Work Programmes & Initiatives (draft dated 10 June 2020). The national transition of welfare needs to the Ministry of Social Development and the Caring for Communities Programme is still unclear. A proposal is with Cabinet for approval. We have approached and CCW are happy in principle to be the local lead for the Wairarapa councils, however we all need to understand the detail of the responsibilities and the relationships nationally and locally.

Many of the initiatives in the snapshot involve funding that was announced in the budget (and subsequently) including: project funding that councils, communities, individuals, NGOs and private entities can apply for; legislative reform to stimulate the economy; funding for skills, training, apprenticeships, education and workforce development, specific sectors (e.g. creative, sports, health, libraries, museums), people and communities (with an emphasis on Māori and Pasifika, welfare recipients, older persons etc).

Council has applied for money from the recently announced funding pools for upgrades of town halls, war memorials (and other renovation projects) and planting (targeting Homebush wetland planting). In addition, we have applied for funding for Pou Whenua at Henley Lake and funding for the Marking of Masterton Streams.

This is in addition to funding applications already made for Hood, Castlepoint Road (local project to improve road alignment and safety), the Skatepark, the recently announced successful application for $1m for Rural Roads and tree removal and maintenance (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/60m-nationwide-job-creation and also covered in Times-Age http://readnow.isentia.com/Temp/141637-63736145/1288235336.pdf ) and our support for the SH2 233

roundabouts between Masterton and Carterton, and the Tauherenikau Bridge project as part of the 5 Towns Trail, and Wellington regional projects. Greater Wellington’s bid for 1B trees to the Ministry for Primary Industries for regional riparian planting ($1M over three years) was approved. They are currently working through contract details and hope to get some planting underway in the winter/spring of 2020. GW also submitted a bid for $147M from the Environmental Enhancement funding programme (which included the Trough in Every Paddock Federated Farmers’ initiative ($16M) and the Enhancing Wairarapa Moana proposal ($5M)). MfE is currently working through national bids to provide recommendations to Minister (with announcements likely to occur in July).

As part of the Marae Renovation Fund five Wairarapa Marae are making applications as a cluster: Te Oreore, Motuwairaka, Hurunui-o-rangi, Papawai and Kohunui. These Marae are working alongside Te Puni Kōkiri and He Kāhui Wairarapa and our Kaitakawaenga has supported the application process.

While the focus of a lot of funding available has been for projects that can start immediately, staff have also had discussions with the Ministry of Social Development about worker redeployment (including the skilled new jobless) and supporting a pipeline of projects and initiatives in partnership with them, DoC, MfE, MPI, councils and others (such as our service delivery partners) to provide sustainable employment, skills and training beyond the Wage Subsidy Extension (extended until 1 September 2020) and Income Relief Payment scheme (for those that have lost their jobs).

As part of the Government’s recovery package, the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast Track Consenting) Bill was introduced to Parliament and had its first reading on 16 June 2020. It has now been referred to select committee. Submissions close 21 June.

The Bill can be accessed at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0277/latest/LMS345539.html?search=ts_act %40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Covid- 19+recovery+fast+track+consenting+bill_resel_25_a&p=1 and proposes a fast track resource consenting and designation processes for eligible projects, which are determined by either being included in the Bill or confirmed by an Order in Council. Of the 11 projects listed two are in the Wellington Region: the Ngauranga to Petone shared path - Te Ara Tupua NZTA and the Wellington Metro Upgrade – KiwiRail. This latter project includes the upgrade of Featherston Station, level crossing upgrades (all 29 crossings between Featherston and Masterton), upgrade and construction of rail storage yards at Masterton train station, replacement of Bridges 63 and 65 on the Wairarapa Line, Construction of a Maymorn and a Carterton Passing Loop, establishment and operation of a gravel/ballast excavations site in South Wairarapa (Algies Road, Tauherenikau) and resignalling works on the Wairarapa line.

The Bill provides for the use of Expert Consenting Panels to consider and determine the consent and/or designation instead of the normal council process. Panels will be appointed for each project and will be convened by either a current or retired Environment Court Judge or Māori Land Court judge holding an Environment Court warrant. There will be a minimum of three members on the Panel (one nominated by iwi and one by the relevant local authorities).

The explanatory note to the Bill makes clear that listed projects have been deemed to deliver public value and the panel’s function is largely limited to imposing conditions on the consent and 234

designations. The panel may only decline a listed project if the resource consent or designation would not be consistent with a national policy statement, including the New Zealand coastal policy statement, or would not be consistent with the terms of a relevant Treaty settlement.

The Bill removes public consultation, hearing processes, and appeals to the Environment Court. Appeals against a panel decision on a consent application (or notice of requirement to confirm a designation) are limited to a point of law appeal to the High Court and a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Bill also enables NZTA and KiwiRail to work (mainly operational, maintenance, renewal and minor upgrades) within the road or rail corridor on land they own or have an interest in as permitted development, with some restrictions. Councils and Kāinga Ora, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban development may also be added to this list of “agencies” by Order in Council at a later date.

LGNZ will be making a submission on the Bill on behalf of the sector.

