Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

5 Mayor's Report

5.1 Mayoral Activities Report

Attachments: Nil

Recommendations

That the report be received.

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

Three Waters

Meeting with Minister Mahuta.

Raised Mackenzie District Council’s concerns regarding the reform. Not only had I not heard back from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) but had Morrison Low check data. This process has exposed some wrong assumptions made that will have a direct affect on the Mackenzie region.

I also raised our submission with her and requested, along with other Canterbury Mayors, for a pause in reform. While not pausing the reform, she is prepared to offer a longer lead time for Rural Waters.

The Minister feels that integrity has to work both ways. She will receive submissions and following this cabinet will make a decision in late October.

LINZ Funding Announcement – Tekapo

Media Announcement with Minister O’Conner.

Up to $18.4 million will be invested into restoring the South Island’s braided river valleys, alpine and pastoral lands over four years, creating more than 60 jobs a year, provide a much-needed employment boost to the district.

As part of the Government’s Jobs for Nature programme, Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) is funding three projects in river catchments across South Canterbury focussing on pest and weed control, and habitat restoration,

The largest of these investments is in the Te Manahuna Aoraki project in the upper Mackenzie Basin where up to $12 million will be spent improving the habitat of some of the country’s most fragile plants and animals over four years.

Working towards the issue of wilding pines, endeavouring to be predator free and it gives us some certainty that we can go ahead, and manage our environment. This is good news for Mackenzie but the Government needs to continue with funding to protect Mackenzie.

Essential Freshwater

Zoom meeting with Minister Parker.

Ashburton District ids currently sitting at nitrate levels of 6.9 however the new Freshwater rules requires it to be at 2.7. To get to that level, Ashburton will face a 50% reduction in dairy creating huge uncertainty for farmers. This will also result that the Synlait Factory wouldn’t be there. Huge financial impact on the district. Furthermore, what do farmers do with the land if this was to occur? Does this land get planted in trees? Etc. ECAN understanding issues and acknowledging rural sector. They’re changing the way from Zone committees into Catchment Groups that are community driven whilst co-designing with Rūanaga.

The Minister did say when pushed around speed change that the change is generational. Minister recognizes good work being done. Farm plans are essential and if they are adhered to we can back off regulation.

RMA Changes

Minister wants to see this less regulated, and Councils having more weight with their District Plans. It is their plan, not those of planning professionals. Councils should be in control of their planning developments.

Highly productive soils are being developed on, but some changes imminent as there’s not enough protection around this.

Meetings

27 July 2021

- Council Workshop

28 July 2021

- Lunch with Lake Tekapo Enterprises

29 July 2021

- Meeting with Brian Blanchard

- Wilding Trust Meeting

- Meeting with Tim Rayward – Air Safaris

30 July 2021

- Te Manahuna Ki Uta Governance Group Meeting

2 August 2021

- Downlands Site Visit

3 August 2021

- Filming Video Promo – MTFJ

- Council Meeting

- Meeting with Greg Anderson

4 August 2021

- LGNZ Zone 5 & 6 Working Lunch – Christchurch

- Progressing the Takiwa Approach to Three Waters

5 August 2021

- Meeting with Principal Kate Staniford – Twizel Area School

6 August 2021

- Canterbury Mayoral Forum

- Flood Recovery Hui

9 August 2021

- Mackenzie & Waitaki DC A2O Governance Meeting – Waimate

- Canterbury Mayoral Forum Zoom

- Mackenzie & Waitaki DC Shared Sustainable Building Services Meeting – Waimate

- Three Waters Webinar for Elected Members

11 August 2021

- Meeting with Leaine – MTFJ

- Meeting with Waitaki & MDC CE’s / Mayors – Zoom

- Meeting with Jim & Anne Murray

- Te Manahuna Ki Uta Working Group Meeting

- Mayor Bruce Smith – 3 Waters Discussion

12 August 2021

- NZ Rail

- Meeting with Nikki Wagner

- Mackenzie Country Scholarship Trust Meeting

13 August 2021

- Radio slot on The Breeze with OJ

14 August 2021

- Road Maintenance Contract Renewal

- Meeting with Murray Bell

17 August 2021

- Committee Meeting Day

19 August 2021

- CMTE: Regional Transport

20 August 2021

- Canterbury Mayoral Forum – Zoom

- Civil Defence Emergency Management CDEM Group Joint Committee

23 August 2021

- Progressing the Takiwa Approach to Three Waters – Hui

- Council Workshop

25 August 2021

- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Working Group Meeting

- Albury Water Meeting

26 August 2021

- Review Meeting

- Mackenzie Tourism Zoom Meeting

27 August 2021

- Te Manahuna Ki Uta – Governance Group Meeting

30 August 2021

- Meeting with John Farrow

- Te Mokihi / CE’s, Manawhenua: Co-Governance proposal and work progressed

31 August 2021

- Council Workshop

- Review Meeting

1 September 2021

- Tekapo Community Board Meeting

2 September 2021

- Three Waters Update

- Fairlie Community Board Meeting

- CMF Oral Submission

3 September 2021

- MTFJ-MSD Community Recovery Programme – Zoom Meeting

- Three Waters Webinar for Elected Members

6 September 2021

- Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environment Bill: Parliamentary Paper

- Radio NZ

7 September 2021

- Council Workshop

- Audit and Risk Committee Meeting

- Progressing the Takiwa Approach to Three Waters

9 September 2021

- Waitaki Shorelines Authorities Committee Meeting

- Workshop: Rivers Work Programme

- 3 Waters Reform Alternatives – TDC

10 September 2021

- Radio Slot with OJ on the Breeze

11 September 2021

- Fire Brigade Tekapo

13 September 2021

- Mid & South Canterbury Trust Board Meeting

- SCDHB and MDC Psychosocial Partnership Meeting

- RTC Workshop: Strategy to Action Forward Work Programme

14 September 2021

- Bylaw Hearing

- Extraordinary Council Meeting

15 September 2021

- Tekapo Hotel Construction Launch

16 September 2021

- Three Waters Update

20 September 2021

- Progressing the Takiwa Approach to Three Waters

- A2O Trail Meeting – Mayor, CE’s & Runanga Chairs

21 September 2021

- Council Workshop

- 3 Waters Weninar

23 September 2021

- Meeting with Councillor Murphy and Cox

- Albury Hall Committee Meeting

24 September 2021

- Meeting with the Minister of Agriculture – Tekapo

27 September 2021

- Webinars for Elected Members

- CMF Meeting with Minister Mahuta

28 September 2021

- Extraordinary Council Meeting

- Council Workshop

- Remote Water Supplies Workshop

30 September 2021

- Councillor Workshop – Tekapo

- Three Waters Update

- Progressing the Takiwa Approach to Three Waters

1 October 2021

- MTFJ Road Trip for Businesses

5 October 2021

- Council Workshop

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

5.2 Chief Executive's Report

Attachments: Nil

Recommendations

That the report be received.

STRATEGIC PROJECTS

Long Term Plan

The audit was finalised on 7 October 2020 and an audit opinion was issued. The audit opinion was relatively clear with a few paragraphs noting a few matters of emphasis.

The Consultation Document was adopted by Council on 7 October 2021 and consultation started on 8 September.

Community engagement drop in-sessions are planned as follows:

Annual report

Work is progressing well on the 2021/2022 Annual report but Audit New Zealand are still to confirm the date of the audit for the Annual Report and to send through the Audit Engagement letter. This poses a risk to Council meeting our statutory deadline. Audit have advised that other audits have been rescheduled due to the COVID Lockdown and resourcing local government audits with scarce resources is proving difficult. Confirmation has been sought from Audit New Zealand. It is very likely that the final audit of the Long Term Plan and the Audit Report will occur simultaneously placing pressure on the small finance team. This has been mitigated by the use of external financial and corporate planning resources.

Te Manahuna Ki Uta

Mackenzie District Council, Mana whenua, Government and the community have continued to work together to curate a 100-year vision for Te Manahuna/Mackenzie District.

August continued to be a very busy month with community engagement being finalised on the 23 August 2021..

A video and suitable content was updated on the website and the community was consulted about what’s important for the Mackenzie District. Submissions are still in the process of being analysed to determine how they will inform the development of the Destination management plan.

In the month of August several documented were finalised and distributed for feedback:

· Vision and Aspirations for Manawhenua

· Vision and Aspirations for Mackenzie and the various agencies

· Decision Making Framework

· High Level Scenario Development

Due to the recent lockdown in August, critical workshops were postponed and given the uncertainty remaining as to when we would return to Level 1, the time to produce a quality Destination Plan would be severely truncated. It was agreed that the for the next few months to rather take time to focus on:

· More fully understand the feedback provided from the engagement and how this will inform the development of the Destination Management plan

· Complete Wananga 3 and 4

· Confirm the decision making framework with its proposed outcomes, criteria and measures developed

· Finalise and agreed the scenarios to be developed for the Draft Destination Plan

A draft project timeline has been drafted and agreed with the Working Group and a time variation is to be sought for the grant made to Council.

