Committee of Council Agenda

Committee of Council - AGENDA

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the Invercargill City Council The meeting will be conducted by Audio / visual link via the Platform of Zoom on Monday 18 May 2020 at 3.00 pm

Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr T M Biddle (Deputy Mayor) Cr R R Amundsen Cr R L Abbott Cr A J Arnold Cr W S Clark Cr A H Crackett Cr P W Kett Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr N D Skelt Cr L F Soper

CLARE HADLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1 Committee of Council - AGENDA

A G E N D A

Page

2. APOLOGIES

3. INTEREST REGISTER A2279220

4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020 A121234

5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 MAY 2020 A3003168

6. CITY BLOCK CONSULTATION 2 A3009478

6.1 Appendix 1

7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY DOCUMENT CHANGES A1323940

8. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A2645620

8.1 Appendix 1 8.2 Appendix 2

9. URGENT BUSINESS

10. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

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

(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Committee of Council 4 May 2020. (b) Confirming of Emergency Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the 5 May 2020. (c) Recyclables Processing Services.

2 Committee of Council - AGENDA

(d) Governance Oversight - Contract 886 – Invercargill City Centre Master Plan Design Services.

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

(a) Confirming of Section 7(2)(i) Section 48(1)(a) Minutes – To enable any local That the public Committee of authority holding the conduct of this item Council 4 May 2020 information to carry on, would be likely to without prejudice or result in the disclosure disadvantage, of information for negotiations (including which good reason for commercial and industrial withholding would negotiations) exist under Section 7

(b) Confirming of Section 7(2)(g) Section 48(1)(a) Minutes – legal professional That the public Emergency privilege conduct of this item Committee of would be likely to Council 5 May 2020 result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7

(c) Recyclables Section 7(2)(i) Section 48(1)(a) Processing Services To enable any local That the public authority holding the conduct of this item information to carry on, would be likely to without prejudice or result in the disclosure disadvantage, of information for negotiations (including which good reason for commercial and industrial withholding would negotiations) exist under Section 7

(d) Governance Section 7(2)(i) Section 48(1)(a) Oversight - Contract To enable any local That the public 886 – Invercargill authority holding the conduct of this item City Centre Master information to carry on, would be likely to Plan Design without prejudice or result in the disclosure Services disadvantage, of information for negotiations (including which good reason for commercial and industrial withholding would negotiations) exist under Section 7

3 Committee of Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ELECTED MEMBERS NAME ENTITY INTERESTS PROPERTY RONALD LINDSAY ABBOTT Invercargill City Council Councillor Kiwi-Pie Radio 88FM Invercargill Director / Broadcaster

REBECCA RAE AMUNDSEN Invercargill City Council Councillor Arch Draught Ltd Director BP Orr Ltd Director Task Ltd Director Arts Murihiku Trustee Dan Davin Literary Foundation Trustee/Chair Heritage South Contractor Glengarry Community Action Events Co-ordinator (Volunteer) Group SMAG Board Council Representative

Members Interest Register 12 February 2020

4 Committee of Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ALLAN JAMES ARNOLD Invercargill City Council Councillor Ziff’s Café Bar Ltd Executive Director Buster Crabb Ltd Executive Director Ziff’s HR Ltd Executive Director Ziff’s Trust Trustee Administrator Southland Aero Club Member Invercargill Club Member Invercargill East Rotary Member TONI MARIE BIDDLE Invercargill City Council Councillor Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trustee Trust Board McIntyre and Dick Husband (Kris MacLellan) – Chief Executive Officer WILLIAM STUART CLARK Invercargill City Council Councillor Invercargill Ratepayers Advocacy Member Group

Members Interest Register 12 February 2020

5 Committee of Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220 ALEX HOLLY CRACKETT Invercargill City Council Councillor High Street Ride Southland Chair Invercargill Southland Youth Futures Advisory Chair Board Sport Southland Trustee McIntyre Dick Marketing Manager PETER WARREN KETT Invercargill City Council Councillor Age Concern Southland Board Member Kite Investments Limited Director Invercargill Harness Racing Club Vice President and Life Member Board Member Ascot Consortium Member GRAHAM DAVID LEWIS Invercargill City Council Councillor Bluff 2024 Rejuvenation Officer Hospice Southland Trustee City Centre Heritage Steering Member Group DARREN JAMES LUDLOW Invercargill City Council Councillor 770 Queens Drive Radio Southland Manager Invercargill Healthy Families Invercargill Board Member Murihiku Maori Wardens Board Member Southland Community Law Centre Board Member Thrive Community Trust Trustee Environment Southland Lyndal Ludlow (wife) – Councillor

Members Interest Register 12 February 2020

6 Committee of Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220

IAN REAY POTTINGER Invercargill City Council Councillor 171 Terrace Street Southland Electronics Limited Director Invercargill 9810 Santa Parade Organiser Alice Pottinger (Wife) TIMOTHY RICHARD Invercargill City Council Mayor SHADBOLT Kiwi Speakers Limited Director SIT Ambassador Member NIGEL DEAN SKELT Invercargill City Council Councillor Badminton New Zealand Board Member Badminton Oceania Vice President Badminton World Federation Council Member (Chair of Communications and Media) ILT Stadium Southland General Manager LESLEY FRANCES SOPER Invercargill City Council Councillor 137 Morton Street Breathing Space Southland Trust Chair Strathern (Emergency Housing) Director Invercargill Omaui Tracks Trust Secretary / Treasurer 24 Margaret Street National Council of Women (NCW) Member Glengarry Citizens Advice Bureau Board Member Invercargill Southland ACC Advocacy Trust Employee Southern District Health Board Member Southland Warm Homes Trust Member

Members Interest Register 12 February 2020

7 Committee of Council - INTEREST REGISTER

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ELECTED MEMBERS INTEREST REGISTER

A2279220

EXECUTIVE STAFF NAME ENTITY INTERESTS PROPERTY CLARE HADLEY Invercargill City Council Chief Executive Hadley Family Trust Trustee

CAMERON MCINTOSH Invercargill City Council Group Manager - Works and Services

DAVID FOSTER Invercargill City Council Acting Group Manager - Finance and Corporate Services Executive Director Foster and Associates Ltd DARREN EDWARDS Invercargill City Council Group Manager - Environmental and Planning Services

JANE PARTIFF Invercargill City Council Interim Group Manager – Dementia Canterbury Charitable Infrastructure Trust Board Member

Members Interest Register 12 February 2020

8 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INVERCARGILL CITY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED BY AUDIO / VISUAL LINK VIA THE PLATFORM OF ZOOM ON MONDAY 4 MAY 2020 AT 3.00 PM

PRESENT: Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr R L Abbott Cr R R Amundsen Cr A J Arnold Cr T M Biddle (Chair) Cr W S Clark Cr A H Crackett Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr N D Skelt Cr L F Soper

IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs C Hadley – Chief Executive Mr D Foster – Interim Group Manager – Finance Mrs J Parfitt – Interim Group Manager – Infrastructure Mr D Edwards – Group Manager – Environmental and Planning Services Mr P Thompson - Executive Manager - Operations Mr A Cameron – Executive Officer Mr A Murray – Water Manager Mr J Rees – Engineering Services Manager Ms Frey – Interim Parks and Recreation Manager Mr P Horner – Manager Building Assets Ms L Kuresa – Governance Officer

2. APOLOGIES

Cr Kett and His Worship the Mayor for lateness.

