AGENDA - Ashburton · 6.7 Administration & Library Facilities Feasibility Study – Preferred Site 46 6.8 Tinwald Domain – Set Aside Part as Camping Ground 64 6.9 Forestry – Carbon

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

AGENDA

For the Council meeting to be held on Thursday 23 February 2017 Commencing at 9.30am In the Council Chamber 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton

The District of choice for lifestyle and opportunity www.ashburtondc.govt.nz

Council Membership Donna Favel Mayor Cr Thelma Bell Ashburton Ward Cr Leen Braam Ashburton Ward Cr Neil Brown Ashburton Ward Cr Russell Ellis Ashburton Ward Cr Lynette Lovett Eastern Ward Cr Mark Malcolm Eastern Ward Cr Liz McMillan Western Ward Cr Selwyn Price Ashburton Ward Cr Diane Rawlinson Ashburton Ward Cr Peter Reveley Western Ward Cr Alasdair Urquhart Ashburton Ward Cr Stuart Wilson Eastern Ward Quorum --- no less than seven (7) members

The purpose of local government:

(1) The purpose of local government is --- (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by,

and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for

good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local

public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are --- (a) efficient; and (b) effective; and (c) appropriate to present and anticipated future

circumstances.

(Local Government Act 2002 --- Amendment Act 2012)

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Council Meeting – Thursday 23 February 2017

Timetable Time Item 9.30am Meeting commences

- Opening Prayer – Major Ken Smith, Salvation Army

9.35am Public Forum - Wastebusters Farm Recycling Scheme – Sharon Breakwell

- Bung the Bore – Jen Branje

- Ashburton College – Principal Ross Preece

- CBD Businesses

10.15am Hank Murney Family Trust representatives

10.30am Welcome to new and long-serving staff

10.40am Morning tea

12.45pm Lunch

2pm (approx.) Ashburton Contracting Ltd - Chairman John Tavendale and CEO Gary Casey

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1 Apologies

2 Extraordinary Business

3 Declarations of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a

conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external

interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Council Meeting – 15/12/16 1

5 Forward Programme 6

6 Reports

6.1 Mayor 7

6.2 Chief Executive 11

6.3 Environmental Services Committee 2/02/17

Recommendation Receive minutes of meeting 27

6.4 Service Delivery Committee 2/02/17

Recommendation Receive minutes of meeting 29

6.5 Finance & Business Support Committee – 2/02/17

Recommendation Receive minutes of meeting

Variance Report December 2016

32

Attached

6.6 Ashburton Museum – Funding New Exhibition Area 35

Cont’d

6.7 Administration & Library Facilities Feasibility Study – Preferred Site 46

6.8 Tinwald Domain – Set Aside Part as Camping Ground 64

6.9 Forestry – Carbon Credits 71

6.10 Safer Community Council Overview 77

6.11 Canterbury Triennial Agreement and Mayoral Forum Charter 93

6.12 Local Governance Statement 102

6.13 Bylaw & Policy Subcommittee – 2/02/17 136

6.14 Elected Member Training and Travel Budget 140

6.15 Ashburton Zone Committee 147

6.16 Ashburton Contracting Ltd – Shareholder Report Verbal

7 Business Transacted with the Public Excluded

7.1 Council – 15/12/16 - Ashburton Business Estate Pricing Schedule Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

- Extraordinary Business – Property Matter Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

[Now in open meeting]

- Award of Solid Waste Contract RR-AO 16/10

149

7.2 Finance & Business Support Committee – 2/02/17 - Audit & Risk Subcommittee 29/11/16 Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

- ACL Shareholder Reporting Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

- Property Sales Update Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

- Eastfields Joint Venture Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

- Art Gallery Lease Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

151

7.3 Use of Reserves Contribution Policy

Section 7(2)(a) Protection of privacy of natural persons

153

7.4 Appointment of Additional District Licensing Committee Members


170

7.5 Mt Hutt Memorial Hall & Heritage Board – Appointment of Members


172

17 February 2017

Council Minutes

4.1 Council 15/12/16

Minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday 15 December 2016, commencing at 1.30pm, in the Council Chamber, 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton.

Present Her Worship the Mayor, Donna Favel; Councillors Thelma Bell, Neil Brown, Russell Ellis, Lynette Lovett, Mark Malcolm, Liz McMillan, Selwyn Price, Diane Rawlinson, Peter Reveley, Alasdair Urquhart and Stuart Wilson.

In attendance Chief Executive, Group Manager Business Support, Group Manager Environmental Services, Group Manager Service Delivery, Manager People & Capability, Community Relations Manager, Commercial Manager, Policy Advisor and Committee Secretary.

Three members of the public attended.

Presentations Hakatere Marae Komiti --- 2.55pm-3.04pm Experience Mid Canterbury / China visit --- 3.05pm-3.20pm Environment Canterbury Councillor John Sunckill --- 3.55pm-4.30pm The opening prayer was offered by Rev Joan Clark representing the Ashburton Anglican Parish.

1 Apologies Cr Leen Braam Sustained

2 Extraordinary Business

That pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the following item be introduced as extraordinary business as item 7.4.

• Consideration of property purchase Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

Urquhart/Bell Carried

3 Conflict of Interest Item 6.8 --- Cr Malcolm declared an interest as a member of the Mid Canterbury Vintage Machinery Club Inc and gave notice he would refrain from discussion and voting.

4.1 Confirmation of Minutes --- 24/11/16

Correction: Schedule of Appointments --- Mayor replaces Cr Reveley as appointee to the Regional Civil Defence Emergency Management Group and Mayor replaces Cr Wilson as appointee to the Regional Land Transport Committee. Crs Reveley and Wilson are the alternate appointees respectively.

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 November 2016, as amended, be taken as read and confirmed.

Price/Lovett Carried 5 Forward Programme

February 23 --- Elected member training and conference attendance budget --- Safer Ashburton overview.

Council 15 December 2016

1

6.2 Mayor’s Report

That the Mayor’s report be received. Mayor/Rawlinson Carried

• Mayor’s Late Night Taskforce The Mayor reported on her meeting with Senior Sergeant Scott Banfield and Safer Ashburton District Manager

Kevin Clifford where it was agreed to discharge the Mayor’s Late Night Taskforce. The Taskforce group members will be advised and thanked for their contribution.