LEGISLATIVE REFORMS

Water Reform

During the month of August and September information about the Three Waters Reform was updated onto Let’s Talk platform on the Council website about the Three Waters Reform detailing:

· The increased compliance requirements that will be monitored and enforced by the New Regulatory authority Taumata Arowai

· Expanding and the strengthening of New Zealand’s water regulatory regime

· Proposed transition planned from provision of services by Council to multi regional entities

In addition, council staff worked with Morrison Low to undertake a review of the Scottish Water WICS data for Mackenzie District Council. The WICS investment numbers were based on Scottish Waters’ experience and applied to a NZ context using high level statistics and allocated using a formula to estimate investment costs. Sensitivity analysis suggests the scale of the difference between the entity and council scenarios is likely a lot less than WICS analysis indicates. In some modelled investment scenarios, it is possible that household charges could be lower for Mackenzie ratepayers under continued council service delivery than with Entity D. The sensitivity analysis indicated that ratepayers in Mackenzie District may be financially better off under a continued council led service delivery than under Entity D.

Council held two webinars about the Three waters Reform with the community and a webinar with about Rural Water Schemes and the new compliance requirements.

Council provided a submission to the Department of Internal affairs about the proposed legislative reforms. The Mackenzie District Council opposed the Crowns’ proposed model to establish four large water entities and remove the three waters assets and services from local councils based on the information supplied by the Crown to date.

Council is not convinced that the proposed model provides the best outcomes for our District, our people, or New Zealand.

Councils’ independent analysis seriously questions the validity of the information supplied to date. The Council is very disappointed by the significant amount of information missing at this stage of the process. Councils modelling shows that the large entities does not deliver economic benefits for Mackenzie District and so this leads them to question all of the projected economic benefits.

Mackenzie District Council believe it is imperative that the Crown recalculate its position using correct data, integrates all its reform processes relating to local government, set realistic timeframes around the process and proceed in true partnership with Councils, runanga and our communities. Council believes that the Crown must approach water reform in an integrated manner alongside RMA reform, local government reform and local government funding reform.

Customer Services

Staffing

No changes to either Twizel or Fairlie staffing.

Team Outstanding Annual leave hours balance (as at 21 September 2021) – 839.26 hours.

Team members used 3 days annual leave, 4.5 hours sick leave and 3 days bereavement leave during September.

During Level 3 Lockdown staff attended both offices on a roster basis to provide continuity of service to both internal and external customers.

Twizel Office Customer Numbers

Customer numbers recorded for September 2021 = 1686 (noting that this includes 3 days where Reception was closed to the public due to COVID Level 3 Lockdown together with a Statutory Holiday – South Canterbury Anniversary).

NZ Post Scorecard

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Service Request Summary Report

Complaints Register Summary

There were no formal complaints received during September:

One request from July escalated to Stage Two with the complainant requiring further explanation of the processing of a resource consent. Investigation is in progress.

Land Information Memorandums (LIM)

For the period 1 September 2021 to 31 September 2021 16 LIM applications were received. This compares with 26 for the same period last financial year.

Trend by calendar month is shown below:

Customer Calls

· NOTE Unanswered call numbers include calls transferred to another extension to be answered. These transferred calls are then recorded as “unanswered” calls.

· During COVID Lockdown Customer Services had one person at each office answering phones. Phones which were not answered in Fairlie were answered in Twizel. These non transferred “fail over” calls are recorded by the system as unanswered.

Community Centre Bookings

Fairlie Community Centre – total bookings 64.25 hours (there were no bookings for Mackenzie District Council).

Lake Tekapo Community Hall – total bookings 9.5 hours (includes 1 hour used by Mackenzie District Council).

Albury Hall – total bookings 16 hours.

Twizel Events Centre – total bookings 72 hours (no bookings recorded for Mackenzie District Council).

1. RECRUITMENT UPDATE (INCLUDING APPOINTMENTS TO ROLES):

Recruitment in September continues to be busy with several roles being in various stages of the recruitment process. An update on the recruitment and the stage of the recruitment is below.

· Manager Engineering – final interviews are scheduled for early October 2021.

· Manager Community and Places – a preferred candidate was identified for this role, however due to personal reasons they’ve had to withdraw from the process. We will look to readvertise this role in the near future.

· IT Support Analyst – ongoing, no suitable candidates identified at this stage. A review of the position description is underway.

· Senior Corporate Planner – currently being advertised.

· Principal Policy Planner – District Plan Review – currently being advertised.

· Administration Support Officer, Engineering – two interviews have been conducted with a preferred candidate being identified. Reference checks underway.

· Senior Planner – internal advertising underway.

2. RESIGNATIONS:

· Phillip Mackay – 29 October 2021.

· Tim Harty – 29 October 2021.

3. ANNUAL SALARY REVIEW PROCESS:

The annual salary review process is well underway with all proposed salary increases now with the CEO for review and approval.

People and Culture Key Metrics

Full Time Employee (FTE) information for MDC – September 2021

FTE stands for full time equivalent and refers to the number of hours considered full time. For example, an employee working full-time equals 1 FTE while an employee working 60% of full-time hours equals 0.6 of an FTE. The FTE values of all employees are added up to give the total number of FTE employees in an organisation. For the headcount metric, each employee is counted as one. However FTE excludes Casuals and Contractors.

MONTH	TOTAL MDC HEADCOUNT (FTE)
August 2020	47
September 2020	47
October 2020	45
November 2020	49
December 2020	47
January 2021	48
February 2021	48
March 2021	41.7
April 2021	43.8
May 2021	43.9
June 2021	41.5
July 2021	38.9
August 2021	36.7
September 2021	35.7

Headcount by Business Unit – September 2021

Headcount refers to the number of employees working at MDC (with headcount, each individual counts as ‘one’ regardless of the number of hours worked).

BUSINESS UNIT	TOTAL HEADCOUNT BY BUSINESS UNIT
CEO	3
Finance	6
GM Operations	3
Planning	3
Regulatory	4
Engineering	5
GM Corporate Services	4
Customer Service	5
Information & Engagement	6
Fleet / Cars	1
TOTAL	40

Turnover rates by Business Unit and Termination reasons

Monthly Voluntary Attrition

Total number of permanent employees who resigned over the past month divided by FTE for current month. Excludes casual and fixed-term employees.

MONTH	EXITS	TOTAL FTE	% ATTRITION
August 2020	0	47	0.0%
September 2020	1	46	2.2%
October 2020	4	45	8.8%
November 2020	2	49	4.1%
December 2020	2	49	4.3%
January 2021	0	48	0.0%
February 2021	1	48	2.08%
March 2021	0	41.7	0.0%
April 2021	1	43.8	2.28%
May 2021	0	43.9	0.0%
June 2021	1	41.5	2.4%
July 2021	1	39.3	2.5%
August 2021	2	36.7	5.4%
September 2021	1	35.7	2.8%

Annual Voluntary Attrition

Annual voluntary attrition (turnover) is a ratio of the number of employees that have left MDC over a 12 month period (September 2020 – September 2021 – based on the above) compared with the average number of FTE over that same period.

Average FTE is calculated by the total number of exits divided by the average FTE (adding the FTE at the beginning of the period and the FTE at the end of the period, dividing it by two) x 100%. Excludes casual and fixed-term employees.

Total exits (September 2020 – September 2021):	16
Average FTE (September 2020 – September 2021):	41.35
Annual Voluntary Attrition:	38.69%

Termination Reasons – September 2021

This information includes all termination reasons (voluntary and involuntary) including end of fixed term.

Redundancy
Resignation	2
Dismissal
Transfer to another BU
Abandonment
Fixed Term Expiry
Retirement
Other

Annual Leave by Business Unit

Includes current and advancing annual leave. Annual Leave liability includes all permanent and fixed term employees by Business Unit.

BUSINESS UNIT	AVERAGE ANNUAL LEAVE PER PERSON (days)	TOTAL BALANCE PER BUSINESS UNIT (days)
CEO	21.67	65
Finance	21	126
GM Operations	19	57
Planning	20	60
Regulatory	18	72
Engineering	25	125
GM Corporate Services	21.25	85
Customer Service	21	105
Information & Engagement	20	120
Fleet / Cars	8	8
TOTAL:	194.92	823

Accrued Annual Leave Balances in Graph Format

Total annual leave liability in dollars and hours per business unit

BUSINESS UNIT	TOTAL ANNUAL LEAVE LIABILITY $	TOTAL ANNUAL LEAVE LIABILITY HOURS
CEO	$38,151,59	471.01
Finance	$25.289.51	656.29
GM Operations	$24,160.72	424.77
Planning	$21,274.22	500.73
Regulatory	$10,810.55	325.50
Engineering	$41,335.75	891.27
GM Corporate Services	$35,253.04	630.29
Customer Service	$28,230.27	867.95
Information & Engagement	$25,392.97	660.66
Fleet / Cars	$366.02	20.33
TOTAL	$250,264.64	5,448.80

HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING

· Refer to the Incident Report for MDC as at 30 September 2021. Key points to note about this report are as follows:

o There has been one incident reported for September 2021.

o Most incidents that have been reported to date are minor and have not included any first aid or medical treatment.

o Most incidents that occur at MDC appear to happen on a Wednesday.

· There is still a lot of education and encouragement needed with Team Mackenzie to report incidents and hazards and this an ongoing piece of work.