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.

3. INTEREST REGISTER

Nil.

4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 APRIL 2020

Moved Cr Clark, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the minutes be confirmed as a true and correct record.

9 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020

5. NOTICE OF MAJOR LATE ITEMS

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Clark and RESOLVED that the Major Late Item – Shovel Ready Projects be accepted and be taken under public session.

Cr Clark informed the meeting that he wanted to take the matter regarding the PSA dispute around staff remuneration that was widely discussed by the public in the media.

Mrs Hadley suggested that if Council wanted clarification on this matter it needed to be discussed under Public Excluded Session.

Moved Cr Clark, seconded Cr Biddle that the item with regard to the PSA dispute around staff remuneration, be accepted as a late item under Public Excluded Session.

The motion now being put, was LOST.

5.1 Shovel Ready Projects

Mrs Hadley took the meeting through an oral report on this item and explained the urgency as to why Council needed to discuss it at this meeting.

The project leaders, (Mr Cameron, Ms Frey, Mr Horner, Mr Murray and Mr Rees), each outlined the total for the project cost and funding that Council was seeking as follows:

∑ Inner City Project - $33 million in grants and $50 million concession reline; ∑ Stead Street Floodbank – $11.5 million ∑ The Bluff Master Plan - $4.15 million ∑ Branxholme water pipe replacement on the basis that the work could be consolidated into a shorter period - $3.75 million ∑ Civic Administration Building - $5 million.

Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Clark and RESOLVED that Council endorse the projects as outlined.

6. DEREK GOSTELOW’S LEGACY ($90,000 BEQUEST TO INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL)

Ms Frey took the meeting through the report. (A2979660)

Cr Soper voiced her concern around gifting funds to trusts as it was not stated in Mr Gostelow’s legacy to do so. If he wanted that to happen, he would have stated it in his will but it was a bequest of $90,000 towards a project around Otatara.

In response to a question, Ms Frey explained that staff spent time researching Mr Gostelow’s interests and understood that he enjoyed walking and spending time exploring. That had resulted in the recommendation for the Committee to consider today; which was keeping with his desires.

The Committee discussed this item further and Cr Clark and Cr Arnold stated that they did not agree with the $90,000 being used for one project, but should be used for a range of projects.

10 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020

Note: His Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 4.04 pm.

In response to a question, Ms Frey explained that the Fosbender Park project in itself could be developed to include walking tracks. The reason for choosing Fosbender Park, as opposed to Bushy Point or Otatara came back to “leaving a legacy” comment. While the improvements to the other parks would be beneficial, they would potentially dissolve into the wider trail network and you would be able to see the contribution. It was not an easy call to make.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Amundsen and RESOLVED the report “Derek Gostelow’s Legacy ($90,000 Bequest to Invercargill City Council” be received; and

That the Committee of Council approve the recommendation that Derek Gostelow’s $90,000 bequest be spent on Option 3: One specific significant project, Fosbender Park enhancement.

Note: Cr Clark, Cr Arnold and Cr Abbott voted against the motion.

In response to a question, Ms Frey agreed with Cr Clark that the decision from today’s meeting would be communicated by way of a one-page flyer that would be circulated to the Otatara community.

7. EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY – UPDATE ON PROGRESS

Mr Murray took the meeting through the report. (A2986598)

In response to a question, Mr Murray explained that the major threat for the Invercargill Branxholme supply was drought. Council was engaging in investigative work to look at the feasibility long-term, and not committing to developing it. This exercise was to complete the investigative work or an underground source acting as an emergency water supply.

In response to a question, Mr Murray explained that recently Council agreed to try and obtain the best information before committing to on-site work such as drilling because drilling was expensive.

Moved Cr Soper, seconded His Worship the Mayor and RESOLVED that the report, “Emergency Water Supply – Update on Progress” be received; and

That Council receive notification of the validity of the recommendations outlined in this report once the peer review process has been completed.

11 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020

8. RATES RISE FOR 1 JULY 2020 TO JUNE 2021 FINANCIAL YEAR

Mr Foster took the meeting through a presentation on this item; (A2222182)

In response to a question, Mr Foster explained that the average rate for Invercargill was about $2150.00, (2% of that was around $40.00 a year).

In response to a question, Mr Foster explained that the Crown Infrastructure Fund would help as it brought in some revenue, but he was aware that the Council and the community would have projects going forward that would need funding.

Note: Cr Kett joined the meeting at 5.00 pm.

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Crackett and RESOLVED that the report, “Rates Rise for July 2020 to June 2021 Financial Year” be received; and

∑ That the rates rise for the year commencing 1 July 2020 be set at 2%; and ∑ That the rates rise be applied evenly to all rate types, to ensure that individual ratepayers will have rates increase closely relating to the 2%; and ∑ That actual striking of the rates will occur after adoption of the Annual Plan; ∑ That Council notes that where a property has been improved or developed since 30 June 2019 different rates rises may occur.

9. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL – 31 MARCH 2020

Mr Foster took the meeting through the report. (A2995684)

In response to a question, Mr Foster explained that Anderson House was not forecast as being done.

In response to a question, Mr Edwards explained that building consents continued to be a challenge as staff continue to process paper applications received. Earlier this year Council moved into electronic lodgement of applications through ‘Simply’, which was the front-end, which allowed staff to carry out inspections electronically. It had been highlighted that issuing of consents was between 95%-100% consistently during Alert Level 4. He was confident that there would be some improvement in the results going forward.

In response to a question, Mr Edwards explained that the team had two vacancies that would be looked at after the Covid-19 lockdown. He noted that there would be a lot of consultants who would be wanting employment, so the market would be fairly active as far as recruitment was concerned. He was happy with the level of service undertaken by Building Solutions. Their target was 100% and it had consistently being at 100% over the last two months.

Building Solutions allowed Council to have legislative building competency across all levels, so they were able to provide the full suite of full competencies for Council. Council was still signing them off and the process had changed to ensure that Council was getting them out quicker.

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the report, “Quarterly Financial Report – 31 March 2020” be received.