6.2 Chief Executive’s Report That the Chief Executive’s report be received.

Mayor/Urquhart Carried • Elected Members’ Allowance and Reimbursement (Expenses) Policy That Council approves the amendments to the 2016 Elected Members’ Allowance and Reimbursement

(Expenses) Policy. Mayor/McMillan Carried

6.3 Service Delivery Committee --- 1/12/16 The Roading Manager will provide Councillors with the schedule of roads for seal renewal. This information

will be updated on Council’s web site. That the minutes of the Service Delivery Committee meeting held on 1 December 2016, be received.

Wilson/Ellis Carried 6.4 Finance & Business Support Committee --- 1/12/16

That the minutes of the Finance & Business Support Committee meeting held on 1 December 2016, be received. Brown/Malcolm Carried

6.5 Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy The Community Relations Manager advised that retailers will be asked for their feedback to determine

whether there is a need for a policy. If there is demand from this group and the need for a policy can be demonstrated then wider community consultation would be undertaken.

That Council receives the Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy report.

Ellis/Price Carried 6.6 Committee Structure Report and Establishment of New Working Groups The Community Relations Manager presented her report on the rationale used for removing a number of

historical appointments from Council’s committee structure.

The Mayor spoke in support, confirming that organisations without Council representation will continue to have the opportunity to meet with Council and speak about their role in the community.

That Council receives the Committee Structure report; and

i) Establishes the Shiozawa 30 Year Sister City Anniversary Working Group, appointing Crs McMillan, Price and Bell and

ii) Establishes the Chinese Settlement Working Group to oversee the programme for the Chinese Settlement on Allens Road, appointing Crs Braam, Malcolm, Price and Bell.

Mayor/Brown Carried


2

6.7 Demolition of Ashburton Community Pool, Walnut Avenue The Commercial Manager reported that the decision on future use of the land will be determined by the

Ministry of Education and Ashburton College. 1 That Council approves the budget of up to $75,000 as Council’s portion of the demolition of the

community pool building on Walnut Avenue, Ashburton;

2 That the budget be sourced from the freehold land account; and

3 That Council authorises the Commercial Manager to sign all documentation associated with the demolition of the community pool.

Reveley/Lovett Carried 6.8 Mid Canterbury Vintage Machinery Club --- Request for Land Lease

Cr Malcolm withdrew from the debate.

The Group Manager Business Support reported that the Tinwald Reserve Board and the Vintage Machinery Club have been unable to reach agreement on who would meet the costs of an electrical upgrade should the Club decide to locate the Plains Museum. He acknowledged Council’s view that the Club would be best sited on the reserve at the Plains Museum, noting they have rejected this option due to cost and consent implications.

That Council declines the request from the Mid Canterbury Vintage Machinery Club Incorporated to lease land on William Street, adjacent to the Menz Shed site.

Urquhart/Price Carried • New and Long Serving Staff The Manager People & Capability introduced new staff --- Melissa Renganathan (Senior Policy Advisor), Jo Smith (People & Safety Co-ordinator), Linda Liddicoat (Information Management Officer), Lauren Wright (Planning Administration Officer) and summer students --- Melanie Liu, Harry Li and Depal Dhanani. Council acknowledged the retirement of the Rates Officer, Francie Osborn who was employed by Council in 1998 as Accounts Officer. Council also acknowledged and congratulated Policy Advisor, Rachel Thomas who is completing her Masters degree in Public Policy and has been awarded Local Government NZ’s Student of the Year. Council adjourned for afternoon tea from 2.36pm until 2.53pm. Hakatere Marae Komiti Michelle Brett (Hakatere Marae Komiti Chair) and Rana McLean (Marae Kamatua) were welcomed to the meeting. They spoke about the Ministry of Social Development initiative providing assistance to Maori families in Hakatere and a Certificate in Maori Kai course becoming available in 2017. They provided an update on the Hakatere Marae, reporting that the Wharenui will be officially opened when carvings are completed. Council’s assistance with funding kai at the opening may be sought.

At the conclusion of the presentation the Mayor thanked Michelle and Rana, and acknowledged Jane Kelly’s contribution to Council’s citizenship ceremonies which she undertakes on behalf of the Hakatere community.

The presentation concluded at 3.04pm. Schools’ China Visit Bruce Moffat (Experience Mid Canterbury Manager), Kate Bond (Borough School), Michelle Hosking (Ashburton College) and Kris Canham (Mt Hutt College) were welcomed to the meeting and invited to update Council on their recent visit to northern China where they met with education and tourism providers to promote the Ashburton District and the Schools’ international programme for fee paying students.

Mr Moffat said the trip was an opportunity to further develop the District’s sister city and friendship city relationships with visits to Puyang and Chengdu. On Council’s behalf the Mayor accepted a letter of thanks and gifts presented from the sister city.

The presentation concluded at 3.20pm.


3

6.9 Reserve Board Constitution That Council adopts the Reserve Board Constitution to be rolled out to all reserve boards in Ashburton

District. Ellis/Price Carried

6.10 Delegations Manual Amendments That Council adopts the Ashburton District Council Delegations Manual (2016), as presented.

Urquhart/Rawlinson Carried 6.11 Ashburton Water Zone Committee It was reported that the Committee has received the resignation of Jackie Wright. Nominations for a

replacement will be called for in the new year. That the report be received.

Wilson/Ellis Carried 6.12 Discretionary Grant --- Mayfield Community Swimming Pool That $3,200 in discretionary grant funding be granted to the Mayfield Community Swimming Pool.

McMillan/Lovett Carried 6.13 Electoral Officer’s Report 2016 That the report be received.

Mayor/Rawlinson Carried Environment Canterbury Cr John Sunckell was welcomed to the meeting. Cr David Caygill’s apology for absence was noted.