Alongside fast tracking the consenting process (and given emphasis by the COVID-19 event), there is national interest in accelerating procurement processes to deliver outcomes and give certainty around the pipeline of projects (or programmes of work) to maintain a healthy market. Recent reports and activity include the 3 June 2020 COVID-19 Local Government Response Unit1 report on Agile Procurement in the Water Sector: Supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery through faster, better and smarter procurement (available on the Society of Local Managers (SOLGM) website: https://www.solgm.org.nz/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=2265), NZTA’s recent (May) consultation with industry on proposed new procurement models and the Infrastructure Commission meeting with councils to find out what they need to best engage with the New Zealand infrastructure pipeline (as very few do). Staff are currently scoping the review of our current procurement policy, which will take account of the above, social and sustainable procurement generally and the Government’s rules for procurement (particularly where they are a co-funder). An opportunity is emerging regionally to work together with other councils on procurement for impact, leveraging work that is underway in Hutt and Wellington city councils as part of the region’s approach to recovery.

Data and information Nationally government entities and independent organisations are collecting information on the impacts of COVID-19, much of which is broken down to the district / council level. In May I briefed elected members on the Treasury’s weekly updates and dashboards (https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/new-zealand-economy/covid-19-economic- response/commentary#collection-group-heading-0S) and the Stats NZ information (https://www.stats.govt.nz/experimental/covid-19-data-portal); some additional information sources follow.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Regional Factsheets:

1 Comprised of representatives from the Department of Internal Affairs, Local Government New Zealand, Society of Local Government Managers, and the National Emergency Management Agency. 235

On 4 June 2020, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) published regional factsheets to give insight into New Zealand’s COVID-19 response at a regional council level. It combines existing data sources with new and novel data to both illustrate how the region may be vulnerable to the economic impact of COVID-19. The Wellington Region factsheet is available on the MBIE website: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11456-regional-factsheet-wellington-pdf

It includes data at the regional level for the following areas/groupings: population, regional GDP, important industries, spotlight on at-risk areas (e.g. tourism, construction, small and medium enterprises), employment impact of COVID-19 (e.g. working by alert level, benefits and subsidies, dependence on other regions), and tracking the recovery (e.g. retail spending). Analysis of consumer spending at the district level is now available alongside regional and national spending at https://mbienz.shinyapps.io/card_spend_covid19/. You can compare week to week, month to month and week or month against the relevant week or month last year, for example Masterton’s total four week spend for the period ending 7 June 2020 was up over 15% on the same period last year (and not surprisingly down 50.8% for the period ending 22 April during Alert Level 4).

Ministry of Social Development The Ministry of Social Development is providing monthly and weekly updates on benefits https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/covid- 19/index.html including some breakdowns by district/city council boundaries. For example, currently (May 20) there are 596 people in Masterton on jobseeker support that are work ready (compared with 407 people at the same time last year).

Infometrics Infometrics continue to provide regular information to the public and council. In addition to the “Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on the Masterton Economy – Early Estimates” report (April 2020) shared with elected members last month and the webinar from 4 May 2020 (available to view or read a summary of at https://www.growwairarapa.nz/post/infometrics-webinar-covid-19-and-its- effects-on-the-wairarapa there is a range of information that is available on their website https://www.infometrics.co.nz/product/covid-19-economic-insights-and-response/.

The Infometrics Quarterly Economic Monitor for Masterton for the year to March 2020 is also available, but only captures the initial economic effects of COVID-19 on the New Zealand and Masterton’s economy. In summary it notes that Masterton’s economy grew by 2.1 percent over the year to March 2020 and, while off its peak of 3.9 percent in the year to March 2019, Infometrics consider that is in good shape as it heads into the impending COVID-19 induced recession. A message that was reinforced in its April publication due to our large primary sector (with primary exports holding up), our sizeable food manufacturing sector and our lack of exposure to international tourism and education. The June quarter information will reflect what has occurred more accurately. Further information on the March Quarter can be provided on request.

Other The Wairarapa Regional Skills Leadership Group is currently surveying the skill requirements of the construction sector in the region https://www.growwairarapa.nz/post/construction-skills-survey and 236

the WEDS Programme Office are gathering data and information for use by local government, iwi, stakeholders and sector groups.

Regional data and information collection is also being scoped as part of the Wellington Region’s recovery planning.

The key is turning all the data that is being produced into intelligence that can be used to target initiatives as part of the regional and local recovery and provide new forecasts and scenarios for interventions and the key assumptions underlying Council’s planning processes, including our Long Term Plan.

Recovery – Regional, Wairarapa and Local On 13 June 2020, the Wellington Region’s Council CEOs met to discuss Regional Recovery, Regional Development (including the Regional Growth Framework and Economic Development) and how these can be co-ordinated to make the most of regional and national opportunities and address regionally significant issues, while delivering locally and addressing local needs and priorities. Recommendations will be made to the Mayoral forum on the 26th of June that will focus on integrating decision making and the identification of regionally significant issues for regional solutions.

Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa District Councils are working together to develop the Wairarapa COVID-19 Recovery Plan. This will ensure an integrated and consistent approach to recovery for the people of the Wairarapa, as well as a single point of contact for Iwi, the public, community groups, and our other partners.