12 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD 4 MAY 2020

10. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.

11. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Committee of Council 28 April 2020.

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

(a) Confirming of Section 7(2)(i) Section 48(1)(a) Minutes – To enable any local That the public Committee of authority holding the conduct of this item Council information to carry on, would be likely to 28 April 2020 without prejudice or result in the disclosure disadvantage, of information for negotiations (including which good reason for commercial and withholding would industrial exist under Section 7 negotiations)

There being no further business the meeting closed at 5.28 pm.

13 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 MAY 2020

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INVERCARGILL CITY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED BY AUDIO / VISUAL LINK VIA THE PLATFORM OF ZOOM ON MONDAY 5 MAY 2020 AT 10.00 AM

PRESENT: Sir T R Shadbolt, KNZM JP Cr R L Abbott Cr R R Amundsen Cr T M Biddle Cr W S Clark Cr A H Crackett Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr N D Skelt Cr L F Soper

2. APOLOGIES

Cr A J Arnold. Cr L F Soper put in an apology that she would need to leave the meeting early, to attend another meeting.

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.

3. INTEREST REGISTER

Nil.

4. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved Cr Biddle, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the exception of Mr RIki Donnelly from Preston Russell, namely:

(a) Staff Matters.

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

14 Committee of Council - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL HELD ON 5 MAY 2020

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

(a) Staff Matters Section 7(2)(g) Section 48(1)(a) legal professional That the public privilege conduct of this item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7

15 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

TO: COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

FROM: RHIANNON SUTER, STRATEGY AND POLICY MANAGER

MEETING DATE: MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CITY BLOCK CONSULTATION 2

SUMMARY

It is recommended to consult on additional investment into City Block. The consultation document is appended to be approved for consultation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council

1. Receive the report

2. Note consultation would commence Tuesday 19 May and be completed on Friday 12 June

3. Determine that Council’s preferred Option for Investment in City Block be Option One, resulting in a total investment of $46million

4. Approve the consultation document “Extra Money for City Block?”

IMPLICATIONS

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

16 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This consultation seeks the public’s input on a total $46 million investment, incorporating $20m initial investment and $5m contingency, as well as an additional $5m originally allowed for design changes and an additional $16m investment.

This investment would be loan funded and financial analysis shows the investment will be manageable in line with the financial strategy and within the Council’s debt ceiling. The additional impact on rates will be limited due to favourable costs of borrowing. There may be an impact on the commencement or timing of other projects in order to continue to manage debt prudently.

BACKGROUND

Invercargill City Council and the community have recognised that in order to support economic and population growth a vibrant and healthy CBD is needed.

Following consultation in 2019, Council made the decision to be an investment partner in the redevelopment of the CBD. Council is a part owner in the land, which was secured for future development, through Invercargill City Holdings (ICHL) and HWR Property Limited. Council agreed to invest up to $30m ($20m + $5m contingency and an additional $5m for potential design changes) to support the first three stages of the six stage development. ICHL has purchased $25m shares in Invercargill Central Ltd (ICL).

At the time of the initial consultation, two private investors were identified as having committed to the development. Since that time, one private investor made the decision to invest no further funds beyond their initial $4m. Since consultation, Community Trust South and the Provincial Growth Fund have confirmed their investments in the development.

As a result of these changes, and allowing for repurposing of $5m initially allowed for by Council towards design changes, there is a $16m gap in funding for the project. At this stage no other funders have been found to meet this shortfall.

To date the development has been progressed within the anticipated budget. If the shortfall in funding is not met by Council then this may have consequences for the development to meet the objectives noted above. A shortfall in equity funding may have implications for the decisions of other funders. The developer has indicated that without further investment from Council the project is unlikely to proceed.

Covid-19 is creating greater uncertainty in the business environment. One result is that it is taking longer than anticipated to agree leases for retail spaces.

Council has applied for Central Government support from the Shovel Ready fund for City Block and other city centre projects. A $30m grant and $55m to underwrite loans has been applied for. If this funding is achieved then the $16m shortfall will be met through this funding.

THE CONSULTATION OPTIONS

At the time of the initial consultation in May and June 2019, Council committed to consult the people again if further investment was required. Therefore, despite the limited financial implications as a result of the low cost of borrowing and Council’s strong financial position, the issue is significant and consultation is recommended.

17 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

The Council would be consulting on whether to increase the investment into Invercargill Central Limited to a total $46 million investment, specifically on repurposing the $5m originally allowed for design changes and an additional $16m investment.

The three options are: OPTION ONE

Invest an additional $21m in the City Block redevelopment project, bringing the total Council investment to $46m. This comprises the original $20m investment, the $5m for contingency and a repurposing of the $5m for design consulted on in August 2019, as well as a further $16m to cover the funding shortfall. This would allow the project to continue with the current scope and scale. No further rates increase is anticipated due to changes in the cost of borrowing.

OPTION TWO

Do not invest additional funding. Keep the investment at $25m. This comprises the $25m consulted on in August 2019, including the $5m allowed for contingency, but does not include the $5m consulted on for design changes. Developers would have to manage the impact of this on the development and/or other funders. The developer has indicated that at this level of investment the project is unlikely to be able to proceed. No rates increase.

OPTION THREE

Repurpose the additional $5m identified for design changes as a contribution of additional investment. The total investment would be $30m. There would be a shortfall of $16m for the project. Developers would have to manage the impact of this on the development and/ or other funders. The developer has indicated that at this level of investment the project is unlikely to be able to proceed. No further rates increase is anticipated due to changes in the cost of borrowing.

It is recommended that Council’s preferred option should be Option One.

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

Consultation would commence on Tuesday 19 May and conclude on Friday 12 June.

The consultation will be promoted via traditional and social media and via the new email list for people interested in consultation opportunities. The consultation document and background materials will be available on the website and at the Invercargill Civic Administration Building, the Bluff Service Centre and the Public Library.

Submissions will be via an online form at icc.govt.nz or in hard copy via post or in person at the Civic Administration Building and Bluff Service Centre.

Given that the issue of City Block has been consulted on in depth previously and, as a result on the limitations on public gatherings as a result of Covid-19, community meetings are not recommended. Instead an online question and answer session with Councillors is planned.

Hearings are planned for the week commencing 14 June 2020.

The Consultation document is appended for approval.

18 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council’s preferred Option be Option One, resulting in a total investment of $46million. In the event that Central Government investment from the Shovel Ready Fund is received Council investment would not be needed to meet the $16million shortfall.