· A relaunch of health and safety is planned for later in the year which will include closing the offices for a few hours so that we can focus on why health and safety is important at MDC as well as having a guest speaker present to talk about their health and safety journey. This was initially programmed for a June launch, however due to LTP demands the ELT felt that it was best to wait to get this over the line first.

Meetings held

Dates	Meeting
9/8, 16/8, 19/8, 3/9, 6/9, 13/9, 16/9, 18/9,	LGNZ Water Reform Meetings
20/9	Progressing the Takiwa meeting
9/8,	Three Water Project meetings
2/8	Rural Water Community Meeting
3/8, 9/9,	Audit NZ Meeting – Long Term Plan
23/8, 3/9, 15/9	Te Manahuna Project meetings
4/8	Te Manahuna Ki Uta Tekapo Drop-in
9/8, 11/8, 25/8, 20/9	Waitaki and Mackenzie Joint Meeting – Alps 2 Ocean and Shared Building Services
11/8, 6/9	Te Manahuna Ki Uta Working Group Meeting
27/8	Te Manahuna Governance Group meeting
27/8	South Canterbury DHB Meeting – Psychosocial Support meeting
30/8	Te Mokihi CE’s, Mana Whenua Meeting – Co-governance proposal
11/8	J and A Murray – Development in Tekapo
3/8, 14/9, 28/9, 7/10	Council meetings
2/9	Submission on Natural and Built Environment Bill
25/8	Regulatory and BCA meeting
30/8, 1/9, 2/9,	Community Board Meetings
24/8, 31/8, 7/9, 21/9,	Council workshops
3/9	Meeting with the independent chair : Audit and Risk
7/9	Audit and Risk
17/8	Committee Meetings
20/8,	Canterbury Mayoral Forum and Canterbury Emergency Management Group Meeting
5/8, 2/9	TEAM MACK meeting
9/8	Canterbury Mayoral meeting with Waka Kotahi
14/9	Bylaw Hearings
17/9	Managing Mental Health Webinar
23/9, 24/9, 28/9	Leadership Development (Culture by Design)

Conclusion

August and September proved to be busy months with good progress being made on strategic projects.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6 Reports

6.1 Proposal and Procurement Plan for the Detailed Design of the Fairlie WTP

Author: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

David Adamson, Engineering Manager - Acting

Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Exemption and Procurement Plan for the Design of the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant ⇩

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 to Council is to provide a Proposal and Procurement Plan for the procurement of detailed design of the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant to enable direct appoint of Beca to undertake the design. A Proposal and Procurement Plan is required by the Mackenzie District Council Procurement Policy, version 2020-08-25.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report on the procurement of the design services for the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant be received.

2. The Proposal and Procurement Plan (attached) be accepted and the Beca be direct appointed to undertake detailed design for the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant.

Background meeting

The draft preliminary design of the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant (FWTP) has been received and review comments are currently being closed out. As the preliminary stage is being finalised engagement of a consultant to undertake the next stage of design is now required.

At a workshop on the 16th July 2021 with the General Manager of Operations, GHD Technical Reviewer and the Beca Programme/Project Manager the procurement strategy for the FWTP was discussed with the general agreement of the following high-level strategy:

· The FWTP membranes, mechanical and electrical and building is proposed to be a design and build contract. This will fast track the membranes being ordered which currently have a lead time of between 12 to 18 months. This element is key to the plant performance and will provide the Council with a clear single point of responsibility and accountability for the performance of the FWTP.

· An Expression of Interest (EOI) is planned to be issued to understand the market capabilities/availability, preselect vendors for the design and build contract for the FWTP and provide the opportunity for comment on the procurement approach.

· The civil design is intended to be a separate standard contract, to aid local contractors to undertake the work, to not hold up the procurement of the FWTP and to do some early enabling works.

· The reservoirs are proposed to be a separate design and build contract to enable Council to have more control over the selection of a reservoir supplier.

The physical works procurement outlined above will be included in a separate procurement plan. With the general principles of the procurement agreed it was then discussed of who would undertake the performance specifications for the WTP and the reservoirs, the civil design and the consenting. It was proposed that Beca would be best placed to do this for the following reasons:

· Beca have undertaken the preliminary design so are familiar with the Councils requirements and the FWTP design, which will result in design efficiencies

· The proposal is for time and expenses, so only time spent of the project will be billed

· Beca have the current resources to do these works

· This provides Council with consistency of a designer and clear lines of responsibility

· Going out to market for these works would require an open and competitive process which would delay the project and add additional procurement costs

· The Council is responsible for compliance with the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand. Progressing with Beca undertaking the design will enable progress to achieving compliance and reduce delays

· GHD have undertaken a report that confirms that the Beca preliminary design was appropriate and GHD do not see any good reason why they should not undertake the next stage of delivery of the FWTP on behalf of Mackenzie District Council.

· GHD will provide impartial review of the Beca proposal to undertake these works

Following the procurement criteria outlined in the Mackenzie District Council Procurement Policy, version 2020-08-25:

· An open and competitive RFx process is required for work with a value over $50,000 (Appendix 10 of the Policy)

· For Contracts over $150,000, when the additional sum is beyond 10% of the total value of the contract, the contract variation must be presented to Council for approval (Section 5.3)

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 report and the attached proposal and procurement plan cover the above points to allow the direct engagement Beca to undertake the following:

1. Completion of the performance specification for the FWTP (membranes, mechanical and electrical and building).

2. Completion of the performance specification for the reservoirs

3. Detailed design of the civil works (access, ponds, soak pit etc.).

4. Preparation of the consents and work to support the consents (Detailed Site Investigations, Assessment of Environmental Effects, coordination with Iwi (Aoraki Consulting) etc.

5. Tender evaluation and technical support for tender queries, evaluation of the tenders and technical support during construction.

While no proposal has been provided yet, it is expected that the fee for the above would be around $150,000 to $200,000. This is in line with the professional fee cost estimate prepared in the Concept Report and draft Preliminary Design Report (see snip below). It is noted that the fee for preliminary design has not been fully spent and that the preliminary design is approx. $50,000 under budget (due to removing some scope i.e. consenting, preparation of performance specs for the membrane etc.).

This exception to the procurement policy is being undertaken before the completion of the procurement plan for construction to not cause delays to the project.

Policy Status

Under the Mackenzie District Council Procurement Policy, version 2020-08-25:

· An open and competitive RFx process is required for work with a value over $50,000 (Appendix 10 of the Policy)

· For Contracts over $150,000, when the additional sum is beyond 10% of the total value of the contract, the contract variation must be presented to Council for approval (Section 5.3)

Following the procurement criteria outlined in the Mackenzie District Council Procurement Policy, version 2020-08-25, to increase the current budget for Beca under the Deliver substantial Capital Works Projects 2020-21 project to include the preliminary design for the FWTP:

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.

To increase the current budget for Beca under the Deliver substantial Capital Works Projects 2020-21 project to include the detailed design for the FWTP and approximately 10% contingency.

Significance of Decision

Following the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 the design of the FWTP has been identified as High Significance. The justification for this has been provided below using the criteria set out in the Policy:

· The Council is responsible for compliance with the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand. Direct appointing the preliminary design of the FWTP will reduce any delays in the design programme and enable progress to achieving compliance and reduce delays.

Options

Option 1 Approve the recommendations contained within this report (recommended)

The approval of the recommendation will ensure this project is completed in the timeliest fashion, has clear accountability, will ensure continuity of concept and provide Council with the best value.

Option2 Decline the recommendations contained within this report

The decision would mean that this work would be placed on the open market and this would risk delays, discontinuity of design and concept, potential rework, reduced accountability and loss of IP relating to the project.

Considerations

The key reasons for the exemption are as follows:

· Beca have undertaken the preliminary design so are familiar with the Councils requirements and the design, which will result in efficiencies

· The proposal is for time and expenses, so only time spent of the project will be billed

· Beca have the current resources to do these works

· This provides Council with consistency of a designer and clear lines of responsibility

· Going out to market for these works would require an open and competitive process which would delay the project and add additional procurement costs

· GHD have undertaken a report that confirms that the Beca preliminary design was appropriate and GHD do not see any good reason why they should not undertake the delivery of the FWTP on behalf of Mackenzie District Council

· GHD will provide impartial review of the Beca proposal to undertake these works

Financial

In the draft FWTP Preliminary Design report a complete project budget estimate was prepared with an indicative professional fee of $640,000 to complete design as can be seen below:

Table

Description automatically generated

See below a table showing the professional fee budgets and spend to date (not including the land procurement costs some of which are yet to be determined):

Professional fee	Budget $ (excluding GST)	Spend to date $ (excluding GST)
Programme and project management	90,160.00	50,655.95
Concept Design	35,000.00	34,958.00
Land Options Report	14,000.00	13,958.00
Preliminary Design	217,500.00	136,542.00
Probity (Audit NZ)	15,000.00	0
Property Consultant	31,500	17,925.00
Detailed Design	To be determined	To be determined
Total	389,660.00	240,080.95

Conclusion

It is recommended that:

1. This report be received.

2. The Proposal and Procurement Plan (attached) be accepted and the Beca be direct appointed to undertake detailed design for the Fairlie Water Treatment Plant.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.2 Low Access Road Bridge Management

Author: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

David Adamson, Engineering Manager - Acting

Authoriser: Suzette van Aswegen, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Property Group Cass River Advice ⇩

2. Cass River Aerial ⇩

3. Cass River SFA ⇩

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

A secure Council support for the process to engage with owners of properties serviced by sole access bridges.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council support the dialogue process outlined within this report to progress property and stakeholder discussions on bridge management and renewal processes on the listed structures, and further that,

3. The Property Group be engaged to commence discussions on the Cass River Bridge process, for a cost of $20,000 as outlined in the attached offer of service, and further that

4. Council fund the Property Group work from the 2021/22 Bridge Maintenance activity as outlined in the draft 2021/31 Long term Plan

Background

Council’s transportation network consists of approximately 732 kilometres of road and associated assets. In accordance with Waka Kotahi’s One Network Road Classification (ONRC) the network consists of 29% secondary collector road, 9% access road and 60% low volume roads.