The Wairarapa COVID-19 Recovery Joint Committee (with council and iwi representation) met on 16 June to discuss and endorse the scope of the Wairarapa recovery plan and a first draft of that Plan (based on the four wellbeings), that captures current initiatives and will form the basis of future engagement with iwi, our communities and stakeholders on their aspirations and initiatives to build back better.

The Ko Wairarapa Tēnei leaders are members of the Wairarapa Recovery Committee, recognising the partnership Iwi have with the councils, and their role in the recovery of the Wairarapa Region. Ko Wairarapa Tēnei was designed to be the Wairarapa Māori COVID-19 Pandemic Response Plan; and many things was achieved through this mechanism. The entities were:

• He Kāhui Wairarapa • Kahungunu ki Wairarapa • Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Treaty Settlement Trust • Rangitāne o Wairarapa • Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Settlement Trust • Te Hauora Rūnanga o Wairarapa • Whaiora

At the beginning of Level 3 those entities discussed continuing Ko Wairarapa Tēnei through the recovery phase, by working collectively in certain areas while enabling each other to continue with 237

their own individual work. From that discussion it was decided to create a Wairarapa Māori Reset Plan.

The Wairarapa Māori Reset Plan will begin to include other Māori entities such as Marae, Hapori Māori, Hapū and include individuals that are not active members of those entities. In the words of our Kaitakawaenga “This will be a long and healing process but one that will bring the people together.”

A key question for both the regional, Wairarapa and more local Masterton recovery initiatives is how the work will be resourced. The Joint Committee has asked CEOs to consider this. Where we can we will leverage exiting and national resources. For example, central government funding, and our communications team will be collaborating further with Destination Wairarapa to support local businesses (for example through marketing initiatives) and supporting the Committee, Recovery Team and Plan. Council has also provided some money in its draft Annual Plan to support recovery initiatives.

Water On 28 May 2020, the Government announced the ‘Action for Healthy Waterways’ package. The package includes:

• Resource Management Act (RMA) changes to expedite the making of regional freshwater plans • The New National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM 2020), which is expected to become operative before the September 2020 general election. • New National Environmental Standards (NES), that are still in draft but will be published later this year, for: o Wetland and stream protection o Interim intensification provisions - controlling quantity of intensification o Controlling quantity and quality of certain practices (e.g. winter grazing and feedlots) o Standards and requirements to provide for fish passage • Stock exclusion and water take measurement regulations • Mandatory and enforceable farm plans.

This package will be progressed alongside a wider reform of the Three Waters system (drinking water, wastewater and stormwater). Further detail on the Action for Healthy Waterways package is available on the Ministry for the Environment website: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/freshwater/decision-national-direction-freshwater-glance-summary

These actions will be supported by $700m of funding to support actions like installing mini wetlands, removing sediment, riparian planting, helping farmers with stock exclusion and developing farm plans, stabilising riverbanks and providing for fish passage.

As the national direction will be implemented largely through regional plans, what the NPS and NESs mean for the Whaitua process, Natural Resources Plan changes and our own activities and consents (such as discharges and water takes) is as yet unclear. We currently anticipate that assessment and 238

monitoring requirements for future Council consents will increase. Implications for land use and the combined district plan will be addressed through the district plan review.

Greater Wellington Region Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report The Wellington Region’s nine councils jointly commissioned AECOM to produce a regional greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, as well as inventories at the district level. The Wairarapa GHG inventory is a combined report covering the Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa Districts. It has been circulated to elected members. In line with the national picture described above agriculture (78%) and transport (16%) are the biggest sources of gross emissions. Copies of the Wairarapa report are available at http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Climate-change/GHG-Summary- Report-Wellington2019WCDCFinal.pdf More information is available on the Greater Wellington Regional Council website: http://www.gw.govt.nz/research-shows-fall-in-greenhouse-gases-over- two-decades-but-a-worrying-rise-in-transport-emissions/

The inventory will be a useful piece of information in the development of the Climate Change Action Plan, which has been delayed due to COIVD-19 and the late hire of our internal resource, who was then redeployed to the EOC. Staff anticipate bringing the project plan for the development of the organisational and district climate change action plans to elected members in July/August.

Wellington Regional Growth Framework Progress on the Wellington Regional Growth Framework has continued under lockdown and an “Emerging Direction” for development has been shared with elected members in May. Staff are ground truthing the current spatial maps of major centres, nodes and potential greenfield sites ensuring constraints such as natural hazards, sites of ecological significance, wāhi tapu etc. are identified correctly and a workshop for elected members will occur in August.

Communications and Marketing The digital Art Trail was launched in May on social media with a supporting ad on radio, this resulted in 493 visits to the map over the course of two weeks. Now that we are in Alert Level 1 we will be working on permanent signage for the i-site to encourage our tourists to do the trail. A plan to implement better signage and marketing of our recreation trails is also underway, with the intention to have this implemented in Spring.

In a collaboration with Red Cross “refugee story” radio ads will run in the days leading up to World Refugee Day on 20 June – to help raise understanding of refugee experiences.

Looking ahead we are:

• reviewing the 2019/20 water restrictions communications with a view to making improvements in 2020/21 • developing an integrated package of communications material to enhance the public’s understanding of rates • planning a workshop in late June/early July to present a draft Council Communications and Engagement Strategy for development with Elected Members. 239

Digital Communications Both of our Facebook page audiences continue to grow. Our most popular posts on MDC were about COVID-19 relief measures. On MyMasterton we saw a big positive reaction to the flying fox upgrade – this was also picked up by MORE FM for a Facebook promotion through its channels.