19 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY FOR CITY BLOCK Dee City Centre Block Consultation Document? May 2020

20 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay CONSULTATION CLOSES UPDATE Esk MONEY FOR CITY WHY IS EXTRA INVESTMENT REQUIRED? BLOCK 12 JUNE 2020 Dee? This Consultation Document summarises the key decision and options for Background decisions of other funders. The developer has indicated that without further investment from Council the project Invercargill City Council and the community have Council regarding extra investment in the City Block Development project. is unlikely to proceed. recognised that in order to support economic and population growth a vibrant and healthy CBD is needed. Community consultation closes on 12 June. Council’s How can you submit your views? Covid-19 decisions on investing further in the City Block Following consultation in 2019, Council made the decision Submit online at www.icc.govt.nz Covid-19 is creating greater uncertainty in the business Development project will likely be made in June 2020 to be an investment partner in the redevelopment of environment. One result is that it is taking longer than and will be available on Council’s website following Alternatively, use the submission form in the back of this the CBD. Council is a part owner in the land, which was anticipated to agree leases for retail spaces. this date. document and: secured for future development, through Invercargill Council has applied for Central Government support from Deliver to: Civic Administration Building City Holdings (ICHL) and HWR Property Limited. the Shovel Ready fund for City Block and other city centre Where can you get more information? 101 Esk Street Council agreed to invest up to $30m ($20m + $5m contingency and an additional $5m for potential design projects. A $30m grant and $55m to underwrite loans has The statement of proposal and supporting information Invercargill changes) to support the first three stages of the six been applied for. If this funding is achieved then the $16m from the first consultation in 2019 is available at OR: Bluff Service Centre stage development. ICHL has purchased $25m shares in shortfall will be met through this funding. www.icc.govt.nz/cityblockconsultation 16 Gore Street Invercargill Central Ltd (ICL). Bluff You can also view copies by request at the Civic What are we consulting on? Administration Building Help Desk, the Bluff Service Post to: Submission – City Block Update Council is consulting on whether to increase its Centre or the Invercargill Public Library. Alternatively, Invercargill City Council At the time of the initial consultation, two private investment to a total $46m for stages one, two and three contact us on [email protected] or by phone 03 211 1777. Private Bag 90104 investors were identified as having committed to the of the development, which incorporates: INVERCARGILL 9840 development. Since that time, one private investor made + Initial investment: $25m ($20m +$5m contingency) How can you talk to Councillors? the decision to invest no further funds beyond their initial + $5m allocated to allow for design changes Hearings are planned for the week commencing Monday $4m. Since consultation, Community Trust South and the + $16m extra investment 14 June. If it is not possible to hold the hearings in Provincial Growth Fund have confirmed their investments person due to Covid-19, alternative options will be in the development. provided. As a result of these changes, and allowing for repurposing REFINEMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL of $5m initially allowed for by Council towards design At the time of the initial consultation, the total changes, there is a $16m gap in funding for the project. project cost was estimated at $180m, this has now At this stage no other funders have been found to meet been refined to $ 167m. this shortfall. 700 instead of 850 car parks are planned. To date the development has been progressed within In the original consultation document, an outdoor the anticipated budget. If the shortfall in funding is not courtyard with space for people to enjoy time met by Council then this may have consequences for outside was included – This is in fact part of the the development to meet the objectives noted above. A planned stage five of the development. shortfall in equity funding may have implications for the

2 3

21 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY FUNDING CITY BLOCK THE OPTIONS FOR CITY BLOCK Dee? ORIGINAL ICC INVESTMENT OPTION ONE Invest an additional $21m in the City Block redevelopment project, bringing the total Council investment to $46m. CONTINGENCY This comprises the original $20m investment, the $5m for contingency and a repurposing of the $5m for design ALLOCATED FOR consulted on in August 2019 and a further $16m to cover DESIGN CHANGES the funding shortfall. This would allow the project to continue with the current scope and scale. No further rates increase is anticipated due to changes in the cost of EXTRA ICC INVESTMENT borrowing.

PROVINCIAL GROWTH FUND OPTION TWO Do not invest additional funding. Keep the investment at $25m. This comprises the $25m consulted on in August $16M COMMUNITY TRUST SOUTH 2019, including the $5m allowed for contingency, but does not include the $5m consulted on for design changes. Developers would have to manage the impact of this on PRIVATE SECTOR the development and/or other funders. The developer has indicated that at this level of investment the project is $20M LOAN FUNDING unlikely to be able to proceed. No rates increase. OPTION THREE $20M Repurpose the additional $5m identified for design $52.5M changes as a contribution of additional investment. STREETWORKS The total investment would be $30m. There would be a shortfall of $16m for the project. Developers would have $20M to manage the impact of this on the development and/ $29M or other funders. The developer has indicated that at this level of investment the project is unlikely to be able to $19.5M proceed. No further rates increase is anticipated due to changes in the cost of borrowing. The Council’s preferred option is Option one.

4 5

22 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY THE DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL FOR CITY BLOCK Dee? The City Block Development proposes to incorporate the Impact on other projects land and buildings between Esk and Tay Streets, bordered WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THIS WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR Council currently has a strong debt position. Our net debt by Dee Street and Kelvin Street. DEVELOPMENT? COUNCIL OF MAKING AN EXTRA (external borrowing less investments) is very low relative Council is proposing investing in the City Block INVESTMENT IN CITY BLOCK? to similar Councils, and this reflects in Council’s very good DON ST Development for strategic reasons, rather than solely Credit rating of AA+ (Fitch Rating Agency). However commercial reasons. It proposes to invest in the Community Outcomes Council has borrowing limits relating to income rather development for the social and economic wellbeing of Maintaining and reinforcing the viability and vibrancy than our total assets. This is largely because our assets the community, rather than commercial returns that may of Invercargill’s CBD is of widespread concern to the are mainly for infrastructure services and so do not have a be realised. Some of the community wellbeing benefits D Invercargill people and is a key priority for Council. Extra return on investment.