Cr Sunckell responded to questions and Council briefly discussed ---

• Cost implications of resource consents required for farms in nutrient red zone Cr Sunckell acknowledged farmers’ concerns with compliance costs. He agreed costs are extreme and difficult to rationalise. As a member of the Waihora Zone Committee John has argued there should only be farm environment plans. He spoke about the constraints within ECan and the need to balance the views of farmers with environmental needs. Referring to the Overseer programme Cr Sunckell said this is considered to be the best of its type. He spoke about another method of measuring nitrogen levels (N Check) noting this can be utilised for smaller farms where nitrogen losses are not large. He suggested that representation could be made to ECan for this less costly system to be rolled out in Mid Canterbury.

Cr Neil Brown asked Cr Sunckell to pass on the concerns of the Ashburton farming community.

• MAR Project Cr Sunckell was asked whether ECan is able to provide operational costs of this trial project and whether a similar programme could be used elsewhere in the Hinds catchment. He was unable to provide that information but said that ECan is looking at how some of these environmental responses can be achieved. Consideration may be given to a rate being struck to allow work to be done as projects come on line.

• Civil Defence Brief update on the ECan response to the North Canterbury earthquakes. A full debrief for all involved will be carried out in the new year.

Cr Sunckill was thanked for his attendance and left the meeting at 4.30pm.


4

7 Business transacted with the public excluded (4.30pm)

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

Item no

General subject of each matter to be considered:

In accordance with Section 48(1) of the Act, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter:

7.1

Council Minutes 24/11/16 • Contract RR-AO16/10 Selection of

preferred tenderer (solid waste services) [Now in open meeting]

• Plains Museum Trustee Appointments • ACL Director Reappointment

Section 7(2)(h)

Commercial activities

7.2 Contract RR-AO 16/10 --- Award of Contract for Solid Waste Services

Section 7(2)(h)


7.3 Ashburton Business Estate Pricing Schedule

Section 7(2)(h)


7.4 Extraordinary Business --- Property Matter

Section 7(2)(h)


Wilson/Urquhart Carried

Business transacted with the public excluded now in open meeting

• Ashburton Solid Waste Services --- Contract RR-AO 1/10 Selection of Preferred Tenderer

1 That Council awards the Ashburton Solid Waste Services Contract RR-AO 16/10 to EnviroWaste Services Limited (CN-660818) in the sum of Fourteen Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Six, Eight Hundred and Forty Seven Dollars and 21 cents ($14,296,847.21); and

2 That Council authorises Council officers to proceed with the consultation process for the proposed extended areas of service so these areas may be included in the new kerbside collection service as from the services start date.

Wilson/Ellis Carried

Cr Reveley recorded his vote against the motion.

The meeting concluded at 5.20pm. Confirmed 23 February 2017 ____________________________ MAYOR


5

5 Forward Programme --- Council

Meeting Date Report / Other Responsibility April 6 Adoption of Draft Annual Plan 2017/18 GM Business Support Adoption of Plan Change 1 GM Environmental Services Adoption of Standing Orders GM Business Support Adoption of Code of Conduct GM Business Support Policy & Bylaw Review Community Relations Manager Significance and Engagement Policy GM Business Support ACL Draft Statement of Intent GM Business Support EMC Draft Statement of Intent GM Business Support ASCT Draft Statement of Intent GM Business Support Local Government Conference Delegates GM Business Support Ashburton SLA Update Community Relations Manager RCPHO Board Appointee Update Community Relations Manager Public Forum --- Youth Health Centre Trust Water Zone Committee May 18 Hon Jo Goodhew MP ACL Shareholder Report GM Business Support Elected Member Remuneration Setting

2017/18 GM Business Support

Council 23 February 2017

6

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Mayor

6.1 Mayor’s Report

6.1.1 Mayor’s Update 6.1.1.1 Canterbury Mayoral Forum

I attended my first Canterbury Mayoral Forum in Christchurch on 26 and 27 January 2017, along with CEO Andrew Dalziel. Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel was elected Chair and Timaru Mayor Damon Odey was elected as Deputy Chair. Ashburton District Council has retained the work programme of Newcomers and Migrants. Selwyn District Council Mayor Sam Broughton has offered to work with us on this.

6.1.1.2 Methven Community Board On Monday 23 January, LGNZ Community Board Chairperson Mick Lester attended the Methven Community Board meeting. This was a great opportunity to discuss plans for the NZ Community Boards Conference being held in Methven in on 12-13 May this year. With Conference organisers expecting in excess of 100 attendees this will be a wonderful opportunity to showcase our District.

6.1.1.3 Community Planning Meeting I attended a Community Planning Meeting, facilitated by the Ministry of Social Development, on 15 February. A leadership team to drive the vision of the workshops has been formed. The Group are working towards the goals set by the wider community workshops.

6.1.1.4 District Diary ---

With Council’s District Diary now being published more frequently (every month) as an insert in The Courier, Councillors will have the opportunity to regularly contribute and have their say. The following slots have been allocated to date:

• November 2016 - Cr Neil Brown s • December 2016 --- Mayor Donna Favel • February 2017 - Cr Thelma Bell • March 2017 - Cr Diane Rawlinson

I am looking forward to Ashburton District having an opportunity to hear from their elected members.

6.1.1.5 Mayoral Media

I have been contacted by local media and have established regular contact with the following: • Print - Ashburton Guardian --- to write a fortnightly article • Print - The Courier --- to write a fortnightly article (alternate weeks to the Ashburton

Guardian) • Radio - Hoops on Hokonui --- every Friday morning 8.05am • Radio - Port FM - monthly catch up with OJ on Port FM

I’m in the very early stages of co-ordinating my first video statement with Tony Arthur from Ashburton TV.


7

6.1.1.6 New Zealand Women’s Weekly

Shortly after the 2016 elections, I was privileged to be asked by New Zealand Women’s Weekly to feature in the magazine’s 23 January publication as a newly elected mayor. Of the 74 territorial authorities in New Zealand, there are just 13 female mayors. The Women’s Weekly was interested that seven new female mayors were elected in October 2016.