We have been working on a number of improvements to the website improving the loading speed (which people are noticing), simplifying the language and content on the website (using Plain English as much as possible), achieving improvements in quality (no broken links or misspellings anywhere), searching and usability. User testing (survey of users) is underway and we are looking to improve our rates search (and the ability to download or print results), an area that receives the most common negative feedback.

Media Council activities continued to provide a focus for the Wairarapa Times-Age, building on what we saw during the lock down period. We received extensive coverage of the Annual plan hearings and deliberations, with the Town Hall, Henley Lake and skatepark revamp all covered, along with elected members’ desire to ease the burden on ratepayers post-COVID-19. The future of the Town Hall also made the pages of the Dominion Post.

We have also had positive coverage of our proactive releases of information on the Masterton public art trail, water meter installation, support for the Henley Trust’s daffodil planting efforts, and upgrades of the swing bridge over the Waipoua River, and the flying fox in the Queen Elizabeth Park playground.

During May, a total of 78 articles referencing council appeared, primarily in the Times-Age with Council activity the subject of 29 letters to the editor. This does not include some local media.

Environmental Services Activity

Environmental Services There has been a review of the Environmental Services graph templates. The graphs have been broken into sections that relate to the teams’ workloads and community requests for service. 240

Bylaws

BYLAWS COMPARISON BY MONTH MAY 2020 400 370 350 300 250 190 200 150 155 132 120 135 150 101 77 76 100 73 68 57 59 60 49 38 50 19 25 26 26 26 30 14 0 Vehicle Related Stock/Animal Overhanging Water Litter/Rubbish Other Trees/Long Grass Wastage/Waterways

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 1 Bylaw Service requests by category from 1 July to 31 May compared to the same period in the previous years.

Vehicle related calls are continuing to increase compared to previous years, with 32 vehicle related service requests lodged in April and May. Service requests for vehicle related issues include abandoned vehicles, parking and vehicles causing damage/nuisance.

Parking wardens are back on duty, they are issuing warning notices for minor offences to educate motorists and issuing infringements for more serious offences such as parking in a disability space without a permit.

Stock and Animal service requests include wandering stock, bees, the keeping of more than three cats in the urban area and welfare for animals other than dogs. There was a total of 18 service requests in April and May. Stock calls remain consistent over April and May with 12 calls about wandering stock, the majority of which were alerted to Council MDC afterhours requiring the on-call team member to attend.

The service requests from the community regarding trees overhanging into the public space from private land remain consistent over April and May and will be followed up with property owners now the COVID-19 restrictions have lifted.

The Litter and Rubbish category relates to requests for service in relation to fly-tipping and illegal dumping. The number of service requests is up compared to last year but is still lower than the previous two years. There were seven service requests in April and May raised by members of the public that required investigation from the team. Signage has been put up in areas of frequent dumping and staff are continuing to monitor these sites. 241

Animal Services

SERVICE REQUESTS FOR ANIMAL SERVICES COMPARISON BY MONTH MAY 2020 1400 1165 1200 1114 1099 1000 932 800 600 412 400 189 155 127 146 166 200 72 110 0 Service Request P1 Service Request P2 Service Request P3

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 2 Dog Service requests by category from 1 July to 31 May compared to the same period in the previous years.

P1, P2 and P3 reflect the priority/urgency of the requests for service received. • P1 – The most urgent calls, for example dog attacks, police assistance. Attendance within one hour. • P2 – Barking and wandering. Attendance within 24 hours. • P3 - Non‐urgent requests, for example changing details on a dog account. Response within 5 working days.

The priority 1 calls which are targeted to be actioned within 60 minutes are slightly higher for this time period than the previous 2 years.

There were 30 priority 1 calls that required to be attended in April and May, keeping the team extremely busy during the COVID restrictions.

There has been a slight increase of service requests for barking dogs in May, which the team did expect as people are making their way back into workspaces and leaving dogs unattended at home for longer periods. The website has been updated to include some information for dog owners and complainants to assist in addressing barking concerns.

Overall the Animal Services team have received 1510 requests for service across P1‐P3 categories compared to 1578 requests in the same period last year. The majority of requests have been P3, which require action within 5 working days. The increase in P3 requests has continued over the past three years.

242

Registrations Year to Date

As of 31 May, 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020

Number of Dogs 5484 5641 5824 5897 Registered as at

31 May

Percentage of 96.29% 96.94% 98.51% 97.77% known Dogs

Registered as at 31 May

Table 1 Dog registration from 1 July to 31 May 2020 compared to the same period in previous years.

73 more dogs have been registered this year compared to the same period last year, and an increase of 413 dogs since 2016/17.