E identified from the success of this development include: investment is required for the construction work of the

VE Funding the additional investment does not breach ESK ST K project to commence. Council’s financial strategy and would not cause it to E R Economic and Social Wellbeing LV exceed its debt ceiling, which is in place to help Council O + Action as a catalyst for accelerating investment in

N Funding the investment ensure it manages debt responsibly. However, the increased

N ST Southland Council’s investment in City Block will be loan funded, with borrowings do get close to our debt maxima. Our Long-

ST + Provision of $16 million direct investment for the ST the cost of borrowing funded through rates. The cost of term Plan had increases on average of 3.1%. However as a total project EE borrowing on the initial investment of up to $30 million was result of Covid-19, Council has determined a rates increase D TAY ST + Increase in Southland’s GDP estimated at $900,000. Since then the expected interest of 2%. With the debt level rising, at some point Council will + Creation of jobs rate has dropped from around 2.5% per annum to around need to return to rates in line with the existing plan, around + Creation of a more liveable city 1.5%. Changes to interest rates have resulted in a lower cost 3%, in order to deliver future as yet unknown capital works The Council and other potential partners recognise that + Activation of the city socially, with the provision of a of borrowing. Our initial assessment was that funding of Future projects may need to be timed differently in order this is the right block for an urban rejuvenation project. It public place and spaces to connect $900,000 from rates would allow the interest ($750,000) to appropriately manage debt. This may result in a delay to is central to the heart of the CBD. + Addressing of the seismic health and safety risk of to be funded and also provide for some loan repayment. other projects or projects not commencing. some buildings The plan at the back of this document shows the areas Overtime returns from the investment would enable more + Creation of a more vibrant marketplace and within the City Block in which Council would be investing. money for the repayment of debt. As a result reductions in diverse offerings the cost of borrowing falling the higher level of investment The $ 167 million redevelopment would include: + Provision of more opportunities for residents $46 million is forecast to have an interest cost of $690,000 + Retail shops, ranging from a large anchor retailer to Without Council investment, the City Block Development per annum. However as the additional investment will use small boutique stores is unlikely to proceed as the returns are too low to attract as larger portion of the available debt capacity, further + Three distinct food and beverage precincts enough private investment. provision would need to be made to ensure that other major + Covered laneways that connect the food and retail planned projects are still able to undertaken. For this reason Full details of the proposal for City Block proposal are precincts to offices and a medical centre it is proposed that a further $300,000 rates per annum available. See page two for details on how to find more + A multi-level, covered carpark providing more than would be required to maintain borrowing capacity for future information. 700 parks capital. + A childcare facility on the second level No further rates increase beyond the 1.2% forecast during The development would open in three stages - December the initial consultation is anticipated due to changes in 2021 with the anchor tenant trading; mid 2022; and the the cost of borrowing. For example, if you currently pay final stage completed December 2022. $2,000 annually in your rates, your rates contribution to the investment, in say, the first year, would be $24. These Invercargill Central Limited (ICL) has been formed to figures are indicative only undertake the redevelopment of the land owned in the Block. Council, through ICHL has invested $25m in ICL. Resource consent has been granted and demolition has commenced.

6 7

23 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR CITY BLOCK Dee? Why should Council invest extra? How much is Council proposing to invest? OPPORTUNITIES RISKS Following consultation, Council resolved to invest in the Council is proposing a total investment of $46 million. development on the basis that the community wellbeing This includes the initial $20m investment, as well as $5m contingency and $5m allowed for design changes already Direct investment in the city of $167 million. Significant disruption to the CBD during the build. outcomes outweigh any inherent risk in investing in the proposal. At the time of making the initial decision consulted on, as well as an extra investment of $16million to invest Council noted, and was aware of the social to cover the funding shortfall. Catalyst for five further projects in the Block totalling Building could be delayed or incomplete. and economic benefits of its investment in the project, $118 million. as well as the reintroduction of the four wellbeings What happens if Council doesn’t invest? (cultural, social, economic, environmental) into the Local Without Council’s investment, it is unlikely that the project Increase Southland’s GDP by $475 million in 2019 – 2035. Significant impact on the balance of the city’s retail area, Government Act. Council also noted that the cost of the This estimate was produced pre-Covid, the economic through shoppers parking within the City Block building would proceed unless alternative investment can be found. impact of which is not yet known. and then not leaving the complex. investment reflected the lower commercial returns from a Should the development not go ahead, there is a risk that development of this type and that this creates a barrier to the decline of the Invercargill CBD would accelerate. It Generate jobs (500+ to build City Block over 3 – 4 years; Does not stimulate further development, exacerbating completion of the project by the private sector alone1. is unlikely that a development of a similar nature would 300 permanent retail and hospitality jobs). existing issues. Since that time the world has been impacted by COVID-19 be undertaken, and alternative uses of the site may not have the same potential for transformational impact that Completion of an anchor project in achieving the Cost to ratepayers, including the risk that Council may which has caused higher levels of uncertainty and further is hoped to be achieved from this development. Further, Southland Regional Development Strategy’s target of be required to satisfy any cost overruns or risk an decreased the likelihood of private sector funding. Central Council, through its shareholding in HWCP Ltd, would 10,000 more people. incomplete development. Government is considering a range of ways it can help the be left owning 50% of a site which has already been Additional 700+ carparks saturates the paying market recovery and also expects Local Government to also do Contribute to the recovery of the tourism industry in demolished. Council would be required to undertake the resulting in significant carparking revenue loss for its fair share to steer the economy through the current Southland. maintenance and ongoing costs of owning this property. Council. issues. This investment, as a project currently underway, is one way in which Council may do this. While the final This would have a financial impact on the Council, an Creates a more liveable city, providing a public place and impact that would need to be addressed without the Risks involved in a public / private partnership. decision on the progress of the development lies with spaces for people to connect. Invercargill Central Limited, Council is aware that it does benefits of the social and economic boosts that the not have a project of the same scale that is currently able development would generate, both during and after its to provide work and support for the community. construction. This is likely to be a short term issue, but we Addresses the seismic health and safety risk of some The City Block Development is not “core” Council business. can’t predict what would happen in the longer term. buildings. Council recognises that its participation is a significant influence on the success of the development and that Other projects will be delayed or not occur because of What would it cost to build this development? without additional investment, the development may not the investment. Council has been requested to invest in Invercargil Central be able to proceed. The financial return on investment for Limited that will complete stages one, two and three of this project is unlikely to attract sufficient interest from Retail is impacted by a downturn and changing shopping the development. The estimated cost of these stages is habits caused by Covid-19, resulting in lower uptake of private investors alone. Council does not expect to make $167 million. Stages four, five and six would be undertaken retail space a commercial return on its investment in the short to by other entities. It is estimated that these developments medium term, but neither does it anticipate making a loss. would cost a further $100 million. The plan at the back of However, there are broader benefits to Invercargill – and this document outlines the stages and shows which stages Southland – to be realised through developing a vibrant Council investment would be used for. and dynamic city centre. For Council, investing in such a CBD regeneration project is consistent with supportive action that delivers on a number of Council’s community Who are the other partners Council is outcomes, including: working with? A range of parties have been requested to invest in + An economy that continues to grow and diversify Invercargill Central Limited. At this stage Council can + Business areas that are bustling with people, activities confirm that two private investors have invested $25m and culture and $4m respectively. In addition Central Government has + Residents of, as well as visitors to, Invercargill give agreed to invest $19.5 million through the Provincial positive feedback and have great experiences Growth Fund and further investment has been sought from the Government’s Shovel Ready fund. Community Trust South has 1 Council Minutes 13 August 2019 agreed to invest $20m. 8 9