The network has several bridges and river/stream crossings, with many of these being simple box culverts and/or fords. The nature of the network means that many of these structures are on low volume roads servicing single properties and/or stations.

Council road maintenance funding comes from both the community (49%) and Waka Kotahi (51%). Funding is limited given the small rate payer base and Council must look at how it manages the network to ensure safety of users first and foremost, followed by meeting the levels of service set out in its Long Term Plan and agreed with the community.

The challenges faced by Council in the management of the network are varied and can range from ensuring all season access to backcountry stations, to managing use and pressures placed on it through tourism and related activities.

Council undertakes annual inspections on all its bridge assets. This ensures that the structures are safe and are managed appropriately, focusing on the early identification of any interventions required, undertaking these and posting structures appropriately. Council also undertakes a detailed structural inspection of all its bridges at least once every 5 years.

Council Long Term Plan 2021/31 identifies several bridges that need intervention over the term of the plan. It allocates funding to undertake some of this work and indicates that Council will look at other options for managing some of these assets.

Discussion

Bridge Assets for Replacement Strategy

Councils LTP 2021/31 has the following bridges listed as needing attention over the term of the plan:

• Otama Road

• Coal Pit Rd No 2

• Goodmans Bridge

• Nixons Road

• Clayton Settlement

• Single Hill

• Cass River

• Black Birch Stream

Given the funding challenges that Council has identified through the LTP, an alternate approach to managing the works required had to be identified. The LTP proposes the following approach:

“In Lieu of replacing these bridges, Council will instead conduct regular inspections to ensure the bridges are safe to use. Each bridge generally only services a single owner and is therefore not seen as an immediate priority for Council. As funding becomes available, Council will prioritise the Cass River bridge (due to the increased number of heavy vehicles accessing the site) and Otama Road Bridge (as this bridge services three properties and has only 3 to 10 years of remaining useful life). Council will also look at alternative options such as fords if applicable”.

Strategy Implementation

To action the above strategy, Council have engaged The Property Group (TPG) to determine a process by which Council can engage with property owners serviced by the bridges. This engagement is focused on understanding the use and need of the bridge, the options for renewal and how costs and ownership may be allocated in the future, amongst other matters.

Council has been clear that this open and collaborative process is the preferred methodology, running in parallel with the ongoing bridge inspection process, which will ensure the safety of users whilst the process progresses.

TPG have provided two pieces of advice on this matter, which are attached. Whilst the advice is focused on Cass River Bridge, the underlying process, as shared with Council at the workshop on the 29 September, is transferable to all bridge assets listed.

Next Steps

TPG have provided a proposal based on the above approach. The proposal proposes to open a dialogue with property owners and appropriate stakeholders (Cass River Bridge initially) and move through a process culminating in a joint agreement between all parties on the need for the bridge, funding, ownership and renewal.

It is proposed that whilst TPG lead the process from a technical perspective, staff will be involved as and when appropriate. Staff resourcing availability and skills does mean that securing external resources is needed to move this process forward in a timely manner.

Any final agreement between parties will need to be brought back to Council for endorsement and sign off.

Policy Status

This paper and its recommendation align with Councils Asset Management plans, policies and strategies. It also aligns with the approach adopted in the Draft Long Term Plan.

Significance of Decision

At this stage it is not possible to determine if one, or more of these discussions would trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy. Each of the individual agreements will need to be measured against the policy at the time of Council approval.

Options

There are three options for Council to consider:

Option 1: Support the engagement proposal and secure TPG to support roll out

Under this option, Council would support the opening of dialogue with property owners and stakeholders related to the listed bridges and engage TPG to support staff rolling out this process. Adoption of this recommendation would also test run this process that may then be deemed applicable to other situations across the network.

This is staff’s preferred option

Option 2: Support the engagement proposal and request staff to undertake the process

Under this option Council would support the opening of dialogue with property owners and stakeholders related to the listed bridges, however, would request that staff undertake the process in preference to engaging TPG.

Staff would be challenged to undertake this work from both a resourcing and skills perspective.

Option 3: Do not support the process

Under this option Council does not support the dialogue process and would request staff to identify an alternate way to manage or fund renewal of the listed bridge structures

Considerations

Legal

There are several legal matters that would need to be considered as the process moved forward. TPG have Property Lawyers on staff and able to support this process and ensure that all matters are managed appropriately and any final agreements are legally sound. Public access and the level of service appropriate is a major consideration

Financial

Funding for this work comes from the Roading budgets and has been allocated through the 2021/31 Long Term Plan. As the plan is yet to be approved, staff require Council approval of the budget to progress the works.

The TPG proposal for Cass River Bridge is $20,000.

Conclusion

Negotiations may take time and therefore it is important that an appropriate process commences sooner rather than later. Councils’ records indicate that the Cass Bridge has some 8 years of remaining life at this stage for light vehicles. This report offers a pragmatic and affordable way to move forward with finding a long term solution to this issue agreeable to the major stakeholders.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.3 Parks and Community Facilities Strategy

Author: Brian Milne, Community Facilities and Services Officer - Contractor

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. MDC Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (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

To obtain Council approval to release of four Council Strategies for community engagement. These strategies being the draft Parks, Trails, Playgrounds and Public Toilets Strategies. After feedback has been undertaken and incorporated, the strategies will be adopted by Council.

To gain support to release the Top Ten Project lists that were collated through strategy development to the Community Boards for feedback.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That the Draft Strategies (Parks, Trails, Playgrounds and Toilets) be approved for release to undertake a public and stakeholder engagement process, and further that,

3. Staff inform those parties that provided input into the strategies of the engagement process, and further that,

4. The supporting Priority Project list be reported to Community Boards through the October meeting round for feedback

Background

Council has prepared of a set of four strategies covering the main parks and community facilities activity areas, namely Parks, Trails, Playgrounds and Public Toilets. The need for these core strategic documents was identified in the July 2020 review of the Open Spaces undertaken by Xyst Limited. This review highlighted a number of areas for improvements in the Open Spaces and Facilities area, many of which are currently being actioned.

The lack of strategic direction in these key areas was seen as a critical gap for Council, which made it difficult to understand where gaps in service provision might lie, but also where investment (particularly the funds collected from development) should be focused.

Council agreed to develop these strategies as a key first step in better understanding the service gaps and funding required.

Through an open tender process Council engaged Beca Limited to undertake both the Parks and Trails Strategies, while Xyst Limited was engaged to lead both the Playground and Toilet Strategies. For ease, it was determined early in the process that it would be best to collate these four strategies into one, as there were many issues and areas in common and cross overs.

The development of the strategies has been through a full engagement process with both key and identified stakeholders and the Community Boards. Council has twice workshopped the individual strategies, in the last six months.

Project List

‘The strategies have identified a ‘Priority project list’. These projects are aligned to the draft strategic outcomes contained in the strategies, and have been divided into those: that can be completed in years 1-3 (after adoption of the strategies); and then years 4-7. It is proposed, the projects are funded from the Land Subdivision fund and work is currently underway to align that funding with locations across the district.

It is proposed that the project list is taken to Community Boards for comment and prioritisation, prior to Council considering them alongside the strategies. Any final project list would be included an Action Plan focused on bringing the strategies to life post adoption.

It is important to note that, should the strategies change over engagement, the project list will need reviewing.

The Project Priority List is attached for information. This list is not to be released for community feedback at this stage, so as to ensure the strategic ‘scene setting’ by the wider strategies is adopted first. It is important to have this in place, prior to the detail of individual projects being assessed.

Next Steps

This report seeks approval to undertake the next step of releasing the strategies for community and stakeholder engagement.

A draft document in (text only in word format), (attached) is ready for public engagement which is planned to be undertaken during November 2021.

Feedback from this process will be incorporated into the final documents for Council approval in February 2022. Following approval of the draft document (text) by Council, the strategy will undergo graphic design formatting prior to being released for wider public engagement. A draft section of strategy graphic design is included to show the look and feel for the final document.

Policy Status

There are no current Council Polices aligned to this area of works.

Significance of Decision

The project is significant in terms of the scope and scale of Strategy’s vision, objectives, recommendations, and key projects. It will guide Council’s decision-making processes in this area for the following 3 years.

The Strategy itself does not directly commit Council to any specific expenditure. This decision only relates to approval of a draft for feedback. Years 4-7 will focus on implementation and the Top 10 project list.