Registration invoices have been sent to dog owners. There has been a steady stream of dog owners registering their dogs, as of 9 June there were already nearly 600 dogs registered. The team are promoting the arrangement of payment plans for dog registration fees to avoid late fees, with support from the communications team, and staff are already fielding more enquiries about arranging payment plans. There are six prize packs to win if dog registration is paid before 30 June and all dogs that are registered before 31 July could win their owner their registration fee back. There are six registration fee refunds to be won. ANIMAL SERVICES COMPARISON BY MONTH MAY 2020 300 252 252 250 206 200 177 149 150 121 103 100 51 45 50 36 27 34 31 33 25 16 24 0 3 6 0 Dogs Rehomed Notice to register Infringements Issued Dogs Euthanised Dogs Impounded Dogs

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 3 Dog result activity by category from 1 July to 31 May compared to the same period in the previous years. 243

There are less impounded dogs, unwanted dogs that are not claimed for collection and fewer euthanised dogs. The team are still finding and issuing notices to register to owners of unregistered dogs.

Environmental Health Activity Environmental Health planned work includes food verifications, alcohol and other premises inspections, and water and consent monitoring. Requests for service and noise complaints are unplanned works that are required to be fitted in around scheduled work.

FOOD/ALCOHOL COMPARISON BY MONTH MAY 2020 250 207 200 184 185 149 150 100 89 92 100 79 77 64 71 55 56 54 55 57 60 50 50 33 37

0 Food Verifications Food Alcohol Applications Alcohol Premises Other Premises Reinspection/CARS Received Inspections/CPOs Inspections Follow Up

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 4 Environmental Health verification and inspections by category from 1 July to 31 May compared to the same period in the previous years.

Food Act Verification and inspections Food Verifications and premises inspections are off track due to COVID restrictions.

There are the same number of alcohol applications to renew premises’ licences, but no special licence applications over the past 2 months. The team expect to see special licence applications pick up again now we are at Alert level 1 for COVID.

Hairdressing, beauty and tattoo premises are due for inspection in the months of May and June. The environmental health team offered premises the option to have a remote inspection where practical to avoid interrupting trade when premises could reopen and were likely to be very busy carrying out services. Some operators took up this option and the team will continue to follow up with others that are due for inspection, keeping in mind that operators are extremely busy with appointments with their customers. 244

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPARISON BY MONTH MAY 2020

1000 909 908 867 900 825 800 700 573 547 600 506 500 452 400 296 300 222 186 200 100 55 0 Noise Complaints Requests for Service Water & Consent Monitoring Sampling (sites analysed) (10s)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 5 Environmental Health Service requests and monitoring by category from 1 July to 31 May compared to the same period in the previous years.

Service requests and monitoring Over the COVID lockdown period, there were ongoing delivery issues with the courier services, drinking water samples collected were delivered outside of the statutory timeframes. This meant drinking water samples had to be resampled and driven over to the laboratory in Petone. The three Wairarapa Councils worked together to deliver samples to the laboratory.

Service requests continue to increase this financial year. For example, there have been 64 service requests relating to enquiring about alcohol licensing, such as how to apply for new alcohol licence or planning an event where a special licence is required compared to 23 alcohol enquiries for this time period last year. There have been 113 service requests that relate to food business enquiries such as opening a new business and COVID related enquires compared to the 46 for the previous time period.

Building Control Services Activity It has been largely business as usual in the Building Team although the pandemic has highlighted our adaptability with only minor efficiency losses. With our electronic processes we have continued throughout all lockdown levels although the full team re-formed on 18th May at the Queen Street office under Alert Level 2.

Activity in the month of May has still been affected by COVID-19 and we have had some breaches of statutory timeframes purely due to the numbers and the adjustment period of life back in the office.

The reduction in lockdown levels has been met with a corresponding step up in building activity and we have been struggling to meet inspection demand at times with available resources while keeping on top of processing new consents which continue unabated at this stage. This is discussed further in statistics below. 245

We have not had any refunded consents, but there have been a number of ratepayers taking advantage of the free replacement wood burner consents.

In other news Steven William’s formal confirmation as a Technical Expert (TE) with IANZ for Building Consent Authority Accreditation Audits came through in May. With this role Steven will be exposed to a number of other BCA’s processes when performing audits, receive extra insight into developing legislation and have a presence at the annual BCA Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting; all of which will add value to our organisation.

BCA Functions

Processing In April and May we were able to grant and issue a number of large consents; Rathkeale College, Wairarapa College, Salvation Army and Moore Wilsons are examples. All of these were sent to contractors as we do not have the competency or time available to process consents of this size. However, there are still challenges with external contractors so we will be trialling sending some easier consents out and keeping the more complex ones in house.

Consent Processing completed by outside contractors during May:

1. National Processing (Head Office Kapiti) 3 Commercial. 2. John Tait (Eketahuna) 6 Residential and reviewing older commercial consents from Solutions Team in Christchurch. 3. Focus (Nelson) 8 Residential

From next month we will start to report on Requests For Information (RFI’s) averages, as this is some measure on the quality of applications. Poor quality applications take longer to process.

Building Consents Issued in May Numbers by Category

4% 1% 10% 7% 9%

69%

Com1 Com2 Com3 Res1 Res2 Res3

246

89 applications were received during May - 73 building consents, 15 amendments and 1 Certificate of Acceptance. In comparison for the same period last year we received 93 applications - 80 building consents, 11 amendments and 2 Certificate of Acceptances.

A total of 65 building consents were granted in May with 14 average processing days.

