113th Meeting
Notice is given of an Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on:
Date: |
Tuesday, 29 June 2021 |
Time: |
9.30am |
Location: |
Council Chambers Fairlie |
AGENDA
Ordinary Council Meeting
29 June 2021
Note: This meeting may be digitally recorded by the minute-taker.
Council Membership:
Graham Smith (Chair)
James Leslie
Anne Munro
Stuart Barwood
Murray Cox
Emily Bradbury
Matt Murphy
***************************************************
The purpose of local government:
(1) The purpose of local government is—
(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.
(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are—
(a) efficient; and
(b) effective; and
(c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.
(Local Government Act 2002)
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 29 June 2021
6.1 Chief Executive Officer's Activities Report
6.3 Affected Person Approval RM210056 - 208 Glen Lyon Road, Twizel
6.4 Aquatic Services - Sec 17A Review
6.6 Statement of Proposal for the Identification of Strategic Routes and Priority Thoroughfares
6.7 Economic Development Strategy
6.8 Monthly Report - South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce - April 2021
6.9 Recovery Manager COVID-19 Final Report
6.10 Update on the Renovation of Council Offices - Fairlie and Twizel
6.11 Procurement of Technical Review Services for Engineering Projects
6.12 Heritage Fund Application
6.13 Adoption of Mackenzie Spatial Plans
6.14 Bylaw and Policy Statement of Proposal Adoption
7 Community Board Recommendations
7.1 Minutes of Twizel Community Board Meeting - 3 May 2021
7.2 Minutes of Tekapo Community Board Meeting - 5 May 2021
7.3 Minutes of Fairlie Community Board Meeting - 6 May 2021
8.1 Minutes of Council Meeting - 18 May 2021
20.1 Minutes of Public Excluded Council Meeting - 18 May 2021
21.2 Equip Alignment Session - Action Plan
22.3 Engagement of the Property Group to Provide Consultancy Support for Private Property Issues
Attachments: Nil
That the report be received. |
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
Meeting 10th June Rural Provincial
RMA Reform
Minister Parker agreed that the reform is necessary. RMA has a tarnished reputation, is expensive to operate and has plans and words longer than the bible. It has been degrading water for 30 years.
Randerson report is forming the base. Will replace strategic planning act to be outcomes based. Single regional planning catchment districts. There is a need to invigorate councils by way of formal structures to engage on issues.
Need to make decisions with expertise, not just representative engagement.
LGNZ Chairperson, Stuart Crosby
Need to focus on what matters. The big picture of reform is mostly resourcing and capability. At present we are not delivering on infrastructure and reforms to RMA have significant implications.
Unparalleled policy change. The question is how do we cope?
Status Quo has councils struggling placing them into debt. Poverty and inequality is growing. Roading funding issues are arising.
LGNZ needs to play a hand that is not engaged with emotion but with evidence and creditability and then turn these reforms into opportunities.
There’s a need to work in the housing space with Ministers and reinforce a message of working together.
CEO Susan Freeman
LGNZ wants to be an equal credible partner with Central Government. We all want sustainable and thriving local communities. The Government will not wait for a universal agreement. Government is very confident and is prepared to use its majority to push for change. We need evidence and we need to understand that our 3 Waters model is developed for New Zealand conditions.
Water Regulator Taumata Arowai will provide leadership, lift water standards, enforce national water standards, monitoring both waste and storm waters.
75,000 small water schemes to be managed. Many of these are roof waters, rural schemes and private spring bores. Any rural scheme suppling under 500 people will have to work through options and come to end point solutions. Cartridge filters UV disinfection. But anyone who supplies water must be compliant to New Zealand standards.
Meeting Minister Wood
Again, there is a need for this country to quickly decarbonize electricity and be rid of all coal burning stations. Energy to be 100% renewable and be insured against a dry year risk.
With respects to housing, Central and Local Government need to work together and unleash housing funding to overcome hardships. LGNZ provides a vehicle especially in the South Island, not only in cities, but towns also. Private partnerships with Councils need to be set up. New build ownership by the public and communities. Councils need to address housing hardships.
Minister of Transport, Michael Wood raised our Mackenzie concerns around safety <road to zero > heavy trucks, tourists fare rate and co-funding are all issues. The Minister spoke on building resilient connections with our networks. Mayors are having trouble in connecting with Kiwi Rail and they need to be at discussions. Agreed 30 % of freight could go on rail but means a massive mode shift. We need to have a linked-up strategy across the country with clear efficiency gains, inclusive of coastal shipping. While I support this, I have made it clear to the Minister that full vital investment into roading must continue.
Regional Land Transport
Agreed submissions, better freight options, fewer trucks on road, fewer deaths, improved advocacy, regional needs, consistent journey times, sustainable mode shift and resilient transport network. Officers group to continue to develop strategic work.
Canterbury Mayors have developed shovel ready projects of 1.6 million that are ready to go. Other Councils have billions of dollars submitted and Government will have to make some choices.
Speed limit changes are being looked at after being held up by Covid and some highway maintenance had fallen behind. Reduced traffic volumes are being reflected in less deaths and injuries.
Professor James Dalziel – Lincoln University
Spoke over dinner to Mayors. Some points were well-being can never be a gift from Central Government. People create well -being by choices and actions, in what they can be and do.
Local Government is the key to democracy. Councils formulate community outcomes, expand capabilities in joining society to collaborate and participate with others.
Communities elect their Governance. Local Government requires levies and carries out promoting social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being.
Add Central Government:
- Fails to define issues.
- New policies are unnecessary cost to Councils.
- Does not understand local governance.
- Local governance is not an agent for Central Government.
- Local governance is a most important institution for maintaining and expanding human wellbeing.
Canterbury Mayoral Meeting
3 waters still has a lot of information that Councils need from DIA. Canterbury Mayors agree that we have a compelling case to change. Fare assistance models such as NZTA are not an option.
Digital black spots need to be reassessed as some districts have considerable sized areas.
ECAN are launching new campaign, “Time to Change”. It’s a regional approach and an integrated approach to biodiversity. Te Mana O Te Wai.
All councils need to measure our carbon food print, but we need a common template.
It was also recognized the huge pressure that our CEOs are working under.
Need to urgently engage with Kiwi Rail whom to date have not been at the table in discussions on transportation.
Future Local Government
Jim Palmer leading a panel with John Ombler, Penny Holst, Gael, Surgenor, Antoine Coffin, Penny Hulse.
Everyone wants positive strong communities. Need to have a draft to Government by 30th September 2022.
Will be visiting all Councils. A 30-year vision. Need to understand revenue and finance, what works best for councils and communities and what are our strengths. Panel has been asked to be bold.
Covid Vaccine Roll Out – South Canterbury District Health Board
This is New Zealand’s largest roll out in history. The South Canterbury District Health Board has managed to roll out in our district and supply of the vaccine is on target. We need good community response. Over 65 will start in Twizel, Tekapo and Fairlie, with the message of asking people to be patient as they’re receiving over 2000 enquiries per day.
This is not just a health issue, but it is also economic. The vaccine is very unstable and needs to be used within 3hrs once mixed. As Minister Nash pointed out, we cannot keep covid out forever, but if we can get 75% of the population vaccinated we will be able to manage through our health system.
Meetings
6 April 2021
- Council Workshop
7 April 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group Meeting - Zoom Meeting
- Tourism Tekapo – Networking Event
8 April 2021
- Alpine Energy Shareholder Briefing and Workshop
9 April
- Regional Commissioner Meeting – Ben Clark – Corrections NZ
- Cross Regional Three Waters Group – Zoom Meeting
13 April 2021
- Council Workshop
- Mt Cook Lakeside Retreat Information and Networking Evening
15 April 2021
- Waitaki Lakes Shorelines Authorities
- Spatial Plans Fairlie Drop-In Session
16 April 2021
- Meeting with David Irving – Albury Waters
- Meeting with Mackenzie Tourism Industry Association
- Mayoral Taskforce for Jobs Meeting
19 April 2021
- A2O Governance Workshop – MDC/Waitaki DC – Waimate
- Sustainable Building Services – MDC / Waitaki DC – Waimate
- Mackenzie Basin Alignment – MDC / Waitaki DC – Waimate
20 April 2021
- Committee Meeting Day
- Long Term Plan Council Workshop
21 April 2021
- Trails Strategy Meeting – Twizel
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group – Zoom Meeting
23 April 2021
- OJ from Breeze FM – Radio Slot
27 April 2021
- Long Term Plan Council Workshop
29 April 2021
- Hooker Hut Opening – Mount Cook
30 April 2021
- South Island Three Water Service Delivery Reform Meeting – Christchurch
3 May 2021
- Meeting with NZTA Staff to Discuss Speed Management Plans
- Spatial Plans Fairlie Drop-In Session
4 May 2021
- Councillor Workshop
5 May 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group – Zoom Meeting
6 May 2021
- Three Waters Reforms – South Island Councils and Papatipu Runanga
7 May 2021
- Council Workshop
- Moreh House Meeting
13 May 2021
- Meeting to review Council Agendas
- Mayoral Taskforce For Jobs Meeting
- Three Waters Update – Zoom Meeting
- Meeting with Jim Murray
17 May 2021
- Draft Regional Land Transport Plan Hearing & Deliberations – Christchurch
18 May 2021
- Council Meeting - Twizel
- Audit and Risk Committee Meeting - Twizel
- Citizenship Ceremony – Twizel
19 May 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Key Workshop – Beca, Christchurch
20 May 2021
- South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce Meeting
21 May 2021
- Mental Health & Addiction Engagement Team Meeting – Twizel
- Mental Health & Addiction Engagement Team Meeting – Fairlie
24 May 2021
- Meeting to Discuss A2O
- Albury Hall Meeting
25 May 2021
- WDC | MDC meeting regarding A2O & Tourism Waitaki
- Long Term Plan Council Workshop
- Planning Council Workshop
- Chief Executives Performance Committee
27 May 2021
- Meeting with Transport Minister Michael Wood – Christchurch
- CMTE: Regional Transport Meeting – Christchurch
- Canterbury Mayoral Forum – Christchurch
28 May 2021
- Canterbury Mayoral Forum – Christchurch
- Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee – Christchurch
- Climate Change - Ecan – Christchurch
1 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Stafford Strategy Councillors Meeting
- Council Workshop
2 June 2021
- Stafford Strategy Tourism Operators Workshop – Mount Cook
- Stafford Strategy DOC Meeting – Mount Cook
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group – Zoom Meeting
3 June 2021
- Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee
- Stafford Strategy Tourism Operators Workshop – Fairlie
5 June 2021
- Twizel Fire Brigade 50th Anniversary
8 June 2021
- Council Workshop
- Covid Vaccine Roll Out – SCDHB, SC Mayors & CE’s – Zoom Meeting
10 June 2021
- Rural Provincial Sectors Meeting – Wellington
11 June 2021
- Tourism Minister – Stuart Nash
- PC 18 Meeting
- Three Waters Update – Zoom Meeting
14 June 2021
- Meeting with Chris White
- A2O Joint Committee Meeting
15 June 2021
- Council Workshop – Bylaws, Long Term Plan, Spatial Planning
- Zone 5 – Ministerial Meeting & Future of Local Government Workshop – Christchurch
16 June 2021
- Meeting with Honorable Jacqui Dean – MP Waitaki
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group – Zoom Meeting
- Meeting with CE to discuss EGM Agenda
17 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Wanānga – Tekapo
18 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Wanānga – Tekapo
- Business Excellence Awards – SCCC – Timaru
19 June 2021
- St Johns Meeting
6.1 Chief Executive Officer's Activities Report
Attachments: 1. Service Requests Summary May 2021 ⇩
That the report be received. |
OPERATIONS UPDATE
Resource Consents applications received
CORPORATE UPDATE
LGOIMAs received: Following page.