Due to the significance of the Strategy, a month-long public engagement period is proposed, prior to final adoption.

Options

Option 1: Approve the draft as presented, for public engagement.

Council approves the attached documents for community and stakeholder feedback through the Lets Talk platform. It would also see the Project Priority List being formally reported to Community Boards for their input and feedback.

Option 2: Refer the document back to staff for further work to address any specific issues or changes identified by Council.

Considerations

Legal

The document is non statutory and therefore there are no legal implications related to the proposed engagement process.

Financial

No direct financial implications from this decision.

Implementing recommendations and key projects once the strategies are formally approved and adopted will be subject to existing budgets or require specific approval as implementation progresses.

Conclusion

The recommendation from staff is to release the draft Strategies for feedback and release the Project Priority List to Community Boards for feedback.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.4 Twizel Events Centre - Building Condition

Author: Angie Taylor, Community Services and Solid Waste Officer

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. Twizel event Centre Condition Assessment ⇩

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 inform Council of the works required at the Twizel Events Centre to secure a Code Compliance Certificate and gain approval to commence works prior to the sign off of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council support the engagement of a suitably qualified Project Manager to oversee the scoping and delivery of the works required at the Twizel Events Centre, and further that

3. The Project Manager be funded from the Twizel Events Centre maintenance budget in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan, and further that

4. Beca Limited be engaged to provide technical support to the Project Manager in the delivery of the works required to secure a Code Compliance Certificate for the Twizel Event Centre, and further that

5. The Project Manager provide Council with monthly reports on the progress of the works

Background

At the August 2021 Council meeting, staff presented a report requesting approval to, amongst other matters, scope the works required to bring the Twizel Event Centre up to a standard so that a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) could be issued.

Beca Limited (Beca) have completed the work and a draft report has been delivered (attached).

The Twizel event Centre is currently operating on a Certificate of Public Use (CPU). A CPU is generally issued when a building is under construction or building work is underway, and part of the site is open for public access and use. It is issued for the event centre as there has been no CCC issued, and the building needs to remain open for public use.

Council secured a CPU in April 2021 and an extension of 6 months was issued in August 2021 and will expire in January 2022. The Building Control Authority have been clear with staff that a third CPU extension is unlikely to be issued, particularly if works have not progressed on addressing the issues of noncompliance with the Building Act.

Failure to address the issues at the site and securing a CCC will likely result in the building being required to be shut down to public access.

Discussion

Scope of the review

The scope of the Beca works was to undertake a building services review to support the identification of works that were required to be completed to enable the issuing of a CCC. Whilst on site, the commission also requested that a review of deferred maintenance matters was also undertaken.

The building services review consisted of full assessments of the following building elements:

1. Structural,

2. Heating Ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC)

3. Plumbing and drainage,

4. Electrical, and

5. Fire Engineering

The assessment has identified a number of matters that need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Many of these relate to lack of maintenance whilst others are discrepancies between what was constructed and what was documented to be constructed.

Summary of Issues

The attached Beca report fully outlines the works required to be undertaken within the Event Centre to secure a CCC and address significant deferred maintenance activities.

A summary of the most urgent matters is outlined within the tables below:

Proposed Way Forward

Council has placed at total of $500,000 in years one and two ($250,000 each year) of the Long Term Plan 2021/31 to address matters related to the condition of the event centre. Whilst the LTP is yet to be finalised, progress needs to be made to address the issues raised in the report as a matter of urgency. Failure to make progress will likely see the CCC not being able to be issued and risk the building being closed down.

Council has commissioned Beca to undertake the initial inspection works and they have a strong working knowledge of the site. Beca would be best placed to continue to provide technical support in the delivery of the works required to address the list of urgent matters outlined above. The scope and scale of the work needed to complete this is unknown at the time of drafting this report.

The scale and complexity of the work would benefit from a dedicated project manager being assigned to support delivery. Council staff lack the capacity to provide this service at this time and it is recommended that a fixed term contract be put in place for a suitable project manager to be appointed. The cost of this role can be funded from the project budgets.

To move the project forward it is therefore recommended that a dedicated and technically competent Project Manager be appointed to oversee the project and that Beca be direct appointed to undertake technical design works as required, with the exact scope of these works to be confirmed by the Project Manager and approved in accordance with Councils Procurement Policy.

All physical works required by the project will be secured via the open market, or as appropriate.

Policy Status

There are no Council policies that directly cover this issue.

Council, as the Building Control Authority (BCA), does have a regulatory requirement to ensure that all buildings within the district comply with the Building Act 2004. In this case, Council has issued the CPU for the event centre and will be required, on reapplication (on the basis that all work cannot be completed by January 2022), to determine if sufficient action has been made on addressing the issues of concern and to either provide a further extension of the CPU or take the appropriate legal action under the act.

Significance of Decision

The budget to undertake the remedial works on the Twizel Event Centre is subject to public consultation via the 2021/31 Long Term Plan. This process will allow the community to have a say on the works and the budget allocation and addresses the need to undertake a Significance Assessment under the policy.

Given the level of works and potential disruption on users, prior to any construction activities commencing, community engagement will be required.

Options

There are three options available to Council on this matter:

Option 1: Approve funding and progress works in accordance with this report

Under this option Council would approve progressing the works prior to the approval of the 2021/31 Long Term plan. It would also approve the appointment of a dedicated Project Manager and the appointment of Beca to work with the Project Manager to scope works required for the open market.

Option 2: Do not approve funding

Under this option Council would not approve expenditure prior to the adoption of the 2021/31 Long term plan. This would increase the risk of being able to satisfy the BCA requirements in terms of the CPU and securing a CCC.

Option 3: Approve the funding and request that staff to go to the open market to secure services required.

Under this option Council would approve the funding and request that staff undertake an open market process to engage a suitably qualified company to undertake the required design and tender works.

This has the potential to add both time and cost to the process, without any subsequent benefits.

Considerations

Legal

Under the Building Act 2004 all buildings are required to have a CCC. A code compliance certificate is a formal statement issued under section 95 of the Building Act 2004 that certifies that the building work carried out under a building consent complies with that consent.

The absence of a CCC, particularly in the case of the Event Centre, given its high level of public use and access, does place a risk on Council as the operator of the facility. Failure to act in a timely manner to address the risks may result in the Council excising its regulatory functions and take the appropriate legal actions to ensure compliance.

Financial

Councils 2021/31 Long Term Plan has $500,000 allocated over years 2021/22 and 2022/23 for the maintenance pf the Twizel Events Centre. The funding is allocated to ensure that Council provides safe and resilient facilities for our residents to use moving into the future.

There is also a funding allocation from years 2022/23 onwards for the ongoing maintenance of the building to ensure that matters such as those raised within this report are minimised.

At the time of drafting this report the LTP was not yet approved for consultation. Given the urgency of this work it is critical that preparatory works are completed as soon as practical with a view of to making as much progress as possible by January 20202.

Other

Risk Analysis

An initial assessment of risk has been undertaken and is outlined below.

A key first task for the Project Manager, when appointed, will be to develop a Project Plan, with a more detailed Risk Management section.

Risk	Level	Treatment	Residual risk	Comment
Works not progressed to a point in January 2022 where CPU extended/CCC issued	High	Council direct appoint PM and Beca to undertake the works ASAP	Medium	Project Manager to monitor risk
Support resources not available to deliver the works	Hight	Council approves appointment of PM and Beca via this report	Low
Supply Chain delays works	High	Early engagement of PM will allow management of the supply chain to minimise this risk.	Medium	Early identification of these issues is critical to success
Lack of external resources to deliver works	High	Recommended contractors invited to price. Procurement plan to be drafted by PM.	Low	Contractor selection critical Cost vs. quality

Conclusion

The Twizel Event Centre has no Code Compliance Certificate resulting in staff applying for a Certificate of Public Use to allow the building to continue to be operated.

The CPU has a timeframe by which Council needs to identify and undertake the works required to secure a CCC. One extension of the CPU has been granted to Council to date and it is unlikely that another will be unless significant progress on the required works is made.

Beca have identified the works required and funding is allocated in the draft 2021/31 Long Term Plan. Council support is needed to progress the works with urgency to ensure the building remains open and operating for the Twizel Community, past the CPU expiry date of January 2022.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.5 Canterbury Waste Joint Committee - Request for Environment Canterbury to Re-Join Committee and New Staff Resource

N/A

Author: Angie Taylor, Community Services and Solid Waste Officer

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. CWJC Staff Report 2 August 2021 ⇩

2. CWJC Detailed Funding Caculations ⇩

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

This report is to seek approval from Council to support the following recommendations from the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee’s meeting on 2 September 2021 that the Council:

(a) Agree that a new staff position be created to progress waste minimisation and management initiatives across the region and improve regional collaboration.

(b) Agree that the budget for regional waste minimisation be increased from $112,000 to $192,000, to be adjusted annually for inflation.

(c) Agree that Environment Canterbury be invited to become a member of the Committee on the same terms and conditions as its previous membership.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. Accept the recommendations from the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee on 2 September 2021.

3. Support the proposed increased contribution of an additional $820.50 from Mackenzie District Council to the Canterbury Joint Waste Committee, to be funded from the Waste Levy.