6.1.1.7 Justice of the Peace Training

Section 41(4) of the Local Government Act provides for a mayor of a territorial authority to be a Justice of the Peace during the time that he or she holds the office of mayor (or chairperson). I am currently authorised to act as an ex-officio JP, allowing me to conduct citizenship ceremonies on behalf of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Following discussions with local JPs, Gus Johnson and Noel Lowe, I have decided to pursue full JP status. When I have achieved this I will fulfil the role of an in-house JP for Council. Councillors Thelma Bell and Liz McMillan are fully accredited Justices of the Peace.

6.1.1.8 National Trust Power Awards --- Rotorua

My husband David Favel and I have been invited to attend the National Trustpower Awards in Rotorua on 24-26 March. As he is unable to attend, Trustpower have offered the place to a Councillor. Councillors Bell and Brown were appointed to the Trustpower Committee; Councillor Brown declined the invitation to the Awards, and I have therefore invited Councillor Bell to join me.

6.1.1.9 CBD Visits

Late last year the Town Centre Working Group, chaired by Cr Rawlinson, met with representatives of Ashburton CBD businesses and retailers. From discussion it was apparent that there are areas where a joint approach could achieve some good results in improving the visual appeal of the streets and CBD.

On 13 January, Cr Rawlinson and I visited a number of CBD businesses to introduce ourselves and seek their feedback. It was also an opportunity to make them aware of the Snap-Send-Solve app. Cr Rawlinson made follow-up visits on 10 February and will verbally report on this.

6.1.2 Meetings Recent meetings of note have included: December 2016 • 16 Dec: Met with Safer Ashburton District Board --- accompanied by Councillor Stuart Wilson. Councillor

Ellis attended as the immediate past council appointed representative. • 16 Dec: Councillor Wilson and I met with Noelene Murdoch at the Turton Accommodation House

Memorial

January 2017 • 2 Jan: Lake Clearwater Hutholders AGM --- Cr Urquhart attended on my behalf • 9 Jan: Met with Ian McKenzie --- Chair of the Ashburton Community Water Trust --- accompanied by Cr

Wilson and the Group Manager Finance and Business Support • 12 Jan: Councillor catch-up • 12 Jan: Visited with the residents of Cameron Courts • 12 Jan: Emmily Harmer photoshoot for Zonta Awards Exhibition • 13 Jan: Door to Door CBD visits with Cr Diane Rawlinson • 16 Jan: Met with MP Mojo Mathers --- Green Party • 16 Jan: Hakatere Marae Komiti --- Crs Malcolm and Price attended on my behalf • 16 Jan: Chinese Consulate --- Chinese New Year Function • 18 Jan: Met with Corrections staff --- Lesley Hibbert and Wendy Hampton with Crs Bell & Price


8

• 18 Jan: Met with Marie McAnulty (Seeds) • 18 Jan: Met with JPs Noel Lowe and Gus Johnson • 19 Jan: Assisted Leadership team with Breakfast, along with Crs Bell, Lovett, Price and Rawlinson • 19 Jan: Had a Councillor catch-up • 19 Jan: Met with NZ Police --- Inspector Gaskin and Superintendent Price --- with Deputy Mayor Neil

Brown and Cr Peter Reveley • 19 Jan: Ashburton Citizens Association meeting - with Crs Lovett, Price, Rawlinson, Reveley and

Urquhart • 20 Jan: MAR - Met with Ian Mackenzie and Peter Lowe --- with Cr Wilson • 23 Jan: Methven Community Board Meeting --- with Crs Bell and McMillan • 23 Jan: Met with Mick Lester --- LGNZ Community Boards Association • 23 Jan: Spoke at the Advance Ashburton Scholarship presentation • 23 Jan: Methven Recreational Reserve Triennial Meeting --- with Crs Bell, McMillan and Reveley • 23 Jan: Met with Methven Action Group --- with Cr Bell • 24 Jan: Attended part of the Ashburton Zone Water Committee --- with Crs Bell, Braam, Lovett, Price

+ADC representative Cr Wilson • 24 Jan: EA Shareholders Meeting with CE Andrew Dalziel • 24 Jan: Attended Lagmhor Memorial Hall Triennial Meeting --- with Cr Price + ADC rep. Cr Urquhart • 24 Jan: Attended Chertsey Reserve Road Triennial Meeting --- with Crs Bell, Lovett, Price + ADC rep. Cr

Mark Malcolm • 26 Jan: Workshop --- Administration & Library Facilities • 26 and 27 Jan: Mayoral Forum dinner and meeting with CEO Andrew Dalziel • 27 Jan: Met with Michele Hider --- Priority Communications • 27 Jan: Ashburton A & P Association Happy Hour with Cr Lovett • 28 Jan: Attended Ruapuna Recreation Reserve Triennial Meeting --- with Crs Lovett, Rawlinson and ADC

rep. Cr Peter Reveley • 29 Jan: Attended the opening of the Ashburton Art Gallery Exhibition --- as did Crs Bell, Lovett, Price • 29 Jan: 39th Festival of Pipe Band Music • 29 Jan: NZCFS Chinese New Year Banquet --- with Cr Bell • 30 Jan: Met with ECAN Chairperson --- David Bedford

February 2017 • 1 Feb: Met with Community Energy Action Group --- with Cr Price and Property Manager • 1 Feb: Speaker at the Lions Newcomers Event --- with Cr Rawlinson • 1 Feb: Met with Sport Canterbury --- Jan Cochrane and new GM Bruce Morten • 1 Feb: Met with Birthright --- update on their latest project • 2 Feb: Bylaw & Policy Subcommittee • 2 Feb: Environmental Services, Service Delivery and Finance & Business Support Committee meetings • 3 Feb: Community House Networking Meeting • 3 Feb: Met with Tony Todd, Bob McDonald, Sue Cooper and Janice McKay • 3 Feb: Had a tour of Corrections facilities with several Councillors • 5 Feb: Spoke at the Great Plains Fly-In Dinner • 6 Feb: Attended Multi Cultural Bite • 6 Feb: Attended Triennial Meeting Lynnford Reserve Board --- with Crs Lovett and Wilson • 7 Feb: Attended Road Safety Co-ordinating Committee • 7 Feb: Attended Powhiri --- Ashburton College Principal --- Ross Preece • 7 Feb: Attended the Lion Foundation meeting • 7 Feb: Attended the Cultures of China --- Festival of Spring --- with Cr Price • 8 Feb: Met with Laurie Armstrong --- re: Rural Fire Forces • 8 Feb: Met with John Driscoll (Community House) --- preparing presentation for National Trust Power

awards in Rotorua March 2017. • 8 Feb: Met with Senior Sergeant Scott Banfield • 8 Feb: Met with Tihou Messenger-Weepu --- Tuia Programme • 9 Feb: Workshop (Accounting 101, Property 101 and Rating 101) • 9 Feb: Mayor and Chairs met with Communication Team to review Annual Survey questions • 9 Feb: Met with Laurie Armstrong - Rural Fire Forces • 10 Feb: Met with Hank Murney Family Trust