24 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY FOR CITY BLOCK Dee? What will happen if the Government does considered in a staged manner for various projects which retail environment in the longer term, although Southland will be identified in the master plan (stage one). The is more resilient than some regions as a result of not being invest more through the Shovel Ready Fund? master plan design consultant has been engaged and exposed to international tourism markets. This is an issue If the Government invests directly into Invercargill work will start in 2021. that will considered by Invercargill Central Limited in the Central Limited to cover the $16m shortfall in funding, final design of the development. then Council would only invest up to $30m in the project. What is the term of the investment? Council’s investment in the City Block Development would Will the later stages of the development Who would be responsible for the ongoing costs be long-term. Council would expect to receive a return (stages four, five and six) proceed? of managing the City Block Development? on its investment. It is possible that this return would All six stages of the development have been designed to A new entity, Invercargill Central Limited (ICL) that increase over time and make the investment commercially work together, including stage four, which includes office meets the needs of all shareholders has been formed. attractive to a third party. Council would, as with all its space that Council sees as integral to the city centre. This new entity will own and operate the asset. As an investments, continue to review the benefits and costs of Stages four, five and six will proceed if investment is investor and shareholder in the development, Invercargill holding its investment over time. secured by the parties carrying on those developments. City Holdings Ltd, the Council’s holding company, has a Note that if private sector cannot do stage five, and/or representative on the board of ICL. Does Council have an exit strategy? Council receives funding for stage five as part of its Shovel If Council proceeds with investment in the City Block Ready Fund application, Council may undertake work on How will Council’s investment be paid for? Development, it expects that the investment would be for stage five in part or in total. The investment in the City Block Development would be the long-term. Council would, as with all its investments, loan funded. continue to review the benefits and costs of holding its investment over time. What will this investment cost me, as an individual ratepayer? What would happen to Council’s investment if Under Council’s current policies, this investment would something goes wrong? result in a 1.2% rates increase for the average rate payer. Council is a shareholder in ICL which is undertaking the For example, if you currently pay $2,000 in rates annually, development. As a shareholder, Council’s interests would your rates contribution to the investment for say, the be behind those of any bank or other loan funder. In the first year, would be $24.00. Because of lower costs of event that the investment did not succeed all parties borrowing than originally estimated, the extra $16million is would be focused on ensuring the greatest return possible forecast to not to bring additional costs. from the investment made. Council would ensure that the investment is managed as far as is practicable in a manner What else will ratepayers / Council be that minimises the risks of this occurring. Council would responsible for? seek and obtain independent commercial advice on the terms of the investment prior to signing any agreements. Council would also be responsible for associated works to integrate the development with the broader environs. The total cost of this work is unknown but is anticipated to be How would Council avoid being the final point approximately $20 million. of call for any extra funding needed? Any shortfall in development costs will need to be met The way the inner city feels and is used has been identified by the shareholders in ICL including ICHL, the Council’s as a key strategic objective for Council. This project holding company. looks to take this opportunity and develop strategies and outputs which Council (and others) can utilise and implement to bring people and success back to the heart What is the impact of Covid-19 on the of Invercargill. development? Covid-19 is creating higher levels of business uncertainty. The project aim is to establish a cohesive urban design, One result of that uncertainty is that companies are with an emphasis on streetscape character, an enhanced surviving, rather than looking forward, and that fewer pedestrian environment whilst linking these developments. retail leases have been signed than expected by this point. Council has allocated a sum of $20 million which will be It is not known what the impact of Covid-19 will be on the 10 11

25 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA Tay Esk MONEY EXTRA MONEY FOR CITY BLOCK? FOR CITY INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL’S AREA OF INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT BLOCK Dee?

+ There are six proposed stages to the overall redevelopment of the City Block (this excludes the existing Kelvin Hotel and Reading Cinemas). The three stages that Council has been asked to invest in are stages one, two and three. These stages are highlighted on this plan.

STAGE 4

STAGE 6 STAGE 5

12 13

26 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

Kelvin EXTRA MONEY FOR CITY BLOCK? EXTRA SUBMISSION FORM Tay Esk MONEY Please note that submissions, including names and contact details, will be included in papers FOR CITY which are available to the public through Council's website. BLOCK Dee? CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) + MY SUBMISSION ON COUNCIL’S PROPOSAL TO INVEST IN THE CITY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED:

+ Name:

+ Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

+ Postal Address:

+ Daytime Telephone:

+ Email:

+ Signature:

+ I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: YES NO

+ I would prefer to speak in the morning / afternoon: AM PM

(Note: if you wish to be heard, please supply contact email or phone number. Please note that our ability to hold hearings will be dependent on circumstances surrounding Covid-19)

+ I would like to receive email updates about future Council consultations: YES NO

+ MY PREFERRED INVESTMENT OPTION IS:

Option one: Option two: Option three: $46m total investment $25m total investment $30m total investment For full details of the options see page five of the consultation document. + Please add extra pages if needed.

+ MY SUBMISSION ON COUNCIL’S PROPOSAL TO INVEST IN THE CITY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT IS: Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission – City Block Investment Private Bag 90104, Invercargill 9840. Or drop it off to Civic Administration Building, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill, the Invercargill Public Library or the Bluff Service Centre. Submissions close at 5.00pm on Friday, 12 June 2020. (Please turn over) 14 15

27 Committee of Council - CITY BlOCK CONSULTATION 2

28 Committee of Council - LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY DOCUMENT CHANGES

TO: COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

FROM: DAVE FOSTER- GROUP MANAGER FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 11 MAY 2020

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY DOCUMENT CHANGES

SUMMARY

LGFA is the organisation that provides debt funding to Local authorities. The organisation has been considering further ways that it can assist local authorities with borrowing needs. LGFA is proposing to: ∑ Enable CCO’s to borrow directly ∑ Allow a local Authority to be tested at a group level rather than a parent level for compliance with covenants. ∑ Increase the amount of borrower notes that must be issued to a local authority when it is borrowing ∑ Make minor technical improvements to the borrowing programme To do these things the documentation for each council needs to be amended. As the amendments are made by Deed, they must be signed by 2 Councillors.

This paper outlines the needs and recommends that the documents be signed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report “Local Government Funding Agency document changes” be received.

That the documents be authorised to be signed by any 2 of, His Worship the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and the Chair of the Finance and Policy Committee.

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

A1323940

29 Committee of Council - LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY DOCUMENT CHANGES

BACKGROUND

Background – proposed amendments to LGFA

LGFA intends to amend its borrowing programme. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to:

∑ enable approved council-controlled organisations to borrow directly through the LGFA borrowing programme (on the basis of a guarantee from and/or sufficient uncalled capital issued to the parent local authority); ∑ allow a local authority to apply to LGFA to be tested at the group level rather than at the parent level for compliance with LGFA covenants; ∑ as previously notified by LGFA, increase the amount of borrower notes that must be issued to a local authority when it is borrowing; and ∑ make certain other minor technical improvements to the borrowing programme (including to facilitate the provision of committed standby borrowing facilities).