Complaints received
· There was one formal complaint received during May which related to communication issues in relation to alleged breaches of MDC Bylaws from Visitor Accommodation providers in Twizel.
Community Centre Bookings
May
· Fairlie Community Centre – total bookings 191.5 hours.
· Lake Tekapo Community Hall – total bookings 42 hours (includes 17 hours used by Mackenzie District Council).
· Albury Hall – total bookings 5.5 hours.
· Twizel Events Centre – total bookings 230 hours (includes 15.5 hours used by Mackenzie District Council.
Twizel Information Centre Visitor Numbers
· Customer numbers recorded for May 2021 = 2064.
Information Centre operating hours Monday to Friday only.
Customer Calls
Customer Calls (ACD Data) |
|
|
||
May 21 |
|
|||
Group |
Agent |
Total |
Unanswered |
Busy |
600 |
780 Twizel Reception |
38 |
6 |
0 |
|
790 Twizel Reception |
25 |
8 |
0 |
601 |
800 Fairlie Reception |
288 |
38 |
1 |
|
752 Fairlie Reception |
334 |
47 |
0 |
611 |
611 Building |
132 |
63 |
49 |
781 Building |
68 |
10 |
0 |
|
612 |
Planning |
0 |
0 |
0 |
613 |
721 Finance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
755 Finance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
614 |
925 Roading |
45 |
24 |
1 |
615 |
719 Rates |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL |
930 |
196 |
51 |
|
NOTE Unanswered call numbers include calls transferred to another extension to be answered. These transferred calls are then recorded as "unanswered" calls. |
|
|
|
Service Requests Summary Report – May 2021
See attached report.
MEETINGS
Key meetings attended since last Council meeting:
19 May 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Key Workshop – Beca, Christchurch
- MBIE Meeting – Christchurch
- CE Waitaki District Council by phone
20 May 2021
- South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce Meeting
31 May 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Mackenzie Team Zoom Meeting – Stafford Strategy Consultants
1 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Councillors Meeting – Stafford Strategy Consultants
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Mackenzie Tourism Operator Workshops – Accommodation Provider Workshop - Stafford Strategy Consultants – Twizel
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Mackenzie Tourism Operator Workshops – Attractions & Retail Provider Workshop - Stafford Strategy Consultants - Twizel
2 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Mackenzie Tourism Operator Workshops - Stafford Strategy Consultants – Aoraki/Mount Cook
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – DOC Meeting - Stafford Strategy Consultants – Aoraki/Mount Cook
3 June 2021
- CE Morning Tea – Assets Team
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Mackenzie Tourism Operator Workshops - Stafford Strategy Consultants – Fairlie
8 June 2021
- Internal meeting – Project Office
- Council Workshop
- Covid Vaccine Roll Out – South Canterbury Mayors & CEs and South Canterbury DHB – Zoom Meeting
9 June 2021
- 1:1 Fortnightly Executive Catch up
- 1:1 Fortnightly Executive Catch up
- 1:1 Fortnightly Executive Catch up
- 1:1 Fortnightly Executive Catch up
- Mackenzie Tender Support Package Review – Zoom Meeting
- Beca Project Lead by phone
10 June 2021
- Rural Provincial Sectors Meeting – Wellington
11 June 2021
- Meeting with the Hon. Minister Stuart Nash
- Three Waters Update – LGNZ - Zoom Meeting
- Meeting with Audit NZ Director - Chris Genet
14 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Project Team Meeting – MDC/Beca
- Meeting with Twizel Developer
- A2O Joint Committee Meeting
15 June 2021
- Council Workshop
- Zone 5 – 3Waters Reform update by the Hon. Minister Mahuta by Zoom
16 June 2021
- Weekly Executive Leadership Team Meeting
- Meeting with MP Jacqui Dean
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group Meeting
- Meeting with the Mayor
- Team Member Farewell Event
17 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Wānanga with Mana Whenua Advisory Group – Tekapo
18 June 2021
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Wānanga with Mana Whenua Advisory Group – Tekapo
- South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce – Business Excellence Awards
21 June 2021
- Executive Team 1:1 meetings
22 June 2021
- Extraordinary Council Meeting
- Christchurch NZ – Quarterly Report – Zoom
- Meeting with the Mayor
23 June 2021
- Monthly Executive Leadership Team Meeting
24 June 2021
- Meeting Fairlie Heartlands
- Executive Team 1:1 meetings
- Three Waters Update – LGNZ – Zoom
- CEs meeting - Te Mōkihi (Mackenzie Basin Alignment Programme)
25 June 2021
- PSA and MDC Meeting
- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Governance Group Meeting
28 June 2021
- Meeting with Selwyn Mayor
- Presentation by Dr Sarb - Twizel
Author: Jo Hurst, Management Accountant
Authoriser: Paul Numan, General Manager Corporate Services
Attachments: 1. Financial report to May, 2021 ⇩
That the financial report for Mackenzie District Council to May 2021 be received. |
6.3 Affected Person Approval RM210056 - 208 Glen Lyon Road, Twizel
Author: Arlene Goss, Governance Advisor
Authoriser: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning
Attachments: 1. Request for Council Approval ⇩
2. Concept Plans ⇩
Purpose of Report
To consider a request for affected party approval under Section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That affected persons approval be either provided or withheld for land use consent RM210056 to construct a garage within the 10-metre internal setback required in the Residential 4 Zone from the south-east internal boundary where the land adjacent is owned by Council and zoned Recreation Passive. |
Background
The landowner at 208 Glen Lyon Road, Twizel has applied for land use consent to erect a new garage within the 10-metre south-east internal boundary setback required for the Residential 4 Zone.
The applicant has placed the consent application on hold while Council approval is sought. Council staff have yet to make an assessment as to who may be potentially affected by the proposal.
The applicant proposes to construct a garage 5 metres from the south-east internal boundary with land zoned Recreation Passive that contains the Twizel River Walkway and the Twizel Water Supply Intake.
The building will have a gross floor area of 59m2 and will comply with the maximum 8m building height requirement in the Residential 4 Zone. The building will be clad in colours that comply with the Mackenzie District Colour Palette for Twizel. Vehicle access to the building will be obtained via two roller doors along the western front of the building with pedestrian access obtained from the northern side.
An aerial view of the site is provided below at Figure 1.
Figure 1 – An aerial view of the site. 208 Glen Lyon Road is outlined in red with the Council reserve land located to the east of the site (Source: Canterbury Maps Viewer)
A copy of the building plans are attached to this report. A site plan that shows the location of the garage and proposed landscaping is provided at Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 – Site Plan.
Policy Status
Not applicable
Significance of Decision
This does not trigger the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Options
Option 1: The Council provide affected person approval for a garage to be constructed within the 10 metre internal boundary setback required in the Residential 4 Zone.
Option 2: The Council withhold affected person approval for a garage to be constructed within the 10 metre internal boundary setback required in the Residential 4 Zone.
Considerations
Legal
Section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) states that a person(s) is ‘affected’ if the adverse effects of an activity on them are ‘minor’ or ‘more than minor’ (but not ‘less than minor’). In deciding this, section 95E(2) of the Act requires a consent authority to disregard any effects on persons who have provided written approval.
Financial
It is considered there are no financial considerations pertaining to this application.
Other
Not applicable.
Conclusion
The Council needs to decide whether it should either provide or withhold written approval for application RM210056 at 208 Glen Lyon Road, Twizel under Section 95E of the Act.
recommendation
It is recommended that Council either provides or withholds affected persons approval for land use consent RM210056 to construct a garage within the 10-metre internal setback required in the Residential 4 Zone from the southeast internal boundary where the land adjacent is owned by Council and zoned Recreation Passive.