9

• 11 Feb: Cr Brown opened the 10th Filipino Basketball Event Great Methven Meet on my behalf • 11 Feb: 50 year Service Medal --- Graeme Baker --- with Cr Mark Malcolm • 12 Feb: The Great Methven Meet --- with Crs Bell, Lovett, Malcolm, McMillan • 12 Feb: Attended the Ealing Reserve Board Triennial Meeting --- with Crs Bell, Lovett, Wilson • 13 Feb: Met with New Zealand Immigration --- re: CREDS Pilot Programme • 13 Feb: Met with Principal Ross Preece --- Ashburton College --- with Cr Price • 13 Feb: Met with Alyce Lysaght --- Chair of the Ashburton Youth Council • 13 Feb: Attended Hakatere Marae Komiti meeting --- with Cr Price • 15 Feb: Ashburton Community Planning Meeting --- with MSD • 15 Feb: Met with Chris Robertson --- ASCT and Eastfield JV • 16 Feb: Council Funded Agencies • 16 Feb: Workshop --- (RMA Delegations, Land Vesting, Lake Hood Rating, Relief Sewer/River Crossing) • 16 Feb: Attended Lake Hood presentation on wheelie bins • 16 Feb: Visit Federated Farmers

DONNA FAVEL Mayor


10

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Chief Executive Officer 6.2 Chief Executive’s Report

6.2.1 Corporate Work Items

6.2.1.1 Bill Submission The Council has added the Canterbury Mayoral Forum’s submission to the Health Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill to our website. The submission articulates the views of all of Canterbury’s district councils and ECan. Christchurch City Council (CCC) decided to submit separately due to their unique circumstances (they asked to retain decision making responsibility for fluoridation). The CCC submission is also included on our website so that readers can see the differences in approach. Please refer to Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

6.2.1.2 Remuneration Authority

The Remuneration Authority has amended its determination to accommodate the change the Council recently made to its governance structure concerning the Deputy Mayor being the Chair of our Finance and Business Support Committee, with the associated increase in remuneration agreed for carrying out both roles. Deputy Mayor Brown is now paid $35,301 backdated to when Council made its decision.

6.2.1.3 West Coast Amalgamation Proposal

The Local Government Commission has written to the Council regarding an application it has been looking into proposing a unitary authority for the West Coast; that is a single council for all of the West Coast undertaking regional and district council functions. After a programme of community engagement last year the Commission decided there was sufficient community support to continue to look into the possibility of some form of change to local government arrangements on the West Coast. The Commission is now inviting alternative applications to the original reorganisation application. This is a requirement of the law. Ashburton District Council has been advised, because the law also specifies that the Commission must give notice to each local authority whose district or region adjoins the district or region of an affected local authority. While the Ashburton district does adjoin the Westland district/region, we don’t have the same level of connectivity or interaction with them that we have with our Canterbury neighbouring councils. As such, it is not planned to submit any views on alternative applications by the 15 March 2017 deadline.

6.2.1.4 EA Networks Shareholders Committee Report Anne Marett, David Ward and Chris Robertson are the Council’s three appointees to the EA Shareholders Committee, which has seven members in total (chaired by Ian Cullimore). The Council’s three appointees met with the Mayor and myself on 24 January to update us on the Committee’s end of year meeting with the Board of Directors of EA Networks (six directors in total chaired by Gary Leech).


11

In very general terms, they advised:

1. The Company is on a sound financial footing. 2. It has appropriate capital expenditure plans. 3. It is meeting its performance targets for the safe reliable and cost effective delivery of

electricity. 4. Its continued investment in Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation has an acceptable level of return and

is providing an overall benefit to the greater Mid Canterbury community. 5. The Directors appointed continue to show good sound practical governance skills and clearly

have the interest of the Company at heart.

The Shareholders Committee meets with the Directors twice a year for a mid-year review and an end of year review. They also interview two Directors every year to gauge their performance and to get their thoughts on the Company, its performance and improvements etc.

Last year the Shareholders Committee appointed Paul Munro to the Board. He is a vastly experienced Director and has had previous industry experience by being on the Board of Orion. He also has governance skills which arise from his chartered accountant practice, acting for significant corporate entities in Christchurch. In 2017 two more Directors will come up for election.

The Shareholders Committee agrees with the Board that there should be an examination of the Company’s shareholding structure in the face of potential local authority forced mergers. The work would look at transferring the Council’s deferred shareholding in EA Networks (a Council strategic asset). The Council holds 28,750,000 non-rebate/ non-voting EA Networks shares) to a possible Community Trust structure established to ensure the proceeds for any future sale of Electricity Ashburton were retained within the Ashburton District and not dispersed to a wider area in the event that Ashburton District Council was amalgamated.

Please refer to Appendix 2 for the EA Networks six month report to 30 September 2016.

6.2.1.5 Council Workshops

On 15 December 2016 Council met in a workshop to review and discuss draft overhead budgets prepared by officers for the 2017/18 financial year. On 1 and 2 March Council will workshop draft operational budgets, consider business cases for additional spending items, review draft fees and charges, and consider what level of public consultation is warranted. The 2017/18 Draft Annual Plan will then be prepared by Council officers and brought back to Council for formal approval for consultation. This is the Council’s standard approach to preparing its annual and long term plans.