Consents granted by month 120

100

2018 2019 2020

Code Compliance Certificates 203 Code Compliance Certificate decisions were made in May with 34 CCC’s issued with eight breaches of the statutory timeframe, 169 CCC’s were not issued. We are currently reviewing some 800 older building consents in which the BCA has not made a CCC decision, hence the large number of CCC’s that will not be issued at this time. We must complete these outstanding decisions before our audit in November so we can expect inflated CCC statistics until these are complete.

Inspections 347 onsite inspections were booked in May 2020.

The printout below shows the inspection results for the month. You will see that the figures below are higher as they also include desktop inspections which are carried out when assessing CCC applications and other information received. 247

The high rate of average failure, 39%, is concerning as this results in re-inspections. Of particular interest is the higher rates of failure for drainage, pre cladding and pre wrap inspections as this is reflective of work that is not complete when the inspection is booked.

There have been two complaints from the Plumbing and Drainage community over the last two weeks regarding the four day wait times required for inspections. This time is comparable to Carterton but higher than SWDC (as their processing is completed by contractors). We are trying to balance responsiveness in our inspection process with the responsibility the trades themselves have to organise themselves around inspection timeslots and to ensure the work passes first time.

At this stage there is little disincentive to failed inspections as re-inspections are only charged in extreme cases. We may need to look at charging more consistently for re-inspections if the failure rate doesn’t drop after this current post lockdown bubble.

TA Functions General enquiries remain steady (over 100 email enquiries for May), although there were some very hectic days as the lockdown levels changed.

LIMS Land Information Memorandum requests dropped off over the lockdown period but with the change to Alert Level 2 have been steadily increasing again with 10 new applications received in the first week of June; all of which are urgent requests. 248

LIM Reports Issued by Category for May 2020 Total issued 16

Non-Urgent Urgent 50% 50%

Swimming Pools No further pool audits have been completed since the last report.

Earthquake Prone Buildings As highlighted previously, we have not yet sent the second round of Potentially Earthquake Prone Building Notices, as there needs to be some consideration of the pressure currently facing the business community. This will be revisited next quarter.

Building Warrant of Fitness and Compliance Schedules Some routine administration work has been completed on BWoF and Compliance Schedules. We are looking to recruit a compliance position in the near future. FENZ were recently called out to a commercial building in central Masterton to discover a storeroom had been converted to a bedroom with no fire alarms (although there is detection in other areas of the building) and the access was blocked with laundry and household storage. The BWoF for this building has never been issued but was looked at pre-lockdown. We cannot accept a BWoF until fire separations in an inter-floor void are confirmed and the emergency lighting system is complete, but this risk must be weighed against issuing a dangerous building notice and having a dozen people seeking alternative accommodation.

Planning Report

Resource Consents Resource consents for both subdivision and land use across the district have started to pick up and we have received 16 new applications since last reporting. There are also eight consents on hold waiting for further information to be provided.

A number of the larger subdivisions granted before COVID-19 lockdown have been completed and allotments sold.

Planning staff have been very busy answering literally hundreds of email and telephone requests for information regarding potential subdivisions, relocation of houses and other potential developments. 249

Compliance matters, relating to breaches of the WCDP rules, are taking a great deal of time as we have been trying to resolve these matters without issuing abatement notices involving court proceedings.

Chamberlain Road Development Concept Plan The hearing of submissions on the Masterton District Council Development Concept Plan was held on the 28 May before Commissioner Lindsay Daysh. The hearing was adjourned to allow for further consideration regarding access to the proposed development area.

Dark Sky Plan Change South Wairarapa, Carterton and Masterton District Councils have prepared a draft Wairarapa International Dark Sky/Out Door Lighting plan change with a proposed overlay to cover SWDC and CDC (SWDC as the lead Council) to enable progress on the Dark Sky Reserve for Wairarapa (identified in Wairarapa Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan as a significant tourism opportunity).

The Martinborough Dark Sky Society is in the process of applying to obtain accreditation from the International Dark Sky Society for international reserve status for Wairarapa. However the current WCDP lighting provisions are not sufficiently specific to address light pollution that adversely effects the brightness and clarity of the night sky and fail to meet the IDA requirements for dark sky reserve accreditation.

Masterton District is on the periphery of the proposed overlay for the Dark Sky Reserve where the plan change rules would be applicable. When the WCDP is reviewed, subject to the effect on industry and overall safety in the district Masterton District could be included in the overlay.

Community Facilities & Activities

Library and Archive The library opened to the public on 18 May, operating a limited service under COVID-19 conditions. This was well received by the community and the team enjoyed getting back into the building and working with the public again. The learnings from this period of opening and some of the new initiatives tried during Alert Levels 4 and 3 are being taken forward as we now move into Level 1. This includes a new approach to rostering which gives the team more uninterrupted time to do their “off desk” duties and a commitment to continue to create more online content.

We have also begun the process of making it simpler for people to do their own transactions in the library with the order of two purpose built self-issue machines which will speed up borrowing and provide a more pleasant self-issue experience. This will be combined with an approach which takes us out from behind the desk as much as possible to engage with the customers on the floor and assist as necessary.

It was a great moment to see the fences come down around the Library Learning Centre on 5 June. With the impending launch of this new addition to the library, we are operationalising both the MOU with the FAB Lab and thinking about how we can use this to expand the library programming offer. 250

Community, Events and Placemaking Community Development staff have finished with duties on the Wairarapa COVID-19 helpline which is great and now enables the team to focus on the recovery phase with our community.