ATTACHMENTS
The request from the applicant for Council to provide Affected Party Approval.
The building consent plans provided with the application.
6.4 Aquatic Services - Sec 17A Review
Author: Brian Milne, Community Facilities and Services Officer - Contractor
Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Attachments: 1. Aquatic Facilities 17A Review 2021 ⇩
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☒ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☐ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of ReportTo consider the attached report “Aquatic Services Provision – Service Delivery, Section 17A Local Government Act, May 2021” and determine the approach to be applied.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That MDC undertake a procurement process to deliver recreation facility management services. The facilities included will be: · Strathconan Swimming Pool, Fairlie · Twizel Swimming Pool, Twizel 3. That the option for the future inclusion of the Twizel Event Centre into the contract be further explored 4. That the term of the contract be a minimum of three years with options for extensions based on performance |
|
Background
The previous arrangement of operating Councils pools in-house was considered to not meet the required standards and posed an unacceptable to risk to Council. Following a report to Council, it was resolved to outsource the operation of the Strathconan (Fairlie) and Twizel pools to a specialist recreation facility management company for the for the 2020/21 summer season.
In accordance with the staff report and Council resolution, following the end of the season, the performance of the contractor was to be reviewed and the best option for the future delivery of the service determined. A Section 17a Review is considered the most suitable process for considering future service provision mechanisms in this instance.
The Local Government Act Section 17A requires to Council to review the options for the delivery of services, based on a range of triggers. The current situation creates one of these triggers and therefore a fuller review was undertaken that meets the requirements and guidance for S17A reviews.
Discussions
Xyst Limited were commissioned to undertake the Section 17a Review (the review, attached).
The review was undertaken following a season of external operations which, amongst other matters, was subject to a requirement for undertaking customer surveys and report that has not typically been in place previously.
This data proved to be invaluable in informing the review and as such, Council has good data (albeit short term) on which to base its decision.
Policy Status
Any procurement processes required following Council decision on this matter will be required to undertaken in accordance with the approved Procurement Policy.
Significance of Decision
Whilst the decision does not meet the formal criteria outlined within the Significance and Engagement Policy, there is a significant level of community interest in the operations of Councils Aquatic Facilities.
It is suggested that, following Council decision on a pathway forward, staff work with the Communications Advisor and Community Boards in Twizel and Fairlie to communicate this widely.
The Community Boards should also be approached to understand the level of engagement they would like to have in the process, bearing in mind staff’s requirement to adhere with Councils Procurement Processes.
Options
The attached report outlined fully the options available to Council, being:
· In-House Operations
· Outsource
· CCO/CCTO wholly owned by MDC
· Shared Services
After initial assessment, In-House and CCO/CCTO options were discounted.
The outsourcing of the service to a specialist recreation facility management company for at least three years is the preferred option. A shared services option could continued to be explored during the term of the contract, to determine if this likely to be a viable option in the longer term.
In addition to the operation of the two pools, it is recommended that the operation of the Twizel Events Centre be further considered for inclusion in this contract in the future. In regard to including the Mackenzie Community Centre (Fairlie) and Tekapo Community Centre, there are currently considered to be other better local options for these facilities.
There are two options available to Council
Option 1: Contract Out the Pool Operation Service, in line with the Section 17a Report
Under this option staff would run a procurement process to outsource pool operations for at least a three-year period. Other options, such as operations of the Twizel Eveents Centre and other Council facilities can be added to the contract as Provisional Items and be considered at a later date.
This is staffs preferred option
Option 2: Undertake a Shared Service with another Council
As articulated within the report this option is unlikely to be acheviable in the short term meaning that the upcoming season would be in jepaody.
The term of the contract suggested (three years) would allow further consideration of Shred Services over the period and allow Council to act on that in 2024, should it so desire.
Considerations
Legal
The recommended option provides the greatest security for ensuring compliance with:
· Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
· Health Act 1956
Financial
Costs are higher for the recommended option (compared to the previous In-house option), but level of service, satisfaction and risk management benefits are considered to outweigh this.
The costs for a fully outsourced model have been allowed for in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan.
Costs for shared services option cannot be determined without additional work.
Other
The aquatics sector is not regulated through specific legislation. To provide guidance for the industry Recreation Aotearoa[1] partnered with Water Safety New Zealand and Sport NZ and developed the Aquatic Facility Guidelines 2015. This is the industry standard for operating public pools in Aotearoa. Recreation Aotearoa has also developed the PoolSafe Quality Management Scheme to provide an independent assessment of public pools to ensure that their operations and facilities are safe.
The Contractor for the 2020/21 season achieved PoolSafe accreditation for the first time for both pools.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of the available service delivery options it has been determined that neither a CCO, or an in-house option would be a suitable approach under the current MDC operating structure. The two options identified to be suitable both present confidence in being able to meet the key criteria and MDC’s vision, mission, and values, however a shared services model is likely to take longer to reach agreement and implement. As this would be a new approach for both parties there are also some service delivery risks involved in this option.
Author: Tim Mulcock, Transition Manager
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Debt Recovery Policy FINAL DRAFT 20210519 ⇩
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☐ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☒ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licenses (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
Audit New Zealand have identified the need for Mackenzie District Council to have a formal policy guiding the process and decisions regarding debt recovery.
This policy is presented to Council for adoption.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That the Debt Recovery Policy be adopted by Council. |
Background
Debt recovery is a necessary part of Council process. While the actions of debt recovery will largely be within the Finance business unit, the Policy also provides other Council employees and the public with an understanding of the purpose and principles to be applied in recovering debt.
Policy Status
The policy is in draft, submitted to Council for approval.
Significance of Decision
In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, adoption of these policies has been assessed as having low significance and will not require community consultation.
Options
N/A
Considerations
Policy Summary
The scope of the policy covers debt management across all Council revenue streams. However the Policy recognises the significant difference between rates-based debt and other debts owning to council. The Local Government Rating Act 2002 provide several specific measures for recovering rates debts that are not available to other debts. These include recognising the debtor parties on the property Certificate of Title, selling an affected property and selling Abandoned Land.
The Principles
While Council has a responsibility to collect outstanding debt it must also act and be seen to act fairly and transparently. Section 5. Principles outlines these principles:
· Transparency
· Collaboration
· Consistency of Process
· Lawful, Ethical and Accountable
· Fair, Reasonable and Proportional
· Evidence-based and Informed
· Responsive and Effective
Process Flow Charts
Four appendices are provided with summary process flows to guide debt recovery actions under the differing circumstances:
· Rating Arrears Recovery Process
· Rating Sale Process
· Abandoned Land Rating Sale Process
· Non-Rates Arrears Recovery Process
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Council adopt this policy.
6.6 Statement of Proposal for the Identification of Strategic Routes and Priority Thoroughfares
Author: Tim Mulcock, Transition Manager
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Statement of Proposal for Identification of Strategic Routes and Priority Thoroughfares in the Mackenzie ⇩
2. Earthquake Routes Submission Form ⇩
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☐ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☒ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licenses (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Statement of Proposal (SOP) is to seek public feedback on the proposed priority thoroughfares and strategic routes that may warrant prioritising due to their location, strategic importance and proximity to Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URM).
This Statement of Proposal is presented to Council for adoption following which it will be presented for public consultation.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That the Statement of Proposal for the Identification of Strategic Routes and Priority Thoroughfares be adopted by Council. 3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated authority to amend the dates for consultation if deemed appropriate. |
Background
The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 introduced major changes to the way earthquake-prone buildings (EPBs) are identified and managed under the Building Act. It uses knowledge learned from past earthquakes in New Zealand and overseas.
These changes have come about from the Christchurch and Hurunui/Kaikoura earthquakes and associated tragic loss of life and injury. As was seen in the earthquakes in Christchurch, certain eras of building, construction type and stability of parts of buildings failed, causing loss of life, blocked traffic routes and rendered critical structures unusable.
Council is required to identify “priority buildings” – buildings that pose a risk to life, safety, or are critical to recovery in an emergency. Some buildings are automatically categorised as priority based on their purpose (e.g. hospitals). Others may be considered priority due to their proximity to thoroughfares and strategic routes.
Territorial authorities must undertake public consultation to identify thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation and transport routes of strategic importance.
Options
The options available to Council are:
· to adopt the Statement of Proposal for consultation as is; or
· to recommend changes prior to adoption.
Legislation
Local Government Act 2002
Building Act 2004 Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016
Sections 133AE (1)(e) and (f) of the Building Act 2004 describe when certain buildings should be prioritised based on community consultation. These are:
· parts of URM buildings that could fall in an earthquake onto certain thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation
· buildings that could collapse and impede transport routes of strategic importance.
Assessment of Significance
The matter has medium significance as assessed against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The community, as a whole, has a stake in the process that determines priority thoroughfares and strategic routes, and ultimately priority buildings. The proposal is likely to hold more significance for residents and building owners on the priority thoroughfares and strategic routes.
The Building Act 2004 requires the Council to use a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to consult on the Proposal, despite any assessment of significance.
Consultation
Legislation requires that the SCP be used to determine the prioritisation of thoroughfares and strategic routes and therefore priority buildings.
A mailing list has been prepared including local iwi, emergency services organisations, and key individuals and organisations who are anticipated to have a special interest in the proposal.
The process of consultation will allow Council to hear views from members of the community and take those views into consideration during its decision making.
Consultation on the Statement of Proposal will include:
· A summary of the proposal delivered via the Timaru Courier on Thursday 5th August to all Mackenzie District residents.
· Mail-out to stakeholders
· Availability through the Council offices, libraries and website.
· Publicity via Let’s Talk Mackenzie, media releases, Facebook etc.