The new Council has requested quite a number of workshops on specific topics. On 2 February Council officers ran a workshop for the Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee, which was open to all Councillors. On 9 February officers ran an Accounting 101, Property 101 and Rating 101 workshop for Council. On 16 February officers ran separate workshops on RMA Delegations, Subdivision and Vested Land Processes, the Ashburton Relief Sewer and River Crossing, and Lake Hood Rating. A workshop for 9 March on our Stockwater activity is currently being prepared by officers. A Standing Orders and Meeting Procedures workshop which will be run by Meeting and Governance Solutions will be held on 13 March for elected members and Council officers. Workshops on EA Networks Centre Sportsfields Planning, Media training, and Civil Defence Emergency Management arrangements are scheduled for 30 March.


12

On 13 April a further Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan workshop is scheduled with Market Economics Ltd. In June and July the Council will begin workshopping Long Term Plan topics such as its Infrastructure Strategy, Finance Strategy, Funding Policy, and Performance Measures and Targets. Dates for these workshops will be confirmed nearer the time.

Formal Council, Committee and Subcommittee meetings are held in public, unless specific items of business meet legislative requirements for consideration in public excluded (i.e. commercial confidentiality or legal privilege).

While there is no legislative requirement for informal Council workshops or briefings to be held in public, as a publicly accountable body the Council errs toward holding its workshops in public unless there are good reasons for the public to be excluded. The exception is elected member training workshops that hold little value in being open to the public.

The Controller and Auditor General’s (OAG) 2013 inquiry into Kaipara District Council’s (KDC) Mangawhai community wastewater scheme is noteworthy. One of the OAG’s main concerns was KDC’s use of Council workshops for considering significant information and making decisions. Relevant sections of the Inquiry findings read:

• 24.26: Overall, we saw little evidence during our work on this inquiry to suggest that KDC paid adequate attention to its obligations as a public entity to explain and account for its actions. In simple terms, we were left with the impression that too much of KDC's work was carried out through informal discussions, meetings, and agreements between the main people involved, rather than by presenting formal papers to formal meetings with formal minutes. This type of approach is dangerous.

• 24.27: There is a tendency to discount such points as bureaucratic, but we regard them as fundamental to an effective and trusted public sector. In several reports recently, we have emphasised that, in the public sector, decisions have to not only be right but also be seen to be right. The process by which decisions are made also matters, because the use of public money and power has to be clearly and properly authorised. People are entitled to information about how and why such decisions are made. We repeat a comment we made in our report on the Citizenship inquiry: "In our experience, accusations of wrongdoing flourish when there is a lack of information about what actually happened."

No decisions are made in Ashburton District Council workshops and formal minutes are not generally taken. If decisions are required after a workshop a report is subsequently prepared by Council officers for the next appropriate formal meeting.

6.2.1.6 Council’s Energy Cost

The Council’s latest e-bench report (November 2016) shows our total energy expenditure continues to be less than it was in 2015/16 month by month. A five month comparison is set out below:

Month 2015/16 2016/17

July $219,613 $180,337

August $207,407 $179,705

September $173,327 $156,851

October $155,546 $144,053

November $156,556 $131,956


13

6.2.1.7 Inactive Phone Lines The Council has numerous phone lines which it pays monthly line charges for. A recent review by our Information Services team identified nine phone lines the Council could now disconnect to lower charges.

6.2.1.8 IT Outage On the weekend of 28 and 29 January a planned Hewlett-Packard software upgrade was undertaken for the Council’s computer system.

It became evident early on Monday morning that Council officers in the main Administration Building were struggling to get their computers running. A number of work round solutions were put into effect. It wasn’t until Tuesday morning that normal service resumed for all employees. A review of exactly what happened is being undertaken.

6.2.1.9 Employee Engagement Survey McLean & Company conducted the organisation’s bi-annual employee engagement survey over a two week period in February. The survey asks employees to rate their satisfaction with items such as their working conditions, the resources they have to do their jobs, training, advancement opportunities, management, etc. Top line results when they become available from the survey are incorporated into my CEO twelve month performance and development report.

6.2.1.10 Health and Safety

At its 3 February meeting the Canterbury Local Government CEOs Forum signed-off on forming a regional H&S Advisors Group to share ideas and work together to improve H&S across Canterbury councils. Ashburton District Council People and Capability Advisor Cindy Meadows will be our representative on the group, which will meet approximately four times a year.

6.2.1.11 Fraud Awareness The Council’s Leadership Team met on 15 February for a scheduled six month review of any fraudulent activity and corruption. The review focuses on identifying red flags (for the person and the entity) as presented by Deloitte when the Council undertook SOLGM/Deloitte Fraud and Corruption Awareness training in July 2015.

6.2.1.12 Civic Assurance Council owns 56,016 shares (0.5% of total shares) in New Zealand local Government Insurance Corporation Ltd (commonly called Civic Assurance). Last year Civic Assurance applied for a full insurance licence but the Civic Assurance Board decided late last year that Civic Assurance was unable to offer property insurance profitably and so has withdrawn this application. A company without an insurance licence is not allowed to have the word insurance in its name so the Company has proposed to change its name to Civic Financial Services Ltd and will continue to administer the local government Kiwisaver and Supereasy schemes as well as the four local government mutual pools: LAPP, Riskpool, Civic Liability Pool and Civic Property Pool.

As a result of this change and having full reinsurance in place to cover its Civic Property Pool liabilities, the Company is considering a return of capital to its shareholders. The Company’s draft Statement of Intent for the year ended 31 December 2017 includes a proposal to sell Civic Assurance House in Wellington. Council would support this action and the return of these funds to the Company’s shareholders.


14

6.2.1.13 Annual Residents Survey

Ashburton District Council contracts Research First to undertake our Annual Residents’ Survey. This survey will commence on 1 March and will run until 20 March. It is a telephone survey of 500 residents, asking a range of questions to measure progress against our non-financial performance measures in the Long Term Plan. The survey is estimated to cost $30,600 +GST to conduct, and Research First will present the results to Council in May or June. The results are used in the Annual Report and are audited by Audit NZ for validity. While Council cannot change the questions relating to the LTP performance measures, it can add additional questions if it so desires, at an additional cost.