Background

In 2005, councils that were members of the Canterbury Joint Standing Committee and Canterbury Waste Subcommittee resolved to replace these two committees with a Canterbury Waste Joint Committee (CWJC) that included Environment Canterbury (ECan) in addition to the 8 District Councils and Christchurch City Council. A Constituting Agreement for the new committee was prepared and endorsed by all participating Councils, and the CWJC came into effect on 1 July 2006.

The CWJC is a joint committee under the Local Government Act 2002 with delegated authority to deal with all matters relating to regional waste minimisation initiatives, in order to reduce the volumes of solid waste sent for disposal. Regionally coordinated waste minimisation initiatives are undertaken in addition to those that territorial authorities are achieving in terms of their own Waste Management and Minimisation Plans.

On 9 August 2010, Commissioner Lambie advised the CWJC about ECan’s proposal to withdraw from the CWJC. A letter and report had been sent by ECan concerning its future participation in this committee and in the Hazardous Waste subcommittee.

Commissioner Lambie explained that ECan were looking for more efficiencies in their operation and that the intent was to focus on hazardous waste in combination with industrial pollution as a core activity, moving away from other forms of waste. He assured the Committee that the programmes set up under the Regional Hazardous Waste Strategy were in place until 2012 and that they would not “drop off the agenda”.

Committee members commented on the proposal, with some expressing concern that ECan would no longer be involved as a voting member. Commissioner Lambie agreed to feed back these concerns.

On 26 August 2010 ECan formally confirmed that decision, and resolved that ECan:

(a) Removes itself from the Canterbury Hazardous Waste Subcommittee and any current and future responsibility for servicing the subcommittee, including any subsequent changes to Project Levels of Service and Funding;

(b) Approves the change in status of Environment Canterbury on the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee from member to observer, and notes that as an act of good faith will contribute the agreed contribution for the 2010/11 financial year;

(c) Requests staff work with the territorial authorities to ensure agreed work programmes are delivered.

Following the passing of this resolution, overall CWJC funding was reduced from $150,000 to the current $112,000 per annum. The CWJC Constituting Agreement was amended to reflect this change, all Canterbury Councils ratified the changes, and the amended document was signed in June 2011. Since July 2011, staff from ECan have continued to contribute to and support the regional waste staff group that reports to the CWJC.

The current membership of the CWJC is Ashburton, Hurunui, Kaikōura, Mackenzie, Selwyn, Timaru, Waimakariri and Waimati District Councils and Christchurch City Council. The Committee is made up of Council representatives from each Council: one from each district, and three from Christchurch City Council. The Mackenzie District Council representative is currently Cr. Barwood.

At their meeting on 2 August 2021, the CWJC considered a report from staff that recommended the following:

That the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee (CWJC):

(a) Recommends to member Councils that a new staff position be created to progress waste minimisation and management initiatives across the region and improve regional collaboration.

(b) Recommends to member Councils that the budget for regional waste minimisation be increased from $112,000 to $192,000, to be adjusted annually for inflation.

(c) Recommends to member Councils that Environment Canterbury be invited to become a member of the Committee on the same terms and conditions as its previous membership.

The above recommendations were passed by the Committee and the CWJC has recommended that their member Councils agree to the above recommendations.

The staff report to the CWJC on 2 August 2021 is appended as Attachment 1.

In accordance with the Constituting Agreement, all member councils need to support the resolution before any actions can be taken.

There are regional collaboration opportunities that are not being taken up as staff of the territorial authorities are fully committed with business-as-usual tasks and their own projects. It is recommended that the Joint Committee fund a shared services position to progress waste minimisation and management initiatives that benefit all funding members.

All territorial authorities prepare waste management and minimisation plans, and there is support amongst all staff for closer cooperation between Councils to align their waste plans, including the possibility of joint plans. Environment Canterbury could contribute towards that process.

It is also suggested that Environment Canterbury be invited to re-join the Committee and be approached to host this position within their Contaminated Land and Waste Team. This position would work closely with the Senior Science Advisor Hazardous Substances and Waste to drive progress in a number of areas across the region.

The staff from each Territorial Authority, with the support of Environment Canterbury, would like to work as a collective force for good to:

- Attract high-quality grant applications and optimise funding from the Committee.

- Administer the application process and provide reporting to the Committee.

- Identify and implement more consistent regulations and standards across the region.

- Contribute toward the development of regional waste minimisation action plans and programmes.

- Facilitate the sharing of resources, knowledge, communications and education materials that influence behaviour change within the region.

- Progress initiatives that address illegal dumping, litter and stockpiling practices.

- Investigate ideas and potential projects that could become a future regional waste minimisation grant bid.

- Identify opportunities to provide Canterbury-specific feedback into waste-related government consultation.

- Identify successful initiatives from other regions in New Zealand that could be implemented in Canterbury.

The proposed staff position would be fixed term for a two year period, with the option to consider extending the position based on performance. The budget for the role would come from the increased waste disposal levies that each Council receives from 1 July 2021 (refer to Table 1). It has been suggested that in lieu of financial contributions ECan could host this position within their Contaminated Land and Waste Team, as it is a regional position and it would strengthen the working relationships between ECan and the other Councils.

Recruitment for this position could commence in late 2021 with the expectation of the role commencing early in 2022, however this may be influenced on ECan’s decision. There is sufficient budget available in the 21/22 year to fund the staff role for a portion of the year.

Table 1 shows the indicative contributions from each Council for the 2022/23 year onwards, based on the changes in population figures between 2021 and 2020, and allowing for the $10/tonne increase in levy funding. Further detail of these funding calculations are appended as Appendix 2.

Councils	Current Contribution 2010 population	Proposed Contribution 2020 population	Proposed Increase	Proposed Increase
Christchurch	$74,816.00	$117,659.92	$42,843.92	57.3%
Waimakariri	$9,441.60	$19,287.05	$9,845.45	104.3%
Hurunui	$2,195.20	$3,964.72	$1,769.52	80.6%
Selwyn	$7,851.20	$20,777.54	$12,926.34	164.6%
Ashburton	$5,835.20	$10,552.73	$4,717.53	80.8%
Kaikōura	$750.40	$1,257.98	$507.58	67.6%
Waimate	$1,489.60	$2,456.34	$966.74	64.9%
Mackenzie	$795.20	$1,615.70	$820.50	103.2%
Timaru	$8,825.60	$14,428.02	$5,602.42	63.5%
TOTAL	$112,000.00	$192,000.00	$80,000.00	71.4%

Table 1: Estimated Impact of the Proposed Increase in Funding for Regional Projects in 22/23.

These increases are based on adding the estimated salary for the new staff position to existing budgets, and re-calculating the budget split based on changes in population over the last 10 years.

Staff note that there is still uncertainty whether Environment Canterbury would accept the invitation to re-join the CWJC and to host the proposed staff position. Whether or not they accept and agree to provide additional funding, the regional staff group would prepare a new funding model for CWJC and hosting location to consider for recommendation to their member Councils for approval, as part of the amendments to the Constituting Agreement.

The current contribution amount is included in the budgeted allowance under the Long Term Plan. Staff recommend that the proposed increase of $820.50 can be funded through Waste Levy Funds. Waste Levy funding is required to be spent in accordance with the Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The Mackenzie WMMP includes the action point “to collaborate with other Councils for improved waste minimisation” and references the CWJC, therefore it is considered to be an appropriate use of levy funding.

Policy Status

N/A

Significance of Decision

This matter is not a matter of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Options

The following options are discussed below: support the CWJC recommendation in full, not support the CWJC recommendation, or only support a portion of the CWJC recommendation.

Option 1: Support the CWJC Recommendation in Full.

Supporting this resolution will enable the CWJC Chair to extend an invitation to ECan to re-join the CWJC and to host the regional staff resource as their funding share, and for the staff position description to be finalised pending ECan’s decision on funding regional initiatives and on hosting the proposed staff position.

This would better allow regional collaboration opportunities to be taken up and overseen as outlined above.

Staff note that the proposed level of funding is dependent on the outcome of the approach to ECan which, while having support at a staff level, is uncertain. Staff propose to provide further information to the CWJC and this Council, once the outcome of the invitation is known.

This is the recommended option.

Option 2: Do not Support the CWJC Recommendation (Status Quo).

There have been benefits to all Councils from regional waste minimisation activities that are funded out of the funding pool. This has included development of the Canterbury Hazardous Waste Strategy and funding household hazardous waste infrastructure for all Canterbury Councils, funding research & development projects within Canterbury, and funding waste minimisation projects across the region that have been proposed by Council staff, community groups and businesses.

Current staffing resources and workloads are impacting on the time that individual staff have to undertake work to reduce waste on a regional level on behalf of the CWJC. There is currently insufficient staff resource to prepare a regional action plan or an infrastructure investment plan to further the CWJS’s aims to reduce waste going to landfill in the Canterbury region.

Regional funding levels are currently insufficient to employ a staff resource in addition to providing funding for waste minimisation projects. Inviting ECan to re-join the CWJC and to cover the costs for hosting the regional staff resource as their funding share, is considered to be appropriate at this point in time as it would be beneficial to that Council as well as the current CWJC Council-members.

This option is not recommended.

Option 3: Support Only a Portion of the CWJC Recommendation.