Key Dates
Key dates proposed for the consultation process are:
· 30 June 2021 Statement of Proposal released for consultation and submissions open
· 30 July 2021 Submissions close
· August 2021 Council considers submissions (hearing if required)
· September 2021 Council decision.
Other Considerations
There are no other considerations relevant to this matter.
Funding Implications
Consultation on this matter has been budgeted for.
Conclusion
Council is required to use the Special Consultative procedure to provide the public with the opportunity to make submissions and offer feedback on the proposed prioritisation of thoroughfares and strategic routes.
Recommendations
a) That the Statement of Proposal for the Identification of Strategic Routes and Priority Thoroughfares, be adopted for public release and submissions be invited in accordance with sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002.
b) That the Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated authority to amend the dates for consultation if deemed appropriate.
6.7 Economic Development Strategy
Author: Paul Numan, General Manager Corporate Services
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Mackenzie District Council Economic Development Strategy ⇩
Council Role:
☒ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☐ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☒ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present the Mackenzie District Council Economic Development Strategy for adoption.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That the Economic Development Strategy be adopted by Council. |
Background
This Economic Development Strategy sets out the criteria the Council uses to guide decision making relating to the Districts economic and business sector development. The strategy ensures the reasons behind the Council’s decisions are consistent, predictable, equitable, and available to the public. |
This Economic Development Strategy sets out the criteria that Council used to guide decision making relating to the District’s economic and business sector development. The strategy ensures the reasons behind Council’s decisions are consistent, predictable, equitable and available to the public.
As such, the Economic Development Strategy is a key tool to enable optimal access to prosperity by the Mackenzie District community.
The Economic Development Strategy is a non-statutory enabling mechanism for Council to deliver wide spectrum access to prosperity in conjunction with Council’s other strategic planning instruments such as Te Manahuna Ki Uta | Destination Mackenzie, Spatial Plan, Long Term Plan and the Land Strategy.
Policy Status
The Economic Development Strategy is in draft, submitted to Council for approval.
Significance of Decision
In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, adoption of this Strategy has been assessed as having low significance and will not require community consultation.
Options
N/A
Considerations
Legal
Financial
Other
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Council adopt this Economic Development Strategy.
6.8 Monthly Report - South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce - April 2021
Author: Leaine Rush, Business Liaison Officer
Authoriser: Paul Numan, General Manager Corporate Services
Attachments: 1. SCCC Monthly Report - April 2021 ⇩
2. SCCC Monthly Report - May 2021 ⇩
That the information be noted. |
Background
Monthly report for South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce – April and May 2021
Conclusion
Summary – April 2021
· Immigration NZ have recently updated the Under/Over Supply Jobseeker list and SCCC advocacy was successful, in most roles requested transferred to the Under Supply list were adopted.
· SCCC hosted a seminar with Immigration NZ in Tekapo on 19 May with approx. 80 attendees.
· SCCC has tendered for the Mackenzie Business Support Package. Outcome is pending.
· 20 Mackenzie businesses received one-on-one support and 13 businesses assessed or received RBP funding. No differentiation between members and non-members.
· MOU renewal still yet to be finalised.
Summary – May 2021
· 18 Mackenzie businesses received one-on-one support and 9 businesses assessed or received RBP funding. No differentiation between members and non-members.
· Tourism Communities Support and Reset Plan announced by Government. Mackenzie has been identified as one of five highly impacted district due to international borders being closed. SCCC involved in the advocacy and will be involved in business support, details yet to be released.
· 13 entries from 8 Mackenzie businesses are finalists at the ARA 2021 Business Excellence Awards. MDC contributes $2000 to cover pre-entry workshops and post Awards workshops.
· Current MoU to be renegotiated.
6.9 Recovery Manager COVID-19 Final Report
Author: Phill Mackay, Emergency Management Officer
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
That the information be noted. |
Background
The purpose of this report to council is to summarise the actions taken to support the district to recover and the successes to date. Due to the identified threats to the district especially in the tourism sector, council seconded Phill Mackay as Recovery Manager COVID-19 to help coordinate and initiate opportunities within the district while advocating externally for assistance. This secondment is due to be completed on the 30 June 2021, this is not due to the fact that the district has “recovered” but more of an acknowledgement that council has now repositioned and absorbed the impacts of COVID-19 into all departments of council to support our communities. Below is a summary of key dates relating to COVID-19.
Date |
Action |
Impact to Mackenzie District |
23 March 2020 |
Introduction of Alert Levels (AL) and the announcement that NZ is now at AL 3 |
General agreement but uncertainty regarding businesses |
25 March 2020 |
NZ enters AL 4 (Lockdown)
This also includes a National State of Emergency was declared from 25 March until 13 May to assist with the response. |
· All tourism businesses are closed. · The district coped very well and is supportive to all · Foreign Nationals (F/N) are heavily impacted due to loss of employment · Primary Industries are considered essential services so they continue, with reduced throughput of some processing factories. |
27 April 2020 |
NZ returns to AL 3 |
· Self-appreciation of a job well done · Communities continue to support each other · Tourism businesses are still impacted |
13 May 2020 |
NZ returns to AL 2 |
· Continued confidence · Businesses start to refocus · Domestic tourism is encouraged and is very successful. |
8 June 2020 |
NZ returns to AL 1 |
· Continued confidence · Businesses start to refocus · Domestic tourism is encouraged and is very successful including the ski season |
12 August 2020 |
Auckland returns to AL 3 and the rest of NZ returns to AL 2 due to community transmission |
· Overall shock and surprise to the District, an increase of the use of the COVID tracer app. A slight dip in domestic tourism but rebounds quickly. |
21 September 2020 |
NZ returns to AL 1 |
· Continued confidence · Businesses start to refocus · Domestic tourism is encouraged and is very successful with uncertainty of how sustainable this will be through 2021 |
The following is an explanation of the actions taken by council to enable our district to recover.
1. Council staffing:
Business Liaison Officer:
This role was created to allow a single point of contact for any enquiries from businesses to assist with the navigation of council processes. Council were also offered the opportunity to participate in the Mayoral Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ)., this is a partnership between Taituarā and Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Part of this project was the creation of a local coordinator which the Business Liaison Officer absorbed into their role. This has been a very successful project with 38 job placements, $211,000 injected into 27 businesses to assist with these placements. Funding has already been secured for the next financial year which will enable the Business Liaison Officer to build on the networks and relationships formed this year.
Economic Development Officer:
This role was created to assist the council to create an economic strategy, but also to identify opportunities from the money being offered from central government.
2. MDC COVID-19 Economic and Community Action Plan:
This plan was endorsed by council in May 2021, with immediate, medium and long term strategies, while many strategies were aspirational they all delivered on the intent when endorsed. This plan enabled our communities and partner agencies to enact meaningful actions to support where we could. Significant highlights were the acceleration of infrastructural projects to stimulate the local economy and provide the benefits and the improved resilience to our communities of this accelerated work program.
3. Community Recovery Advisory Group (CRAG):
This is the flagship of the recovery program as it empowers the community through sector representatives to drive local initiatives that are identified as important and significant to our communities. They are responsible for the utilisation of the COVID-19 Recovery Fund approved by council in the 20/21 Annual Plan. To date this group has approved the following projects.
A. Commissioned a Strength and Needs Analysis of Community and Social Wellbeing, Resilience and Recovery in the Mackenzie District, this report is due to be presented by late July 2021 which will provide council and other agencies with the insights to better deliver support to our district.
B. Secured Dr Sarb Johal to deliver a presentation at the Twizel Events Centre on 28 June 2021 titled Psychosocial Stresses and Consequences of COVID-19. This presentation will focus on personal wellbeing and coping mechanisms going forward.
C. The Mackenzie Business Support Package, this has been created to acknowledge that businesses within the Mackenzie have been significantly affected so this is designed to deliver three topical webinars and then subsidised business advice at an individual level.
The group are currently assessing the following projects prior to approval:
a) A youth initiative to create promotional videos of the district to encourage people to relocate to live and work in the district
b) Assist Mackenzie Tourism Industry Association (MTIA) to facilitate networking and collaboration between tourism businesses across the district.
c) To create a district wide competition styled along a top town idea but with a special Mackenzie influence.
CRAG will continue into the new financial year to maintain oversight on current projects and to ensure any other opportunities are realised.
Conclusion
New Zealand and the Mackenzie District are still struggling from the effects of COVID-19 in numerous ways, so while the vaccine is still being rolled out there is real anxiety in the community about our next steps and then what it will mean for individuals, whanau and businesses.
The key issues currently facing our district going forward are,
I. The Mackenzie has low unemployment.
II. There is a large number of job vacancies across the entire district in all aspects of business.
III. Supply chain issues are starting to affect all sectors of our businesses/ communities.
IV. On a positive note our rental housing availability is improving, while home ownership still continues to be a challenge along with the rest of NZ.
For this reason, council will continue to support our communities during this pandemic within the business-as-usual roles of council.
6.10 Update on the Renovation of Council Offices - Fairlie and Twizel
Author: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Chris Clarke, Communications Advisor
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☐ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☐ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☒ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
To provide Council with an update on the recently completed building renovation works at the Fairlie and Twizel Council offices.
1. That the report be received, and |
2. That staff inform the community of the purpose, nature and cost of the alterations via Council’s usual communication channels. |
Background
Council’s Long-Term Plan 2018/28 (LTP) contained a placeholder funding allocation of $514,000 for a project to refurbish the Fairlie Office. This allocation of funds recognised that there had been deferred maintenance with significant improvements or alterations had occurred to the building (the same is true for Councils Twizel Office building) for over 30 years.
In December 2019 Council recognised that as part of the internal change and transformation program, modernisation and upgrade of both the Fairlie and Twizel offices was required to ensure the buildings meet organisational and district requirements for the foreseeable future. As a result, a contract was let to upgrade both premises.