6.2.2 Staff Movements

For the period: 15 December --- 23 February New Starts

• Allan Storrie, Rangitata Camp Ground Mower Operator. Started 2 January 2017 • Cru Kopua, Gardener --- GHS. Started 9 January 2017 • Jaimee Carrodus, Rates Officer. Started 23 January 2017 • Lisa Pitt, Customer Service Officer. Casual to permanent on 7 February 2017 • Rhys Roberts, Roading Assistant. Started 13 February 2017 • Rosie Twamley, Library Assistant. Starts 19 February 2017

Departures • Lisa Sara, Learn to Swim Instructor. Finished on 17 December 2016 • Lucy Clough, Learn to Swim Instructor. Finished on 18 December 2016 • Ruby Donaldson, Lifeguard. Finished on 21 December 2016. • Leanne Gibson, Lifeguard. Finishes on 21 December 2016 • Nikitta Thompson-Banfield, Receptionist. Finished on 9 January 2017 • Rialyn Cadion, EANC Cleaner. Finished on 15 January 2016 • Emma Nottage --- Design & Online Media Officer. Finished on 16 January 2017 • Ben Copland, Lifeguard. Finished on 16 January 2016 • Justine Monk, Customer Services Officer. Finished on 27 January 2017 • Connor Lysaght, Office Assistant --- After School. Finished on 31 January 2017 • Jayden Reid, Lifeguard. Finished on 4 February 2017 • Emma Tupper, Lifeguard. Finished on 6 February 2017 • Tayla Hampton, Lifeguard. Finished on 7 February 2017 • Bailey Kinvig, Lifeguard. Finished on 9 February 2017 • Diane Scott, CBD Caretaker. Finished on 12 February 2017.

6.2.3 Meetings and Events Recent meetings and events of note that I have attended include: December

• 21 December 2016: Chaired ADC Managers group meeting • 22 December 2016: Hosted ADC staff Christmas function at Ashburton Domain

January • 12 January 2017: Met Murray Harrington, Partner PwC re audit and risk work • 19 January 2017: Welcome back to work breakfast for staff event • 23 January 2017: FENZ meeting in Timaru to discuss asset transfer • 24 January 2017: EA Shareholder Committee Council appointees met the Mayor and I for

an update


15

• 26 January 2017: Council Administration and Library Building Feasibility Study workshop, followed by a Canterbury Mayoral Forum dinner in Christchurch

• 27 January 2017: Canterbury Mayoral Forum meeting • 30 January 2017: Met Graham Kennedy from Brophy Knight re Feasibility Study,

Eastfields and Lake Hood • 3 February 2017: Coordinating Executive Group meeting Canterbury Civil Defence

Emergency Management Group, Selwyn District Council, followed by Canterbury local Government CE’s Forum

• 10 February 2017: Chaired Leadership Team review of draft operational budgets for 2017/18

• 13 February 2017: Chaired ADC/Selwyn District Council management team catch up in Ashburton; Met Malcom Morrison and Tessa McGregor, Morrison Low re local government work

• 15 February 2017: Chaired Leadership Team’s 6 month Fraud Awareness review meeting; Met John Tavendale and Gary Casey, ACL re shareholder reporting

• 16 February 2017: CEOs Roading Collaboration meeting, Timaru District Council • 20 February 2017: ADC Mayoral reception for Rotary Friendship Exchange

ANDREW DALZIEL Chief Executive Officer

ATTACHMENTS: pg 17-26 Appendix 1 Mayoral Forum Submission Appendix 2 Christchurch City Council Submission Appendix 3 EA Networks 6 Month Report


16

30 January 2017

Submission to the Health Select Committee

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 1. This submission from the Canterbury Mayoral Forum (the Forum) reflects the views of the nine

district councils in the Canterbury region and Environment Canterbury.

2. The Christchurch City Council has formed a different view and will make its own submission. In discussion, the Forum also voiced support for the Christchurch submission, recognising its unique circumstances.

3. The Forum wishes to be heard in support of its submission.

Context

4. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum comprises the Mayors of the ten territorial local authorities in Canterbury and the Chair of Environment Canterbury, supported by our Chief Executives. The purpose of the Forum is to promote collaboration across the region and to increase the effectiveness of local government in meeting the needs of Canterbury’s communities.

5. All Canterbury councils actively participate in the Forum: Kaikōura District Council, Hurunui District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Ashburton District Council, Mackenzie District Council, Timaru District Council, Waimate District Council, Waitaki District Council and the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury). The chair of the Forum in 2017–19 is Lianne Dalziel, Mayor of Christchurch.

6. The Forum work programme is implemented by the Canterbury Chief Executives Forum and the Canterbury Policy Forum. For matters that impinge on water reticulation, the Policy Forum is supported by the Canterbury Engineering Managers Group.

7. The following submission has been developed by members of the Canterbury Policy Forum and approved by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. There is a range of views across our member councils, and some individual Canterbury councils may separately provide their own submissions on the Bill. The Forum also supports the submission by Local Government New

17

Page 2 of 4

Zealand. This submission is not intended to replace or detract from any of those. However, this submission has the support of the nine district councils in Canterbury and Environment Canterbury.

General comments

8. The provision of water supplies to communities is a core network infrastructure service for Territorial Authorities (TAs) under section 11A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The Bill provides for some aspects of the management of drinking water (fluoridation) to be administered by District Health Boards (DHBs), while other public health issues for drinking water remain with TAs (bacteria and protozoal compliance).

9. A council’s role and obligations under the LGA in relation to water is that it is required from time to time to assess water services (which includes water supply and wastewater services) and other sanitary services (s125) and it also has an obligation to maintain water services that it already provides to the community (s130).

10. As a drinking water supplier under Part 2A of the Health Act 1956, Councils also have obligations, including to:

• take all practicable steps to ensure that an adequate supply of drinking water is provided • take reasonable steps to contribute to the protection from contamination of the source of

drinking water and to test new sources • take all practicable steps to comply with and monitor drinking-water standards • take reasonable steps to supply wholesome drinking water and investigate complaints • detect and assess public health risks generally • prepare and implement public health risk assessment plans in relation to the supply of

water • take remedial action if a breach of the drinking-water standards is detected.