To implement these changes, certain of the documentation for the borrowing programme will need to be amended. This includes the following documents:

∑ Multi-Issuer Deed; ∑ Guarantee and Indemnity; and ∑ Notes Subscription Agreement.

In order to amend those documents, a Deed of Amendment and Restatement in respect of each such document (each, a Deed of Amendment) needs to be entered into by the parties to the document.

Amendments to the Shareholders' Agreement have recently been approved by those local authorities that are shareholders of LGFA. It is intended that these amendments will take effect at the same time as the Deeds of Amendment.

Status of Deeds of Amendment

The Deeds of Amendment have been reviewed and approved by LGFA (with the assistance of LGFA’s legal counsel, Russell McVeagh) and by the LGFA Shareholders’ Council (with the assistance of Simpson Grierson). Please note that Simpson Grierson has acted on behalf of (and under the instructions of) the Shareholders’ Council only and not the borrowers or guarantors. This means that Simpson Grierson have not acted on behalf of ICC.

Given that ICC’s interest in these matters are closely aligned to the shareholding Councils and that we have notified LGFA that Invercargill City Holdings Limited would like to borrow directly from LGFA, we have not sought separate legal advice. However, the documents have been reviewed by Dave Foster and Andrew Cameron, and there are no matters of concern.

As the documents are quite long and technical legal documents they have not be attached to the item. If a Councillor wishes to review them they are available.

A1323940

30 Committee of Council - LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY DOCUMENT CHANGES

Execution of Deeds of Amendment and s 118 certificates

To execute the Deeds of Amendment and applicable s 118 certificate, we have been requested to:

1. ensure that any necessary resolutions and/or delegations (approving the Deeds of Amendment and the amendments contemplated by them and authorising execution by two elected members) are in place as soon as possible; 2. arrange for two copies of each deed required to be signed by the local authority to be printed, single-sided; 3. arrange for two elected members to sign on the relevant signing blocks of the deeds (as noted in the attached table). The two elected members will need to sign on the same page. Where the two elected members are not physically in the same location, one elected member should sign first, then courier or email the signed page for the other elected member to sign; 4. arrange for one copy of the applicable s 118 certificate to be printed; 5. write in your local authority’s name in the space indicated on the applicable s 118 certificate; 6. arrange for the Chief Executive to sign the certificate; 7. ensure that the documents (including the signing blocks) and the s 118 certificate are all left undated; and 8. scan and e-mail one copy of each signed deed and the s 118 certificate to Simpson Grierson (please ensure that the signing elected members are aware that by returning these scanned copies to us they will have authorised us and LGFA’s lawyers to date the deeds, and the Chief Executive has authorised us to date the s 118 certificate, once we have received all the signatures from all the parties). LGFA will, following dating of the Deeds of Amendment, notify each local authority by email of the date of each Deed of Amendment.

As we are now at Covid alert level 2, we will arrange for physical rather than electronic signing.

A1323940

31 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

TO: COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

FROM: JODI CONWAY MANAGER GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

MEETING DATE: MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the report ‘Administrative Matters’ be received; and 2. That the memorandum ‘LGNZ Elections 2020’ be received; and that Council note that the nominations must be received no later than 5.00pm 31 May 2020. The nomination form is attached as Appendix 1. 3. That the Amended 2020 Annual General Meeting Remit Process memo be received; and Council note that the LGNZ (AGM) has been re-scheduled for Friday 20 November 2020 and that; The proposed remits for consideration need to be submitted no later than 5.00pm, Friday 31 July 2020.

IMPLICATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

The recommendations have been put forward to tidy up some administrative matters that are pending in regards to the LGNZ Remits and LGNZ Elections as the previously scheduled dates have been amended due to COVID-19.

32 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Date: 14 April 2020

To: All Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives

From: Malcolm Alexander, Chief Executive, Local Government New Zealand

Subject: LGNZ Elections 2020: Nominations for Office of President Nominations for Office of Vice President

The President and Vice President of Local Government New Zealand must be elected by ballot of member authorities in accordance with the Rules (Rule F1-F15 and F21-F26) at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in the year following the year in which triennial local government elections are held.

Arrangements are presently being put in place for the AGM to be held in November 2020 in Wellington (following postponement of the July 2020 AGM due to COVID-19) and this will be confirmed to members once details are finalised.

Notwithstanding the delay in the date of the AGM, the Rules of LGNZ require me to have concluded the nomination process for the offices of President and Vice-President by 31 May in the year that elections are due (Rule H14).

Accordingly as Returning Officer under the Rules of LGNZ, I am calling now for nominations for the Office of President of LGNZ and the Office of Vice President of LGNZ.

Nominations President Any person who is an elected member (as defined in Rule A2) is qualified to be nominated for the position of President.

Please note that the current President of LGNZ, Dave Cull is not eligible for re-election as he is no longer an elected member and will therefore finish his term of office at the conclusion of the 2020 AGM.

Vice President Any person (other than the President) who holds office as a LGNZ National Council member at the time at which the election for Vice President is held may be nominated for the position of Vice President.

Process A nomination for either office must be in writing signed by any two of the Mayor/Chairperson, Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chairperson or Chief Executive of the nominating local authority. Nominations must be seconded in writing on the same or another document signed by any two of those officers of another member authority.

33 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

To assist members with the nomination process, a nomination form is attached.

With reference to Rules L4-L7, any correctly signed nomination and seconding papers for any candidate will be validly received –

- if delivered to the office no later than 31 May 2020; - if posted and post-marked no later than 28 May; or - if sent by email, the email is received no later than 5.00pm on 31 May 2020.

Please treat these dates as a deadline, not a target. Under Rule H14 nominations must be received by 31 May 2020. As Returning Officer I have no ability to extend that date. Accordingly, nominations made a few days early will allow time for nominations to be checked and any necessary amendments or corrections to be made within the allowable time period.

Please note if a nomination is sent by email, the original document should be sent to Local Government New Zealand to be received shortly following the said closing date.

Should only one valid nomination be received for an office, that person will be immediately declared President-elect or Vice President-elect by the Returning Officer.

For purposes of clarity, a candidate may be nominated by his/her own council or any other member council, however the nominator and seconder must be from different councils.

Should there be no nominations to fill the Office of the President, the Returning Officer will declare the vacancy and under Rule H16, National Council must meet as soon as practicable to determine how the office may be filled once the present President steps down, and has full power to decide on the procedures to apply to ensure that the office is filled.