The contract (Contract 1253) was a typical New Zealand Standard 3910 format (NZS 3910) construction contract and included contractor involvement in the finalisation of detailed design works (the contract was tendered on preliminary design) and costs.
The works were let in two Separable Portions (one for each building) so that Council could take possession of one site/building when complete and allow works to continue/move to the next site.
The contract was awarded to Shores Construction for the tendered sum of $484,291.43.
A number of other unplanned works were subsequently identified as being required which were not covered by the scope of the original contract.
These included, but were not limited to:
· Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning (HVAC);
· Alternate Accommodation costs;
· Furniture and fittings;
· Sundry items.
For both practical and economic reasons, these matters were addressed at the same time as the alterations but dealt with outside of the construction contract referred to above.
Work on the project was significantly delayed due to Covid 19 lock down.
Discussion
Overview
Work at both the Fairlie and Twizel offices has now been completed except for some very minor matters that sit outside of the construction contract. The contractor has been issued practical completion and the works are in the maintenance phase.
Given the nature of the contract, the level of input and change in the design, the final costs of the physical works exceed the tendered sum. An independent and suitably qualified quantity surveyor engaged to review the work confirmed that the final cost was as expected for the scope of work undertaken.
The final construction costs of the project are shown in the table below:
Work Component |
Tendered Sum/Estimate |
Final Cost |
Contract 1253 |
$490,961.95 |
$707,262* |
*Final costs determined from contract payment logs and include approved variations funded from project contingency.
As is expected with a contract framework of this nature, the final costs exceeded the tendered sum. Whilst not unexpected, the scale of the increase is not insignificant, and the total project sum did not have a sufficient contingency allocated to the project to allow for the scope of change, in particular Council’s decision to include alterations to the Twizel office.
Moving forward it Is recommended more thought and, when required, external expertise, be put into the scoping of works and budgets to deliver these types of projects.
Significance of Decision
Councils Significant and Engagement Policy outlines the requirements for and the level which community engagement should be undertaken for any project.
Now that the project is complete and final costs are confirmed, staff will inform the community of the purpose, nature and cost of the alterations via Council’s usual communication channels.
Options
There are two options available to Council, being:
Option 1: That Council informs the community of the purpose, nature and cost of the alterations via Council’s usual communication channels.
This is staffs preferred option
Option 2: That no communication of the outcomes of the refurbishment is undertaken.
Considerations
Financial
The increased costs to complete project, due to the alteration in project scope and additional works, have been funded through operational reserves and therefore has had no direct financial impact on the ratepayer. The works will be reported through the appropriate Annual Report.
Conclusion
Council’s refit of its two offices is practically completed and the final construction costs are essentially known.
Given the change in scope, project completion and verification of cost, it is considered appropriate to share this information with the wider community, formally.
6.11 Procurement of Technical Review Services for Engineering Projects
Author: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Draft Procurement Plan Technical Support ⇩
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☐ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☐ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
To engage Technical Review Support from GHD Limited for significant Engineering Projects, including, but not limited to, the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant and Three Waters Reform Projects.
1) That the report be received, and that |
2) That the recommendation in the attached proposal and procurement plan be approved, and further that 3) An initial budget of $100,000 (excluding GST), funded from approved and appropriate project allocations be accepted for this ongoing engagement |
|
Background
The Fairlie Water Treatment Plant upgrade is a significant project for Council. It was signalled in the current approved Water Safety Plans as a significant project that needs undertaking to ensure the delivery of safe and potable water to the connected communities.
Beca have been engaged to undertake the preliminary design of the plant and associated infrastructure, as part of an earlier exemption to the procurement policy (as over the limit for direct negotiation). During the approval of the exemption at the March Council meeting, Councillors requested that staff implement an external verification/oversight process to ensure that the fee, programme, scope and deliverables are reasonable, and ensure that Council are getting value for money.
Given the current staff workloads and capacity, the market has been approached to provide these assurance services.
Discussion
Following the March meeting, staff approached GHD Limited (GHD), a multinational Infrastructure and Engineering Consultancy to request an offer of service to provide these verification and oversight services.
GHD were approached direct as there is an awareness that the open market, particularly in the Three Waters area, is very busy and that resources are tight. GHD are well known for there water treatment knowledge and are one of Australasia leading consultancy firms in this area.
The brief to GHD was that external verification/oversight will involve and provide the following actions and services following an initial briefing by Council staff and the Beca PM (Pete Dawson) on the current progress
– Provision of the proposal, programme and deliverables of the preliminary design
– Review of the preliminary design fee, proposal and programme
– Future review of the detailed design scope, fee and programme (yet to be agreed)
– General support and project checks
– A short report to Council detailing the support above.
An offer of service for this has been received and is attached.
Further discussions between Council staff, the Fairlie WTP Project Manager and Programme Manager for Three Waters Stimulus Program (Mr Mike Davis) identified that further support/technical review is likely required for other water projects as part of the three water reform projects.
Given this, it was concluded that a wider support package would be needed from GHD, at least in the short term.
Policy Status
Following the Mackenzie District Council Procurement Policy, version 2020-08-25 a procurement plan is required for work with a value over $10,000 (Appendix 10 of the Policy) as well as 3 written competitive quotes.
As per section 5.7.2 where an exception to the standard procurement is required, a proposal must be presented to Council for approval. The proposal must include:
· evidence documenting the reason for the exception
· a procurement plan developed and submitted with the request for exception
· Confirmation that estimated contract costs are over the $50,000 threshold.
This proposal and attached procurement plan aim to cover the above points to reduce the requirement to go through an open and competitive RFx process so that GHD can be directly engaged.
Significance of Decision
Following the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 the approval of the Mackenzie District Council Evaluation Panel Report has been identified as of Medium Significance. The justification for this has been provided below using the criteria set out in the Policy:
· This could cause delays to the WTP project in starting the next stages of work (detailed design, tender and construction), which could cause further delays in providing compliant drinking water to Fairlie.
· This could also cause delays to the water reform projects which is already constrained.
Options
There are three options available to Council
Option 1: Support the Direct Appointment of GHD to provide technical support across the Fairlie WTS project and the Three Waters Program
Under this option Council would provide approval to appoint GHD to support the delivery of the Fairlie WTP and other Three Waters projects, as required.
This is staff’s preferred option
Option 2: Support the Direct Appointment of GHD for the Fairlie WTP works only
Under this option Council would support he engagement of GHD to support the Fairlie WTP works only, and not the wider Three Waters Program of works.
Option 3: Do not support the direct appointment of GHD
Under this option Council would decline the direct appointment of GHD and either request staff go to the market or undertake the work internally.
Given staff skill level and workload, this is not a preferred option.
Considerations
Financial
This cost of the commission for oversite of the Fairlie WTS will be included in the overall budget for the Fairlie project, which will be further refined at the end of preliminary design. The budget for the project is currently sitting at approximately $6m, a majority of which is in year one and two of the Long Term Plan.
Any additional support for the three waters reform projects will be discussed and a fee estimate agreed with GHD prior to any work being undertaken (i.e. work on written instruction only).
The commission will be capped at $100k and funds drawn from approved budgets only.
Conclusion
Council has embarked on a significant Water Treatment Plant upgrade in Fairlie. To ensure that the upgrade is completed in time and within budgets, Beca Limited have been directly appointed to undertake deign services.
Council requested that technical oversite of the design process was put in place and staff have approached GHD limited to undertake this role, as market experts. The direct appointment of GHD needs Councils approval as it does not align with the approved procurement policy.
6.12 Heritage Fund Application
Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning
Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☒ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☐ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
To consider an application for funding from the Heritage Protection Fund from H & S Tennent.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That Council consider the payment of $2,500.00 from the Heritage Protection Fund to H & S Tennent as a contribution towards the restoration work already completed on the Bank of New Zealand Building, Main Street, Fairlie. |
Background
The Heritage Protection Fund
The Heritage Protection Fund (the Fund) is provided by the Mackenzie District Council for the protection of heritage buildings, items, and places. The purpose of the fund is to assist and actively encourage property owners and Mackenzie community members to manage, maintain, preserve and enhance the heritage values of items or areas.
Applications for funding may be made in relation to buildings, items or places that are either currently listed or that have been approved to be listed under the Heritage Items Schedule of the Mackenzie District Plan as Category X, Y or Z heritage items.
There are three types of projects eligible for funding:
· Preservation/ Conservation: Projects that assist in caring for a feature so as to safeguard its heritage values with as little change as possible. This includes mechanisms to prevent damage or decay, covenanting of heritage features and the drafting of management plans.
· Enhancement/Management: Projects that enhance the heritage value of the feature. This may include maintenance works on the item or its immediate surrounding, repairs, reconstruction work, restorations or stabilisation.
· Research and Education: Projects which provide public information on the values of heritage features and assist in providing greater interest in, protection and management of the feature.
The Heritage Protection Fund identifies that applications are eligible for a maximum grant of $2,500.00 or a specified percentage of the sum required, whichever is the lesser. The specified percentage is based on the classification of the heritage item:
· Category X items – 75%
· Category Y items – 60%
· Category Z items – 45%
An application was received by the Tennent’s in January of this year. At that time no other applications for funding had been received, and no public announcement had been made calling for applications.
At that time, the request was put on hold until a call for funding requests was put out. Council advertised in the Courier newspaper on 6 May 2021, with further advertising was put on the Council website and through social media for applications to be made. The deadline for applications to be received by the Planning Department was 28 May 2021. No applications were received.
The Application
Hayden and Sue Tennent have applied for financial assistance through the Heritage Protection Fund for repair works at 41 Main Street, Fairlie (the Bank of New Zealand Building). A total contribution of $5,000.00 towards the works from the Heritage Protection Fund has been requested.