All member Councils have to support the specific recommendation that has come from the CWJC in its entirety to proceed with any of the proposed actions. This option would result in a delay in the approach to ECan, or to commencing recruitment in order to fill the proposed staff position, even if either of these actions were supported.

This option is not recommended.

Considerations

Legal

The Waste Minimisation Act requires Waste Levy Funding to be used in accordance with the Councils Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). As discussed, it is considered that funding of the CWJC is consistent with the WMMP

Financial

It is proposed that the increased contribution be funded through the Waste Levy, as outlined in this report.

Other

There are groups and organisations likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in the subject matter of this report. Local groups and organisations have the opportunity to seek funding from the CWCJ for projects that will divert materials from landfill. Increasing the amount of funding for the staff resource will ensure that the funding pool remains intact for these groups and organisations in future years.

In accordance with the Constituting Agreement, all member councils need to support the resolution before any actions can be taken.

Conclusion

It is considered that there are benefits to be gained by supporting the proposed recommendations from the CWJC. Funding is able to be sourced through the waste levy and it is considered to be an appropriate use of these funds to further waste minimisation initiatives in both the Mackenzie District and wider Canterbury area.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.6 Approval of District Plan Procurement

Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. Draft District Plan Request for Proposal ⇩

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 approve the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to the open market prior to the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 being adopted (the LTP).

The District Plan Review is a priority project, and any delays in going to the open market to source external resources to support the review will likely result in the District Plan Review timeline being extended.

It is noted that the proposed drafting timeline is already ambitious and further delays will cause significant delivery delays.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received; and

2. That Council approves the District Plan Review – Request for Proposals going to the open market prior to the Long-Term Plan funding being approved, and further that

3. The results of the open market process be brought back to Council for approval, if, at the time of award of the contracts, the Long-Term plan has not been approved.

Background

Council has commenced a review of the Mackenzie District Plan. This review is a priority project for Council as the current plan is many years out of date. Funding to complete the review is in Year’s 1 – 3 of the draft 2021/31 Long Term Plan (LTP). The LTP has yet to be consulted on or adopted by Council.

The review of the District Plan is a significant project that requires support from multiple specialists whose services need to be secured from the open market. With the timeline for adoption of the LTP being late this year, the procurement process for the provision of these specialist services needs to be commenced as soon as practical.

A procurement plan (the plan) has been developed for securing the services required to deliver the plan. Any procurement process to secure these services is estimated to take between 6 and 10 weeks from going to market to awarding the works. Failure to go to market in mid – late October will delay the process until early 2022, resulting in a significant delay in the review.

It is not best practice to go through a procurement process through the statutory holiday period. Staff do recommend avoiding this occurring as it will potentially result in less market engagement, whilst additionally hindering staff’s ability to respond throughout the process to any questions that may arise.

A proposed timeline for the procurement process is outlined below:

· Request for Proposals Notified – Friday 15^th of October 2021.

· Deadlines for Proposals – Monday 22^nd of November 2021.

· Notification of Award of Contract – Friday 17^th of December 2021.

It is noted that the contracts are unlikely to be entered into until late December, by which time the LTP 202/31 LTP will have been adopted and funding available.

Significance of Decision

The decision is not considered of significance as defined by Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

Options

There are two options available to Council:

Option 1: Approve the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to market prior to the LTP being adopted and the funding allocated to this project. It is important to note that under this option no contracts are likely to be entered into until funding is made available through the adoption of the LTP 2021 – 31.

Option 2: Do not approve the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to market prior to the LTP being adopted and the funding allocated to this project. Noting that a delay in the procurement process until after the LTP 2021 – 31 is approved will mean the District Plan Review will be delayed further, with the ability to spend funding allocated in Year 1 to being compromised.

Considerations

There is a need to keep the District Plan Review progressing, to maintain momentum created by the creation of the ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’. The funding required to progress the District Plan Review is proposed within Years 1 – 3 of the LTP 2021 – 31.

Delays in the adoption of this LTP means that, until now, Council has been unable to go to the open market to procure the technical support needed to complete the drafting of a Proposed District Plan.

The proposal as outlined recommends that Council approves the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to market prior to the LTP being adopted and the funding allocated to this project becoming available, with the process of completing the LTP and the identifying of preferred technical support to align. No contracts will be entered into until the LTP is adopted and the funding becomes available.

The risk in delaying the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to market prior to the LTP being adopted is consider higher than waiting to go to market until the LTP is adopted. Delays in the District Plan Review will place further pressures on Council and result in a loss of community engagement which has been generated through the ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ project.

The District Plan Review is a priority project and the recommended approach will ensure that progress continues to be made towards the timely completion of a Draft District Plan and then the subsequent notification through the Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991 process.

Conclusion

To progress the District Plan Review staff are seeking approval of the ‘District Plan Review – Request for Proposals’ going to market prior to the LTP being adopted and the funding allocated to this project.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.7 Approval of Exemption to Mackenzie District Council Procurement Plan - Appointment of Project and Engagement Manager for District Plan Review

Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. Procurement 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

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council approve an exemption to the Procurement Policy to allow for the direct appoint of Rationale as Project and Engagement Manager for Stage 1 (Drafting) of the District Plan Review to the value of $125,000.

Background

Mackenzie District Council is about to embark on the Drafting Stage of the District Plan Review. As part of the internal project structure, it has been identified that having a dedicated Project and Engagement Manager Role is critical to the success of the project for the following reasons:

· The project is significant and will involve multiple consultants and in-house staff, necessitating the need for a dedicated resource to help manage aspects such as budgets and timings of deliverables.

· The project requires extensive community engagement on topics, many of which are controversial. This necessitates the need for a dedicated resource to support staff in preparing engagement material and strategising the best approach to be taken by Council.

· There is a need to have consistency in approach and currently the Principal Planner – District Plan role is vacant. The appointment of a consultant in the Project and Engagement Manager Role will provide more surety for Council moving forward and allows them to be on-board as the procurement process begins, ensuring all the necessary documentation is in place and a robust process is followed.

· The Planning Team is currently four people being the Manager, two Planners and an Administration Assistant. With fluctuating consent numbers and multiple other projects needing attention, additional resources are critical. Whilst there are two vacancies the market for suitably qualified and experienced Planner’s is incredibly tough and the time taken to fill these roles could be significant.

Staff have identified Rationale as being a reputable company with the necessary resources to provide the skills necessary to fill the Project and Engagement Manager within Stage 1 of the District Plan Review process.

Rationale have filled a similar role within the ‘Mackenzie Spatial Plans’ project and have provided an excellent service. Rationale have also supported the preparation of the procurement documents and the finalisation of the District Plan Review – Project Plan In filling these roles, they have also gained a level of institutional and community knowledge that will benefit Council in the District Plan Review process.

Key staff from Rationale will be:

· Neil Jorgensen – General Manager/ Principal Infrastructure Advisor, who will provide strategic oversight and direction to the role supporting Council.

· Jimmy Sygrove – Senior Infrastructure Advisor, who will provide key services around communication and engagement.

· Chris Bowie – Infrastructure Advisor, who will provide key services around project management.

Rationale will also have additional staffing capacity to fill any gaps as they arise throughout the project.

This role will be included in the District Plan Review budget and forms a critical aspect of the District Plan Review structure.

Policy Status

Clause 5.7.2 of the procurement policy (see below) requires Council to approve this exemption process.

5.7.2 Exceptions to the Standard Procedure

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.

Note that application for approval of exceptions can only be sought for estimated contract costs over $50,000.

The rationale for the exemption is outlined within the attachment Procurement Plan.

Significance of Decision

The proposal does not trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Options

The Council has two options:

Option 1: Approve the exemption to the Procurement Policy as proposed and engage Rationale as Councils Project and Engagement Mangers for the District Plan review; or

Option 2: Do not approve the exemption to the Procurement Policy as proposed and request that staff go to the open market to fill this role

Given internal resourcing pressures, there is no option for Council to resource this role internally. The role of Principal Planner – District Plan (PP-DP) has been advertised recently and no applicants were received. Over the period of the review, should a PP-DP be secured then the external resources needs will be re-evaluated and reduced as appropriate.

Considerations

The District Plan is a priority project and needs to be suitably resourced so that it can achieve a timely and overall good outcome. This proposal seeks to direct appoint Rationale to fill the Project and Engagement Managers role, requiring an exemption to the Procurement Policy 9a direct appointment over $2000).

The need to continue to progress the District Plan Review is critical and the direct appointment as proposed will provide continuity as the transition from the Spatial Planning Project to the District Plan Review occurs. The community and institutional knowledge Rationale already hold will be of benefit to the District Plan Review project, which includes the engagement of appropriate technical specialists to support in-house resources.

Going through an open market process will remove an important role from the imminent procurement process, adding additional pressures to the in-house staff. Appointing this role through an open market process and delaying the wider District Plan Review process is not considered to be a viable option.