Planning is underway for some short-term events to support community wellbeing coming out of this tough period of lockdown. Work also continues on preparations for our regularly scheduled events e.g. Christmas on Queen, Waifest.

Work continues on the grants review with some short-term recommendations set to go to council shortly.

The Town Centre revamp detailed design has wrapped up with focus now on getting an Elected Member decision on procurement and next steps.

Refugee resettlement in Masterton is on hold with a global pause in refugee intake. We are awaiting updates from INZ but unlikely to see new intakes until the global COVID-19 situation is resolved.

Liaison with the community/neighbourhood groups Lansdowne, Solway, Eastside, Upper Plain, Riversdale and Castlepoint has ramped up. Our current focus is to work with neighbourhoods to best understand their priorities for recovery locally and support them where possible. Staff are pulling together a list of new funding available post COVID-19 which should provide clarity in an area that has evolved rapidly.

Update from the Wairarapa Regional Trails and Cycling Coordinator

Wairarapa Trails Action Group (WTAG) A meeting was held by Zoom in May where several topics were covered, including the closing of the Mt Reeves track in South Wairarapa. The track had been closed due to recent land access issues. Members were in agreement that the track is an important part of Wairarapa’s cycle tourism offer. Subsequent to the meeting, a small group of WTAG members visited the site with stakeholders and created an action plan to help ensure a quick resolution to the issue. Discussions with the Department of Conservation about the issue have also led to Senior Ranger David Titchener agreeing to be a representative on WTAG. Meetings will continue to be held by Zoom due to positive feedback and a much higher attendance from all councils and members.

Five Towns Trail Master Plan Progress slowed following Alert Level 4 lockdown due to the lead consultant working on the project being unable to return to New Zealand from Australia. However, work has now picked up and a Situation Analysis has been provided. This is being reviewed by the Five Towns Trail project team (a sub-group of the WTAG).

Cycling Events

• Contact has been made with cycling clubs to ascertain their event calendar for the 2020/21 season to ensure no calendar clashes and this has been shared with all stakeholders. This 251

includes the Aotearoa Bike Challenge which was promoted and shared for engagement throughout Wairarapa. • Cycling opportunities have continued to be shared and promoted through the Huri Huri Facebook page during lockdown.

Belgravia Leisure and Recreational Services - Contractors Throughout Alert Levels 3 and 2 staff have continued to meet virtually and speak regularly with Belgravia Leisure and Recreational Services. As we moved through the levels both contractors have continued to respond well to ensure the safety of the community and their employees.

Under Alert Level 2 Recreational Services are nearly at normal levels of service except for additional toilet cleaning. They worked extremely hard under since Alert Level 3 to bring the majority of the district’s parks and open spaces back to specification by the end of May. Along with scheduled works the remainder of the financial year will see a focus on unscheduled activity including in fill planting, tree planting and maintenance.

Trust House Recreation Centre opened for business again at Alert Level 2 with reduced hours and commencing with the gym and fitness classes. The leisure and 7 lane pool opened on a bookings basis towards the end of May and more recently with casual leisure swimming. Returning membership has been slow but steady.

Mawley Park has of course, remained opened throughout all the alert levels providing accommodation for the vulnerable within our community as well as essential workers. Alert Level 2 has seen an increase in booking enquiries and reasonable takings from the Queen’s Birthday weekend.

Leases As part of its response to supporting our community through the effect of the COVID-19 restrictions, Council resolved to offer rent relief to clubs, community groups and businesses who lease property. This offer was accepted by 15 clubs, one community group and two businesses, realising $55,573.88 to support their activities over the coming 12 months. Staff have received several expressions of gratitude, including a thank-you from the Rotary Club of Masterton South who advised that the rent relief has enabled them to continue with their charitable activities including support for the Masterton Food Bank.

A project to review and improve Council’s management of leases within reserve areas is nearing completion. The aim of the project is to ensure that leases, charges and application processes are transparent, fair, consistent and compliant with relevant legislation.

Facilities Projects Renovation works at the Henley Lake toilets are progressing well, with completion on track for end of June. Works include the creation of a new 24-hour unisex and accessible toilet cubicle to meet the demands of visitors to the lake during early morning and evening hours, reinstatement of the shower facility and new toilet furniture, flooring and paintwork. The extension and upgrade of the 252

Eastern Castlepoint toilet block has commenced with completion scheduled for end August ready for the 2020-21 summer tourist season.

Work on the upper floor of the Douglas Villa Clubrooms has been completed to a standard to allow the facility to be utilised for the 2020 Soccer season.

Renovations of the Trust House Recreation Centre have been progressed during May, utilising the opportunity to complete some works while the facility was closed to the public. This included retiling of the change facilities, repairs to the hydro slide stairs (which double as a fire escape from the gym) and sealing repairs and cleaning of the pools.

Senior housing Work is starting on 15 June to replace all south facing windows in 44 units at Panama Village with new double-glazed windows. Work is expected to be completed by 30 June 2020.