The works consist of reroofing, repairing soffits, fascias and barge boards, repairing rafters (where necessary), installing new spouting and to repaint (in heritage colours) chimneys, soffits, fascias and upper port to repair the Bank of New Zealand Building.
The Bank of New Zealand Building is located at 41 Main Street, Fairlie. The location of the Bank of New Zealand Building is illustrated below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Bank of New Zealand Building at 41 Main Street, Fairlie (indicated by red rectangle) (Source: Canterbury Maps Viewer)
The cost of the proposed works is estimated to range from $19,000 to $28,000, based on two quotes provided with the application. An invoice has also been provided with the application that shows the final works came to $34,718.28.
The Bank of New Zealand Building is included in the Operative Mackenzie District Plan 2004 (the District Plan) Heritage Items Schedule as a Category Z item. Under the District Plan Heritage Protection Rules Category ‘Z’ items are considered to be of District or local importance but are not classified as significant as Category ‘X’ items, which is the highest classification possible under the District Plan. The Bank of New Zealand Building is not listed on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (formerly the Historic Places Register or the Register).
To inform the District Plan Review, Council commissioned a Heritage Assessment to be undertaken in 2014. This work involved an assessment of all known heritage items in the Mackenzie District, including the Bank of New Zealand Building. The notable features of the Bank of New Zealand Building were identified as being the symmetrical structure and the front door. At the time of the assessment the Bank of New Zealand Building was considered to be in ‘excellent condition’, with the paintwork on the exterior well maintained and the roof in very good condition. A photograph of the Bank of New Zealand Building from the report is illustrated below in Figure 2 below, with further details provided in Figure 3.
Figure 2: The Bank of New Zealand Building (Source: Council Report on the Former Bank of New Zealand by Arlene Baird, 5 September 2014)
Figure 3: The Bank of New Zealand Building - details (Source: Council Report on the Former Bank of New Zealand by Arlene Baird, 5 September 2014)
Assessment of Proposal Against Criteria
The Heritage Protection Fund identifies that applications are eligible for a maximum grant of $2,500.00 or a specified percentage of the sum required, based on the classification of the heritage item. Under Category ‘Z’, items will receive a maximum grant of $2,500.00 or 45% of the sum required, whichever is the lower. Council may choose to allocate a lesser amount than the maximum specified to a project that does not meet all the criteria for evaluating an application which are listed below.
The criteria for evaluating a funding application are:
· The significance of the heritage feature.
· The primary focus of the proposed works.
· The contribution of the work to the long-term viability of the heritage feature.
· Whether the project will provide new information, assist in public interpretation or understanding about the heritage feature.
· Public accessibility to the item.
· The amount of money available in the fund and the need for equitable distribution.
Assessment Against Criteria
Under the District Plan the Bank of New Zealand Building is classified as a ‘Z’ category item. The building is not listed on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.
The applicant has stated that the works are necessary as the original roof (at 114 years old) was leaking, some of the rafters had dry-rot and gutters were corroded and sagging. The works have already been carried out and an invoice has been provided with the application.
Under the Heritage Protection Fund the works are classified as an enhancement and management project which allows for repair work. Repair projects are intended to make good decayed or damaged materials. The works include repairs and maintenance and will enhance the heritage value of the Bank of New Zealand Building by ensuring that the building remains in good condition. The primary focus of the works falls within the scope of the Heritage Protection Fund criteria.
The works being repairs and maintenance will ensure the long-term viability of the Bank of New Zealand building. The works will allow the building to be maintained as an important reminder of the history of Fairlie township. Little maintenance of the building has been carried out in the past and the works being carried out are very detailed.
The project is not a research and education project, therefore, there is no requirement to provide new information or a greater understanding about the Bank of New Zealand Building.
If the amount of funding to be provided was based on 45% of the costs, the minimum amount sought would be $8,566.39. Therefore, based on the Heritage Funding allocation formula the maximum amount that can be allocated is $2,500.00.
Policy Status
The proposal is to be assessed against Council’s Heritage Protection Fund Policy. This has occurred above.
Significance of Decision
The proposal is not considered to be significant in terms of Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.
Options
1. Approve the application as outlined and grant $2,500.00 to the applicant.
2. Declining the application as outlined.
Considerations
The proposal satisfies the assessment criteria in terms of significance of the heritage feature, the primary focus of the works, and the contribution to the long-term viability of the heritage feature. However, the works have been completed, and it is stipulated in the Policy that work that has been completed prior to the consideration of an application will generally not be eligible for funding. There is an exception to this that does reserve Council the right to consider applications if appropriate circumstances exist. This is the only application that has been received for the 2020/2021 financial year. A call for applications has been made and no further applications have been received.
Conclusion
The proposal has been assessed against the relevant criteria of the Heritage Protection Fund Policy. Council must determine whether to use its discretion in providing a grant of $2,500 to the applicant.
6.13 Adoption of Mackenzie Spatial Plans
Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning
Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Attachments: 1. Fairlie Spatial Plan ⇩
2. Takapo Spatial Plan ⇩
3. Twizel Spatial Plan ⇩
4. Albury Settlement Plan ⇩
5. Kimbell Settlement Plan ⇩
6. Burkes Pass Settlement Plan ⇩
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☒ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☐ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
To seek Mackenzie District Council’s endorsement and adoption of proposed Mackenzie Spatial Plans for Fairlie, Tekapo/ Takapō, Twizel, Albury, Kimbell and Burkes Pass.
1. That the report be received. |
2. That Council resolve to endorse and adopt the Spatial Plans for Fairlie, Tekapo/ Takapō, Twizel and the Settlement Plans for Albury, Kimbell and Burkes Pass. |
Background
A Spatial Plan is a high-level blueprint for the future, showing what should go where, and how each part should interact with the others. The Mackenzie Spatial Plans will chart the future of the District’s townships and rural settlements, ensuring growth can occur in a positive, sustainable way.
The Mackenzie Spatial Plans offer a 30-year planning horizon, ensuring the district can get ahead of growth and plan for it. By taking a 30-year approach the plans will ensure our towns continue to be places for people and support healthy communities of residents and visitors alike.
The Mackenzie Spatial Plans will inform future land use patterns and new zoning that will be outlined in the next iteration of the Mackenzie District Plan.
The plans have been developed using a process that puts community at its heart, ensuring the plans reflect the ideas, wishes and aspirations of the people who have a connection with the district. The plans will ensure each town can grow in a sustainable way, while protecting what makes them special for years to come.
The Spatial Planning process has integrated a considerable amount of thinking across a range of workstreams – offering a compelling case for change that brings the community, mana whenua, landowners, stakeholders, and partners together. It has created a shared vision, setting expectations for the future.
The agreed objectives for the Spatial Plans are:
1. We understand what the future holds for each town.
2. Integration of existing strategies and projects ensuring the outcomes reflect Mackenzie District values.
3. The work informs/facilitates the District Plan Review.
4. Ensure the Mackenzie District Council can get ahead of growth, identify key spatial improvements, then plan for it and get on with it.
5. The community is engaged throughout the process.
Policy Status
The proposal does not represent a formal policy nor change to any Council policy or statutory document.
PROPOSED PLANS
Following multiple rounds of community engagement and the release of preferred options for each of the six townships and rural settlements the Project Team has finalised the Spatial Plans and Settlement Plans is seeking Council’s endorsement of these plans for inclusion in the final ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ document and subsequent District Plan Review.
Engagement Process
The development of the Spatial Plans has been through a comprehensive process, with community input informing and driving the development of each plan alongside detailed analysis. This process is outlined below:
1. Mackenzie Community Survey (January – February 2020)
The Mackenzie Community Survey was carried out to get a high-level understanding of how the community feels about the district. It had 759 responses and asked three main questions of residents, ratepayers and visitors:
· What one thing do you like most about the District?
· What one thing would you like to see changed?
· Looking ahead, what one thing would you like the Mackenzie District to be known for in the future?
The results can be viewed online at https://bit.ly/2upEAFJ
2. Mackenzie Establishment Report (May 2020)
The Establishment Report set the foundation for the delivery of the Spatial Plans. It was adopted by Council in May 2020.
3. Community Workshops (July 2020)
Targeted community and stakeholder workshops were held across the district. Three rounds of workshops were held.
a. Investment Logic Map workshops (8-10 July)
Investment Logic Mapping is a New Zealand Treasury endorsed process that helps set the foundation of a programme of work by working to understand the problems faced and the benefits that would be achieved by addressing those problems. These were carried out as facilitated workshops with a range of community stakeholders from each main township.
b. Issues and opportunities workshops (27 – 28 July)
Workshops were held in Burkes Pass, Kimbell and Albury to understand the issues and opportunities identified by the communities of each settlement.
c. Spatial optioneering workshops (29 – 31 July)
A second round of workshops were held in the larger centres to identify what the community would like to see in the future of their town. These were interactive sessions with a wide cross section of the community and informed the options subsequently developed.
4. Shortlist Development (August 2020)
Following the community workshops, the project team developed a shortlist of three spatial plan options for each township, as well as a settlement concept plan for each rural settlement.
5. Community Engagement on Shortlists (September – October 2020)
Once the shortlists and rural settlements and had been developed, they were shared with the community for feedback. The results can be viewed here: https://bit.ly/3pa3K2w
6. Community Meetings (December 2020)
Following the shortlist community engagement, we came back to each community to share our findings and get further direction.
7. Detailed Analysis (December 2020 – February 2021)
Using the feedback received from the community, the options were analysed against a range of measures to identify the preferred option for each town.
8. Preferred Option Engagement (April-May 2021)
The preferred options were shared with the community for feedback. The results can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/MDC_Preferred_Option_Spatial_Plan
9. Fine tuning of each plan (May – June 2021)
Following the community engagement on the preferred options, the Spatial plans were fine-tuned before being presented to Council for adoption.