Should there be no nominations to fill the Office of the Vice-President the Returning Officer will declare the vacancy and under Rule H17 National Council has the power to fill the vacancy on the next occasion it meets after the vacancy has occurred.

Voting The elections will be carried out at the AGM using the preferential voting system and member authority voting entitlements will be distributed along with the voting papers.

For further information regarding the elections, please direct it to Leanne Brockelbank, Deputy Chief Executive Operations (04) 924 1212 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Alexander Chief Executive Local Government New Zealand

34 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

NOMINATION FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

In accordance with Rules F1-F16 and Rules H9-H24, we, the undersigned members of Local Government New Zealand, hereby nominate

______(name) ______(title) as a candidate for election to the office of President of Local Government New Zealand.

Nominated by: ______Council

Name: ______Title: Mayor/Chairperson Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chairperson Chief Executive

Signed: ______

Date: ______

(The signatures of any two of these office holders is sufficient).

The nomination is seconded by the ______Council

Name: ______Title: Mayor/Chairperson Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chairperson Chief Executive

Signed: ______

Date: ______

(The signatures of any two of these office holders is sufficient).

ACCEPTANCE: I, ______(name) hereby accept the above nomination.

______(Signature) ______(Date)

(Formal acceptance is not a requirement of the Rules, but if not indicated here, the nominee should confirm acceptance of nomination as soon as possible).

35 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

NOMINATION FOR OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT

In accordance with Rules F21-F26 and Rules H9-H24, we, the undersigned members of Local Government New Zealand, hereby nominate

______(name) ______(title) as a candidate for election to the office of Vice President of Local Government New Zealand.

Nominated by: ______Council

Name: ______Title: Mayor/Chairperson Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chairperson Chief Executive

Signed: ______

Date: ______

(The signatures of any two of these office holders is sufficient).

The nomination is seconded by the ______Council

Name: ______Title: Mayor/Chairperson Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chairperson Chief Executive

Signed: ______

Date: ______

(The signatures of any two of these office holders is sufficient).

ACCEPTANCE: I, ______(name) hereby accept the above nomination.

______(Signature) ______(Date)

(Formal acceptance is not a requirement of the Rules, but if not indicated here, the nominee should confirm acceptance of nomination as soon as possible).

36 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Date: 29 April 2020 To: Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives, Zone Secretaries and Sector Chairs From: Malcolm Alexander, Chief Executive, Local Government New Zealand Subject: Amended 2020 Annual General Meeting Remit Process

We invite member authorities wishing to submit proposed remits for consideration at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting (AGM) to be held on Friday 20 November 2020 at Te Papa, in Wellington, to do so no later than 5:00pm, Friday 31 July 2020. Notice is being provided now to allow members of zones and sectors to gain the required support necessary for their remit (see point three below). The supporting councils do not have to come from the proposing council's zone or sector.

Proposed remits should be sent with the attached form. The full remit policy can be downloaded from the LGNZ website.

Remit policy Proposed remits, other than those relating to the internal governance and constitution of Local Government New Zealand, should address only major strategic “issues of the moment”. They should have a national focus articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level.

The National Council’s Remits Screening Policy is as follows: 1. Remits must be relevant to local government as a whole, rather than exclusively relevant to a single zone or sector group, or an individual council; 2. Remits should be of a major policy nature (constitutional and substantive policy) rather than matters that can be dealt with by administrative action; 3. Remits must have formal support from at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils, prior to them being submitted, in order for the proposer to assess support and achieve clarity about the ambit of the proposal; 4. Remits defeated at the AGM in two successive years will not be permitted to go forward; 5. Remits will be assessed to determine whether the matters raised can be actioned by alternative, and equally valid, means to achieve the desired outcome; 6. Remits that deal with issues or matters currently being actioned by Local Government New Zealand may also be declined on the grounds that the matters raised are “in-hand”. This does not include remits that deal with the same issue but from a different point of view; and 7. Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to show that the matter warrants consideration by delegates. Such background should demonstrate the: - Nature of the issue; - Background to it being raised; - Issue’s relationship, if any, to the current Local Government New Zealand Business Plan and its objectives;

37 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

- Level of work, if any, already undertaken on the issue by the proposer, and outcomes to date; - Resolution, outcome and comments of any zone or sector meetings which have discussed the issue; and - Suggested actions that could be taken by Local Government New Zealand, should the remit be adopted.

Remit process Local Government New Zealand will take the following steps to finalise remits for the 2020 AGM: • All proposed remits and accompanying information must be forwarded to Local Government New Zealand no later than 5:00pm, Friday 31 July 2020 to allow time for the remits committee to properly assess remits; • A remit screening committee (comprising the President, Vice President and Chief Executive) will review and assess proposed remits against the criteria described in the above policy; • Prior to their assessment meeting, the remit screening committee will receive analysis from the Local Government New Zealand staff on each remit, assessing each remit against the criteria outlined in the above policy; • Proposed remits that fail to meet specified criteria will be informed as soon as practicable of the committee’s decision, alternative actions available, and the reasons behind the decision; • Proposers whose remits meet the criteria will be contacted as soon as practicable to arrange the logistics of presenting the remit to the AGM; and • All accepted remits will be posted to the Local Government New Zealand website, and proposed remits will be sent to members on 10 August 2020 to provide members with sufficient time to consider them before the AGM on 20 November 2020will be informed, at least one month prior to the AGM in order to allow members sufficient time to discuss the remits prior to the AGM. To ensure quality preparation for members’ consideration at the AGM, the committee will not consider or take forward proposed remits that do not meet the Remit Policy, or are received after 5:00pm, Friday 31 July 2020.

General Remits for AGM consideration also will be included formally in the AGM Business Papers that will be distributed to delegates no later than two weeks before the AGM, as required by the Rules (although as noted above, the proposed remits will be available for member consideration before the AGM papers are issued to the membership).

Should you require further clarification of the requirements regarding the remit process, please contact Leanne Brockelbank on 04 924 1212 or [email protected].

38 Committee of Council - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Annual General Meeting 2020 Remit application

Council Proposing Remit:

Contact Name:

Phone:

Email:

Fax:

Remit passed by:

(Zone/sector meeting and/or list five councils as per policy) Remit:

Background information and research: Please attach separately and include: • Nature of the issue; • Background to its being raised; • New or confirming existing policy; • How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme; • What work or action on the issue has been done, and the outcome; • Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice; • Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone or Sector meeting; • Evidence of support from a Zone/sector meeting, or five councils; and • Suggested course of action envisaged.

Please forward to: Local Government New Zealand Leanne Brockelbank, Deputy Chief Executive Operations P O Box 1214 Wellington 6140 [email protected]

No later than 5:00pm, Friday 31 July 2020.