Conclusion

This report seeks Council to approve an exemption to Council’s Procurement Policy, allowing for the direct appoint of Rationale to act as Project and Engagement Manager for the District Plan Review – Stage 1 (Drafting) to a value of $125,000. This will allow for in-house staff to be well supported through the initial project establishment which includes the procurement of technical specialists.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.9 Retrospective Approval of Exemption to the Procurement Policy for Specialist Support of PC18

Author: Aaron Hakkaart, Manager - Planning

Authoriser: Tim Harty, General Manager - Operations

Attachments: 1. Procurement Plan PC18 ⇩

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 retrospective Council approval for an exemption of the Procurement Policy to direct appoint a team to respond to the Environment Court Appeals received on Plan Change 18.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council approve the retrospective exemption to the Procurement Policy for the engagement of:

(a) Simon Berry and Craig Malone (Berry Simons Lawyers); and

(b) David Caldwell (Barrister); and

(d) Kelvin Lloyd (Ecologist).

to support Council through the Plan Change 18 appeal process, and further that

3. Staff report progress of the appeal process, including costs, through the Planning and Regulations Committee

Background

Mackenzie District Council received four appeals to Plan Change 18. The receipt of these appeals and the need to engage a legal team, planning consultant and ecological consultant required staff to act quickly to ensure Council was in the best place possible to respond to the appeal and partake in the Environment Court process.

These issues have been extensively workshopped with Council and the process to-date has been explained. This report seeks retrospective consent to engage the following parties to support Council in the Environment Court process:

· Simon Berry and Craig Malone (Berry Simons);

· David Caldwell (Barrister);

· Liz White (Planner); and

· Kelvin Lloyd (Ecologist).

An exemption to the Procurement Policy is required as the value of works will exceed $50,000. The final cost of the response to the Environment Court process is largely unknown and is being funded form the District Plan Review budget. Staff will work to manage the costs of the process, however, much of this is not within their hands.

Policy Status

Clause 5.7.2 of the procurement policy (see below) requires Council to approve this exemption process.

5.7.2 Exceptions to the Standard Procedure

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.

Note that application for approval of exceptions can only be sought for estimated contract costs over $50,000.

The rationale for the exemption is outlined within this report and as stated, given the need to move quickly in response to the Court requirements and legal process, a formal procurement exemption plan is attached.

Significance of Decision

The proposal does not trigger Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Options

Council has two options:

Option 1: Approve the retrospective exemption to the Procurement Policy for the engagement of the listed parties to support the Plan Change 18 process.

Option 2: Do not approve the retrospective exemption to the Procurement Policy and require staff to go to the market to secure legal services.

Considerations

The parties have already commenced work on this project and have been providing an exceptional service. The nature of the project necessitated a quick response from Council staff, with this was communicated to Council through the workshop processes. The proposal now seeks formal approval of an exemption to the Procurement Policy, which allows the team to continue working on the Environment Court Appeal.

Failure to approve the retrospective Procurement Policy would result in the need to go through an open market process to engage support for the appeal process. This would compromise the ability to respond or even engage in the Environment Court process.

The nature of the environment court process means that each consultant is operating on a chargeable hour’s basis, with the unknown nature of the process and response needed meaning a fixed cost approach cannot be achieved.

Conclusion

The proposal seeks a retrospective approval for an exemption against Councils Procurement Policy.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 19 October 2021

6.11 Canterbury Water Management Strategy Zone Committee Review

Author: Staff Report, Environment Canterbury

Authoriser: Paul Numan, General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Terms of Reference for Orari-Temuka-Opihi-Pareora Zone Committee ⇩

2. Terms of Reference for Upper Waitaki Zone Committee ⇩

3. MDC Letter of Priorities ⇩

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

This report has been written by Dave Moore and Janine Roux, Environment Canterbury. The purpose of this report is:

· To provide the Mackenzie District Council with an update on the confirmation and implementation of changes to the role and function of zone committees designed to support the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS).

· To provide the revised Canterbury Water Management Strategy’s zone committee’s Terms of Reference as confirmed by Environment Canterbury on 10 December 2020.

· To affirm the Letter of Shared Priorities for the CWMS Orari-Temuka-Opihi-Pareora (OTOP) and Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committees between Environment Canterbury and Mackenzie District Council.

· To provide an outline of the next steps including the refresh of CWMS zone committee’s community membership, and the development of zone committee action plans.

Staff Recommendations

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council:

2.1 Notes the confirmation and implementation of changes to the role and function of the CWMS Zone Committees, as reviewed in 2020.

2.2 Confirms the revised CWMS Terms of Reference for the CWMS OTOP Water Zone Committee and Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committees.

2.3 Notes the next steps to for the 2021 CMWS Zone Committee refresh and the development of zone committee action plans.

2.4 Notes the Letter of Shared Priorities for the CWMS OTOP Water Zone Committee and Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committees.

KEY POINTS

In 2019 the Mayoral Forum affirmed the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and zone committees, and requested that Environment Canterbury lead the development of advice on how to help zone committees' transition from a focus on policy and planning to one of implementation.

The Canterbury Mayoral Forum confirmed the revised Terms of Reference and the introduction of the Letter of Shared Priorities and Zone Committee Action Plans for the CWMS zone committees at their meeting 27 November 2020. The revised Terms of Reference was then confirmed by the Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) on 10 December 2020.

Having been confirmed by the Regional Council it is being provided to Territorial Authorities with the guidance they follow a similar confirmation process.

Christchurch City Council has requested their Terms of Reference be amended to enable an alternate for the Council’s representative if/when the nominated representative is unavailable for its three zone committees – Christchurch West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn Waihora.

Hurunui District Council are continuing to explore options for a new joint committee focused on water and land in the Hurunui District.

By May, 2021, eight territorial authorities had drafted and/or confirmed their Letter of Shared Priorities.

Rūnanga are invited to add their priorities to these Letters of Shared Priorities, if they wish to do so.

The annual process to refresh community members began in May 2021 and is now complete.

Zone committees are drafting and finalising their Action Plans for July 2021 – June 2024.

BACKGROUND

As part of the Fit for Future project (populating the CWMS with 2025 and 2030 targets) the Mayoral Forum reaffirmed their support for zone committees and then asked Environment Canterbury to lead further advice on how to help zone committees focus more on implementation.

Since their establishment, zone committees have played a lead role in their communities to advance recommendations that sub-regional sections of the Land and Water Regional Plan have been based on.

Revised Zone Committee Terms of Reference

The proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for zone committees aims to provide committees with clarity on their purpose (uphold the mana of freshwater bodies within their zone by facilitating enduring land and water management solutions that give effect to the Canterbury Water Management vision, principles and targets in their zone) and to shift their focus to implementation.

The new functions of zone committees are to:

· Facilitate community engagement and collaboration – continuing an active programme of engaging with communities on freshwater management matters; and

· Facilitate the provision of advice through to councils (relevant Territorial Authorities and Environment Canterbury) and others (e.g. private sector) contributing to freshwater management; and

· Enhance delivery capability and coalition of the willing – working with stakeholders across all sectors to extend the resources available to implement the CWMS, including connecting others to additional resources and seeking opportunities to promote, support, leverage and expand catchment-based initiatives that deliver the CWMS; and

· Provide progress reports – annual progress reporting to Councils and Rūnanga on progress towards delivery of the zone-specific priorities and CWMS target areas identified in the Zone Committee Action Plan.

The intention is to have a generic Terms of Reference that apply across the Canterbury region. For three zone committees, Christchurch West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn Waihora, Christchurch City Council has requested their Terms of Reference be amended to enable an alternate for the Council’s representative if/when the nominated representative is unavailable. Hurunui District Council are continuing to explore options for a new joint committee focused on water and land in the Hurunui district.

The Orari Temuka Opihi Pareora and Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committees revised Terms of Reference are attached.

New Letter of Shared Priorities

A new tri-annual joint Letter of Shared Priorities from councils, and Rūnanga who choose to do so, has been introduced as a way for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy partners to clarify their priorities and expectations of zone committees.

The Letter of Shared Priorities aims to provide committees with specific regional and zone priorities that councils and Rūnanga wish to progress and would welcome opportunities to work in concert with zone committees. The Letter of Shared Priorities provide short-term (3 year), challenging but achievable goals, to help guide a zone committee’s Action Plan.

Rūnanga are invited to add their priorities to the letter if they wish to do so.

The Letter is a more dynamic mechanism than the Terms of Reference and can respond to specific circumstances within a zone (e.g., recognise Co-Governance in Selwyn Waihora zone and Mackenzie Alignment in Upper Waitaki zone) and be amended and changed if councils and Rūnanga covering the zone agree.

The confirmed Letter of Shared Priorities for Orari Temuka Opihi Pareora and Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committees is attached.

Zone Committee Action Plans

Zone Committee Action Plans are another new mechanism that has been introduced to help committees focus on the actions they can take. When developing Action Plans zone committees are to work within their Terms of Reference, the CWMS and Targets and the Letter of Shared Priorities, and to be guided by Iwi Management Plans, Zone Implementation Plans and their Addendums and community engagement and feedback.

Committees will report, at least annually, to councils on the progress and actions they have taken to implement their Action Plan.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

There will be significant uncertainty over the next few years for local communities and councils as a number of nationally led initiatives, such as the Essential Freshwater package, Three Waters Reform, the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity and responses to the Randerson Report are progressed. The recent court action taken by Ngāi Tahu seeking a declaration of their rangatiratanga over freshwater in their takiwā is another significant initiative currently underway.

Zone committees’ actions and work programmes will need to evolve as understanding of the implications of each of these initiatives becomes clearer.