Finalising the plans
The following discussion points resulted from the last round of community engagement, and these have been workshopped by the Project Team and Council to inform the outcomes presented in the attached Spatial Plans. Outcomes of the workshop and the impacts on the Spatial Plans are highlighted in italics.
Fairlie
1. What should be done with the area of land south of the golf course, some of which has been designated as large lot residential? Its current location may not be appropriate dure to current land use and access issues.
Agreement that this zoned land should be relocated so it’s accessed via Talbot Rd (keep it the same size).
2. Area to the south of the town that is currently zoned industrial, but not shown on the Spatial Plan – should this be retained or removed?
Leave it off the Spatial Plan, its inclusion would result in an oversupply and segregation of industrial zones potentially beside a new residential area. This will be dealt with in the District Plan.
3. Should we provide more rural residentially zone land than is required?
a. We have built enough capacity into the model based on the growth projections.
b. Providing more may impact the overall objectives of the plan, particularly around providing greater housing choices and vibrancy of the town centre.
Leave the provision of rural residential land as it currently stands in the preferred option – Council can look at it again if demand outstrips supply in time.
4. A landowner has raised the possibility of industrial zoned land to be included between Clayton Road and the Opihi River.
This has not been supported by Council, and is definitely not supported by mana whenua (AEC). The land is located too close to the river and would result in further segregation of industrial areas, it has not been socialised in any of the previous community engagement.
5. The current preferred option has included a small amount of the showgrounds to be rezoned as low density residential. This was raised by one respondent.
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan – The showgrounds are not compelled to develop the land but gives them the option to do so in time if the need/want to.
Tekapo|Takapō
1. What should be done with the Saleyards land?
a. These have been zoned a combination of visitor accommodation and retail, which has been done to limit the impact of VA on the existing residential areas, while providing an opportunity for small retail offering, such as a corner store, to service the residents.
b. A number of people were worried about developing the Saleyards and believed it would be better for Council to purchase the land and use it other purposes such as recreation.
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan. This is prime real estate and by up zoning it promotes the discussion among owners as to what is best use of the land. This gives owners the option of developing it at some point in the next thirty years, not the expectation.
2. Should the zoning along the waterfront be more of a ‘mixed use’ option, as opposed to Visitor Accommodation and Residential?
This has been changed to high density mixed use, with the expectation that it will be used for ground floor retail / hospitality and visitor accommodation / residential above.
3. Medium density provisions
a. Do we need height limits and design guidelines?
Overall zoning: It has been agreed that there will be the need for design guidelines / controls to be produced through the District Plan. These will ensure the character and amenity of the town is protected, while allowing for increased densities.
b. Is it in the right places?
Decision to connect the medium density through Murray Place along the eastern side of the river. This connects up two areas of medium density.
4. What should be done around the fire station?
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan
5. Where would be the best place for a sports field?
a. Regional Park
b. Saleyards
c. Somewhere else?
The decision has been made to remove the provision of an identified location for a sports field in the Spatial Plan. This was agreed because:
• The provision of a sports field has been acknowledged and will be considered as part of the Parks and Reserves Strategy that is underway at the time of finalising the Spatial Plan.
• This will inform Council with regards to the size, use and location of a sports field / facility for Takapō.
Twizel
1. Where should town centre commercial growth be accommodated?
a. Down Ruataniwha Road as indicated in the plan.
b. South down Mackenzie Drive
c. A combination of the two / something else
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan (boulevard option). This will include improved streetscaping and amenity to act as the gateway to the commercial town centre. Green space at the gateway of town to remain – as indicated in the plan.
2. Provision of industrial land across the state highway
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan. This will be subject to the proper controls and compliance monitoring to ensure environmental values are protected. Mana whenua want to see high levels of environmental protection at this stie.
3. Agreement around provision of large lot residential north of Glen Lyon Street
Agreed.
The decision has been made to leave this as it stands in the Spatial Plan.
4. Next steps in terms of subdivision standards and ensuring future subdivisions provide green space and trail connections.
Subdivision standards and the provision of community green spaces and trails will be included in new subdivision standards being developed through the District Plan Review. Provision, quality and location of tracks, trails and natural open spaces will be identified as part of the Tracks and Trails Strategy, which is underway at the finalising of the Spatial Plan.
Albury
The following changes have been made following community drop-in sessions and the Council workshop:
· Support a 50km lower speed environment with good road infrastructure, improved planting and pedestrian / cyclist crossing points.
· The improvements made to the Albury Community hall will be continued to ensure this remains a focal point of the community.
· Tracks and trails to the South of the town have been removed – leaves the emphasis on the main trails and green spaces.
· Bike path along main road has been realigned to reflect on the ground situation realigned.
· Southern End of Bealey Ave has been turned into a cul de sac with increased green space around it. This improves amenity and safety of people using the green space.
· Northern set of toilets has been removed.
· Southern crossing point has been removed.
Kimbell
The following changes have been made following community drop-in sessions and the Council workshop:
· Provide a northern trail link up the State Highway to the bridge.
· Keep the trails outlined down the Opihi.
· Remove all trails across private land - this has been done after landowner concern.
· A note has been added to the final text that states:
o The settlement’s open spaces will be upgraded, with improvements suggested for walking and cycling paths, a shared community space and local street improvements. Provisions for public access for walking and cycling trails and natural open space through land that has been upzoned as large lot residential will be included in the District Plan Review.
Burkes Pass
The following changes have been made following community drop-in sessions and the Council workshop:
· Remove all trails across private land - this has been done after landowner concern.
· A note has been added to the final text that states:
o The settlement’s open spaces will be upgraded, with improvements suggested for walking and cycling paths, a shared community space and local street improvements. Provisions for public access for walking and cycling trails and natural open space through land that has been upzoned as large lot residential will be included in the District Plan Review.
· A note has been included that outlines:
o Mana whenua have strong aspirations to see the health of the Opihi improved along with increased indigenous biodiversity. MDC share these aspirations and hope to work with landowners to ensure these outcomes can be achieved.
· Additional toilet facilities are expected to be provided by commercial providers as the town grows.
· The Heritage Layer has been changed to a Burkes Pass Rural Character Area:
o This will protect the unique nature of the town and ensure future development doesn’t affect the amenity or character of Burkes Pass. This will be supported by an appropriate investigation and analysis that will be carried out as part of the District Plan Review.
Overall Conclusion
The above changes have been incorporated into the attached Spatial Plans and represent the outcome of extensive community engagement.
The endorsement of the final Spatial Plans will allow for the final ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ document to be completed.
The ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ document will comprehensively explain the process undertaken in creating the Spatial Plans and will include relevant data and information that informed the process. The ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ document will also incorporate Mana Whenua values and Korero, to accurately reflect all the values of the area and the shared vision of the entire community.
Significance of Decision
This is not considered to be significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
The proposal has been through a significant level of engagement, and has been widely circulated within the community.
Options
Option 1. Endorse and adopt the Spatial Plans for each of the six Townships. This is the option recommended by staff.
Option 2. Do not endorse the Spatial Plans for each of the six Townships.
Considerations
The Mackenzie Spatial Plans project has included multiple rounds of community engagement. The Plans are a critical piece of work to inform the District Plan Review and endorsement of each of the plans will ensure that the District Plan Review is able to commence with a clear direction having already been identified by the respective communities.
Conclusion
The development of the Spatial Plans has been through a comprehensive process, with community input informing and driving the development of each plan. The process has also seen the involvement of mana whenua as a key partner to the process.
The results of community engagement have been used as key pieces of evidence in the decision making process. This process has seen the integration of urban design community engagement, infrastructure investment management and technical analysis to develop six plans that chart the future of our townships and rural settlements.
These plans have been developed using growth projections produced in 2020 and have been designed to accommodate the growth expected over the next thirty years. They will directly inform the District Plan Review, which is expected to begin later this year. The plans will go through a number of further rounds of community engagement as they work through the District Plan review process.
The Spatial Plans and Rural settlement plans strike a balance between allowing development, protecting what makes each area special and ensuring they can grow for years to come.
6.14 Bylaw and Policy Statement of Proposal Adoption
Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning
Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations
Attachments: 1. Draft Consolidated Statement of Proposal - New Policies and Bylaws (under separate cover)
2. Draft Consolidated Statement of Proposal - Policy and Bylaw Review (under separate cover)
3. Proposed Draft Solid Waste Bylaw - A (under separate cover)
4. Proposed General Bylaw 2021 - A (under separate cover)
5. Proposed Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2021 - B (under separate cover)
6. Proposed Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2021 - B (under separate cover)
7. Proposed Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2021 - C (under separate cover)
8. Proposed Draft Dog Control Policy 2021 - C (under separate cover)
9. Proposed Draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy 2021 - C (under separate cover)
10. Proposed Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2021 - D (under separate cover)
11. Proposed Draft Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021 - E (under separate cover)
12. Proposed Draft Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2021 - F (under separate cover)
Council Role:
☐ Advocacy |
When Council or Committee advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.
|
☒ Executive |
The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council or Committee e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.
|
☒ Legislative |
Includes adopting District Plans and plan changes, bylaws and policies.
|
☐ Review |
When Council or Committee reviews decisions made by officers.
|
☐ Quasi-judicial |
When Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s rights and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice, e.g. resource consent or planning applications or objections, consents or other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Control Act) and other decisions that may be appealable to the Court including the Environment Court.
|
☐ Not applicable |
(Not applicable to Community Boards).
|
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the relevant background information to the attached Statements of Proposal prior to going out for the Special Consultative procedure.