Matariki We are in the season of Matariki, however due to the unknown restrictions around the Levels this left us limited to what we can do. Prior to Level 3 & 4 Rāhui (lockdown) there were discussions with taking place with the Iwi to work in collaboration with them to deliver a programme that focuses on the meaning or essence of Matariki. Now that we are in Level 1, those possibilities have now opened up.

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc. have indicated that they have cancelled Matariki this year and will be preparing for 2021.

Compliments & Complaints Over the 1 May to 11 June period council has received:

• Two official complaints. Both are still open and are being actively managed by staff. • Six compliments (ranging from thank-you to our contractors for their work replacing sewer pipes in Hinau Place, thank you to staff for their work in regards to a dog attack incident, thank you to the Archives from a researcher for providing information for their project and thank you to staff for being so responsive and efficient when providing information to a customer).

Service Requests Over the 1 May to 11 June period, Council has received 827 service requests. 287 of these remain open. Four of the total number of service requests have come via Elected members and the remainder came from the public.

In general, the service requests cover the full range of Council activities such as footpaths, roading, water leaks, dogs, streetlights etc.

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act Requests During the month of May, Council has received six Local Government Official Information Act (LGOIMA) requests, all of these requests have been closed with zero withdrawn. None have been

253

transferred to another organisation or resulted in a complaint to the Ombudsman. The average response time for the month of May is approximately 10.1 working days. Requests and responses are in the process of being made available on the Council website https://mstn.govt.nz/council- 2/official-information-act-requests/

Period

No. Responded Ave time > 20 days No. Working outstanding days April 2020 6 (note some 100% 15 1 0 information was only able to be retrieved from sites after entering Alert Level 2) May 2020 6 (note some 100% 10.1 1 0 information was only able to be retrieved from sites after entering Alert Level 2)

People

Staffshare initiative SOLGM has launched Staffshare to support the sharing of talent and staff across the sector. The aim is to support the retention of key capability within the sector, while recognising the importance of councils working together to meet our workforce needs as we move through recovery.

The benefits we have seen from virtual working mean geographical restrictions may no longer play a role in councils’ sharing staff, and this initiative looks to allow councils to take advantage of this possibility at this time.

This initiative is still in its infancy but may offer MDC a medium to long term opportunity to address skills shortages and roles that continue to be difficult to fill, specifically those related to RMA and Building Control. 254

Performance Appraisal Framework We have reviewed and updated our current performance appraisal framework. We are now working with the PSA through our delegates to review and hone the draft framework before rolling it out through the organisation next month. The new framework will be easier for Managers and staff to assess performance and document performance objectives and training, development, and career aspirations.

MDC approach to managing COVID-19 From March to June MDC successfully navigated the transition across the COVID-19 Alert Level System. Site specific workplace safety plans were developed for each of our buildings and facilities. These were updated regularly in accordance guidance from the Ministry of Health and WorkSafe. Current Operations under Alert Level 1 include observing hygiene protocols and enhanced cleaning regimes. Some practices established under Alert levels 3 and 2 have been continued, including the use of perspex screens in public facing areas to prevent the spread of seasonal illnesses, and sign in/ out kiosks for staff working on site. Assuming we remain at Level 1, these arrangements will be reviewed in September to assess ongoing requirements. 255

RESPOND REBUILD RECOVER

Response & Recovery Business and Infrastructure Housing Environment Tourism People & Communities Co‐ordination Employment

Funding for Economic Advisory DIA/LGNZ/SOLG 'Shovel‐Ready' Group: Cross‐agency M/NEMA Government Economic Work Strategic Tourism Caring 4 Communities Projects >$20 Programme Response Unit Housing Build Programme Assets Protection million (MSD) Programme (All of Government) Programme (CIP, TSY) (HUD) Conservation and (MBIE) Transitioning to Environment Finance Assistance Māori Development for Businesses Initiatives DIA/LGNZ/SOLG Recovery and (TSY, IRD) (TPK) M Recovery Employment Programme Regional Needs Initiatives Business Tax Relief Housing and Rental Assessments and Te Maihi O Te Support Provincial Whare Māori – (MfE, DOC, MBIE, Package MPI, LINZ) (TSY) Funding for (HUD) Projects Recovery Māori and Iwi Regional Tourism Housing (MBIE, PDU) Trades and Organisations Tax Support for Caring 4 Innovation Apprenticeships Households Communities Training package (MBIE) (MAIHI, Kaianga Ora, (TSY, IRD) Programme Fast‐tracked HUD) (MoE) (MSD) Resource Māori Employment Health Sector Consenting Package Recovery Programme Process (MoH) Construction (TPK, MSD, MBIE) New Zealand (MfE) Futures Tourism DPMC All of Accord Initiatives Regional Skills and Taskforce Funding to Community Government Leadership Groups Programme (MBIE) Recovery Role Improving the (MSD) National Land Health of New (MBIE) Transport Fund Zealand’s Arts, Culture and Review Expanding Skills ATTACHMENT 1 Waterways Support for Whenua Heritage Initiatives (MoT, NZTA) for Industry Businesses Strategic Initiative (MfE/MPI) (MCH) Recovery (TPK, MBIE) Tourism Monitoring (MSD, Construction Transitions Accord) Programme Programme Sport and Recreation MoT Recovery Recovery Package (TSY) Regional Business (MBIE) Programme Partners Network (Sport New Zealand) (MBIE)