1. That the report be received. 2. That Council adopt a preferred option in relation to the proposed Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021. |
3. That the Council adopt the Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the LGA 2002. 4. That the Council adopt the Proposed New Policies and Bylaws – Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the LGA 2002. |
Background
Council is undertaking various bylaw development/amendments because of its policy and bylaw review timetable, and public expectation/ demand for amendments to individual policies and bylaws, and the additional need to create new policies and bylaws to address public concerns.
Attached are two Statements of Proposal being:
· The Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal; and
· The Proposed New Policies and Bylaws – Statement of Proposal.
Preferred option in relation to the proposed Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021
The Council propose to revoke the Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy 2016 and TAB Venue Policy 2016 and replace them with a new Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021. A policy that combines Class 4 gambling and TAB venues is recommended as it avoids unnecessary repetition and keeps the requirements for gambling venues in one place.
The Council is proposing options to the public to consider:
Option 1 – The Council impose a sinking lid.
Option 2 – The Council lower the overall cap on the number of gaming machines in the district.
Option 3 – The Council impose no change or impose another option not listed.
If the Council impose a sinking lid no approval will be given for any new Class 4 Gambling or TAB venues in the Mackenzie District. Existing Class 4 Gambling venues may continue to operate but cannot be relocated or transferred to a new venue or owner if a pub or venue closes.
The Council alternatively could reduce the overall cap on the number of gaming machines in the district to 45 machines (a reduction of 20 machines). Class 4 Venues under this scenario may be relocated and or transferred to a new venue or owner if a pub or venue closes.
Council could also maintain the statis quo.
Council is required to identify a preferred option within the Statement of Proposal Adopted.
The Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal
The Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal addresses the following seven policies and bylaws which are required to be reviewed. Pursuant to Section 158 of the Act a territorial authority must review a bylaw no later than five years after the date on which the bylaw was made. If a bylaw is not reviewed within the required timeframe, it expires. It is then officially revoked on the date that is two years after the last date on which the bylaw should have been reviewed (Section 160A of the Act). The polices and bylaws that have been reviewed are as followed:
1. The Solid Waste Bylaw 2013;
2. The Wastewater Network Bylaw 2014;
3. The Water Supply Bylaw 2014;
4. The Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2014;
5. The Market Place Liquor Ban Bylaw 2014;
6. The Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy and TAB Venue Policy 2016 (subject to confirmation of preferred option); and
7. The Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2005.
When amending a bylaw/policy, Council must use the special consultative procedure and comply with section 86 of the Act if the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the Councils policy under section 76AA of the Act as being of significant interest to the public; or if the Council considers that there is, or likely to be , a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw or changes to, or revocation, of the bylaw. The Council in this instance considers the matters addressed by the bylaws and policies above require the special consultative procedure as set out in the Act.
Staff have prepared a Consolidated Statement of Proposal in accordance with section 83 of the Act for adoption by Council.
The Proposed New Policies and Bylaws – Statement of Proposal
The review of the current policies and bylaws identified current gaps in Council’s regulatory toolbox that have resulted in impacts on the wider community. These perceived problems namely related to the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw in residential areas, trading over the Easter Holiday period and a General Bylaw to provide guidance for all other bylaws and how Council implement these.
When creating a bylaw/policy, Council must use the special consultative procedure and comply with section 86 of the Act if the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the Councils policy under section 76AA of the Act as being of significant interest to the public; or if the Council considers that there is, or likely to be , a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw or changes to, or revocation, of the bylaw. The Council in this instance considers the matters addressed by the bylaws and policies above require the special consultative procedure as set out in the Act.
Staff have prepared a Consolidated Statement of Proposal in accordance with section 83 of the Act for adoption by Council.
The Process
Any person, organisation or body is welcome to make a submission on the Policies and Bylaw being reviewed or proposed. The consultation period will open on Monday 5 July 2021 and will close on Friday 6 August 2021. Every person will also be given the reasonable opportunity to speak to their views with hearings scheduled to be held on Tuesday the 14th and Wednesday, the 15th of September 2021.
Along with this Statement of Proposal, several accompanying documents have been prepared to help the community understand the changes proposed and the reasons why. These documents will be provided, on our website Council offices, and will be notified through the appropriate channels.
Policy Status
Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 prescribes the steps that Council must take in carrying out a Special Consultative Procedure. The Statements of Proposal have been created based on requirements of this piece of legislation. If adopted the Statements of Proposal will be notified in accordance with Section 83 with members of the community given the opportunity to submit and speak to each of the proposals. The process will result in changes to the operative policies and bylaws identified potentially two new bylaws and a single new policy.
Significance of Decision
The proposal will trigger Mackenzie District Councils Significance and Engagement Policy. In response to this all the proposals are to be subject to the Special Consultative Procedure as directed by the Local Government Act 2002. This will provide the wider public the opportunity to engage with the process and have their views heard.
Options
Proposed Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021
In respect of the Proposed Class 4 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2021, Council must identify one of the following options as a preferred option for identification in Statement of Proposal.
Option 1 – The Council impose a sinking lid.
Option 2 – The Council lower the overall cap on the number of gaming machines in the district.
Option 3 – The Council impose no change to the current policy or impose another option not listed.
Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal
In respect of the Policies and Bylaws Review – Statement of Proposal, Council must determine to either:
Option 1: Adopt the Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 for use in the Special Consultative Procedure. This is the option recommended by staff.
Option 2: Decline to adopt the Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 for use in the Special Consultative Procedure.
Proposed New Policies and Bylaws – Statement of Proposal
In respect of the Proposed New Policies and Bylaws – Statement of Proposal, Council must determine to either:
Option 1: Adopt the Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 for use in the Special Consultative Procedure. This is the option recommended by staff.
Option 2: Decline to adopt the Statement of Proposal pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 for use in the Special Consultative Procedure.
Considerations
Legal
The proposals are being carried out in accordance with all relevant legislation. Adoption of the Statements of Proposal will result in Policies and Bylaws enforceable by Council.
Financial
There are no financial implications as this process is being resourced internally.
Other
Several of Council’s current policies and bylaws will be revoked if they are not reviewed. The proposal will result in Policies and Bylaws continuing to have legal effect. Failure to review the current policies and bylaws will mean Council ahs limited ability to carry out important regulatory functions.
Conclusion
Staff have prepared two Statements of Proposals one of which addresses the review of seven current policies and bylaws, with the other proposing the creation of two new bylaws and a single policy. These documents have been prepared in accordance with all relevant legislation and must be adopted by Council for use as part of the Special Consultative Procedure guided by the Local Government Act 2002.
7 Community Board Recommendations
7.1 Minutes of Twizel Community Board Meeting - 3 May 2021
Author: Arlene Goss, Governance Advisor
Authoriser:
Attachments: 1. Minutes of Twizel Community Board ⇩
1. That the Minutes of the Twizel Community Board Meeting held on Monday 3 May 2021 be received. 2. That Council notes the following resolutions passed by the Twizel Community Board: a) That a professional mountain bike/pump track builder be engaged to undertake maintenance and upgrade works to the Twizel Pump track (Glen Lyon Rd). That this work be undertaken in conjunction with community engagement. That follow-up rider training be provided over a weekend following completion of the track works. That funding of approximately $9,000 to undertake this project be allocated from the Twizel Township Projects budget. b) That the Twizel Community Board instructs staff to remove the one tree closest to the building in Market Place, and prune the rest of the trees. c) That a grant of $450 be approved for Lakes Ballet towards the costs of a teacher and six students attending an event in Christchurch. d) That a grant of $500 be approved for the Twizel Kindergarten Committee to bring a parenting speaker to Twizel to speak to parents and professionals. e) That a grant of $61.35 be approved for Neighbourhood Support to pay for venue hire for a public meeting in Twizel. |
7.2 Minutes of Tekapo Community Board Meeting - 5 May 2021
Author: Arlene Goss, Governance Advisor
Authoriser:
Attachments: 1. Minutes of Tekapo Community Board ⇩
1. That the Minutes of the Tekapo Community Board Meeting held on Wednesday 5 May 2021 be received. 2. That Council notes the following resolutions passed by the Tekapo Community Board: a) That the Tekapo Community Board requests that council carry forward the balance of the Tekapo grants fund to the new financial year. b) That the Community Board recommend that Council adopt the 2021/22 fees and charges for the community facilities within the Community Board area as proposed, with the change to a standardised approach of a 20% discount for regular hall users who use the facility 10 times or more. |
7.3 Minutes of Fairlie Community Board Meeting - 6 May 2021
Author: Arlene Goss, Governance Advisor
Authoriser:
Attachments: 1. Minutes of Fairlie Community Board meeting ⇩
1. That the Minutes of the Fairlie Community Board Meeting held on Thursday 6 May 2021 be received. 2. That Council notes the following resolutions passed by the Tekapo Community Board: a) That the Fairlie Community Board instructs staff to come back to the next meeting with a proposal for community engagement on the Peace Trees. b) That the Fairlie Community Board asks Council to carry forward the balance of community board funds into the new financial year. c) That staff obtain a quote for the removal of the Fairlie Domain Douglas Fir from an MDC-approved contractor, and That the applicant be approached to discuss the costs for removal of the Douglas Fir, and if agreeable to meet the costs, that the tree and stump be removed, and That a suitable replacement deciduous tree be planted in the winter following the removal of the Douglas Fir, at a location within the Fairlie Domain. d) That the Community Board recommend that Council adopt the 2021/22 fees and charges for the community facilities within the Community Board area as proposed with the changes noted in the minutes. |
8.1 Minutes of Council Meeting - 18 May 2021
Author: Arlene Goss, Governance Advisor
Authoriser:
Attachments: 1. Minutes of Council Meeting 18 May 2021 ⇩
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday 18 May 2021 be received and confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting. |
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
[1] Recreation Aotearoa is the professional association acting as the voice of Recreation in Aotearoa, representing all professionals in the industry.