Specific points of submission

11. Canterbury councils are generally in support of the policy intent of the Bill, however there are concerns that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not fully meet the policy intent, and does not adequately address all issues relevant to the fluoridation of drinking water.

Consistency of decision making

12. As there are three DHBs in the Canterbury region (Canterbury DHB, South Canterbury DHB and the Southern DHB which covers all of the Waitaki district, including the parts of Waitaki district within the Canterbury region), there is a possibility that decisions on fluoridation may not be applied consistently between the three DHBs across council water supplies.

Decision-making responsibilities

13. The policy intent of the Bill is to ‘replace territorial local authorities’ decision-making responsibilities about fluoridation of drinking water’ and to transfer the decision-making to DHBs. This suggests there will not be any decision-making power left for TAs.

18

Page 3 of 4

14. However, while section 5 of the Bill (the amendment to section 69A) empowers DHBs to make directions to local authorities to fluoridate or not fluoridate their drinking water, DHBs are not required to make directions (or not) on fluoridation, and there is no clear statement that TAs are not able to make decisions on fluoridation. Therefore it appears that if the DHB does not elect to use the Bill’s new power, the relevant council will remain the decision-maker.

15. If the decision-making ability is removed from TAs an express statement to this effect should be made in the Bill. The Bill should also require the decision-maker to give clear direction to councils on whether fluoride should or should not be added to their water supplies. In light of the submission on funding below, this decision-making may need to occur over a number of years.

16. There are mixed views from Canterbury councils about which agency should be the decision-maker on this issue (including the status quo, DHBs, or the Director-General of Health) although the majority agree with councils no longer being the decision-maker. National leadership is required in relation to decisions on the fluoridation of drinking water. However it should also be noted that shifting responsibility to DHBs will not rule out a series of locally fought campaigns over fluoride, which could influence DHBs to reverse their decisions.

Funding fluoridation

17. The Cabinet paper proposal requires local authorities to continue to meet the direct costs of fluoridation for both existing and new schemes. This means that a TA will be required to fund and implement a decision it did not make. However the current drafting of the Bill does not make this clear. Where a decision is made by a DHB to fluoridate, the TA will then be forced to pass on the costs to ratepayers without having any control over the decision. This raises questions about consultation on funding with its community. This type of expense has to be planned for, and would usually be consulted on as part of a council’s long term plan (and then annual plan).

18. To avoid these issues the Forum considers the decision-maker should be responsible for funding the costs associated with its decision to fluoridate the water supply. All councils in the Canterbury region are of a common mind on this point.

19. While the Government formerly provided funding assistance for water fluoridation through the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, that scheme has now closed. Although the Ministry of Health website indicates some funding may be available to assist with the set-up costs of fluoridating local drinking-water supplies, there is a number of ‘rules’ around this possible funding and it appears it would not be available to larger councils that may be required to fluoridate.

20. Additionally, the Bill does not take into account the cost-effectiveness obligations of the LGA in relation to multiple smaller drinking water schemes (section 131 of the LGA uses a population of 200 persons to define small water supplies). Within the Canterbury region, individual Councils have a number of water supplies, ranging from four to 70 separate drinking water facilities.

Consultation

21. Decisions related to fresh water in Canterbury are important to our councils. One example is the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS), which is a collaborative framework for

19

Page 4 of 4

all fresh water-related activity in our region, with extensive community engagement and close involvement of Ngāi Tahu rūnanga. The CWMS vision is:

To gain the greatest cultural, economic, environmental, recreational and social benefits from our water resources within a sustainable framework both now and for future generations.

22. Section 8 of the Bill requires DHBs to consider scientific evidence of adding fluoride to drinking water, and whether the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh the financial costs, taking into account local oral health status, population numbers, and financial cost and savings. However, the Bill does not have any requirement to consider the views of the local government drinking water supplier involved, or to consider community views. This is inconsistent with the LGA where TAs are bound to consider the views of their communities before making decisions

23. Further thought needs to be given to consultation requirements being included in the Bill, particularly for consultation with the relevant council itself, if not the wider community. An additional concern is that any decision made by a DHB is not challengeable through LGA-required Council consultation processes removing any ability for confusion or re-litigation.

Conclusion

24. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed changes to the Health Act 1956.

25. The Forum considers that, while it supports the policy intention, the Bill does not currently achieve the objective of relieving TAs of having to make decisions about public health matters. We have concerns about the lack of consultation requirements and clear funding direction in the Bill, and given these concerns, suggest that a collaborative review and revision of the Bill with stakeholders would be more likely to achieve the intentions of the legislation.

26. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum wishes to be heard in support of this submission.

Recommendations

27. Amend the Bill to require the decision-maker to make clear directions on fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

28. If the decision-making ability is removed from Territorial Authorities, an express statement to this effect should be made in the Bill.

29. Confirm that the costs of fluoridation will rest with the decision-maker.

30. Amend the Bill to require the decision-maker to undertake consultation with the relevant council, and consider community views.

Damon Odey, Mayor, Timaru District Council Deputy-Chair, Canterbury Mayoral Forum

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Committee Minutes

6.3 Environmental Services Committee [Unconfirmed Minutes] Minutes of the Environmental Services Committee meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2017, commencing at 12pm, in the Council Chamber, 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton.

Present Mayor Donna Favel; Councillors Peter Reveley (Chair), Thelma Bell, Leen Braam, Neil Brown, Russell Ellis, Lynette Lovett, Mark Malcolm, Liz McMillan, Selwyn Price, Diane Rawlinson, Alasdair Urquhart and Stuart Wilson.

In attendance Group Manager Environmental Services, Building Services Manager, District Planning Manager, Environmental Monitoring Manager, Emergency Management Officer, Community Relations Manager and Committee Secretary. 1 Apologies

Nil. 2 Extraordinary Business

Nil. 3 Conflicts of Interest

Nil.

4 Forward Programme 9 March --- update on free parking trial.

5 Activity Reports

That the reports be received. Brown/Ellis Carried

5.1.1 • Building Services

The Building Services Manager advised there are approximately 3,854 properties in the district where building work is yet to be signed off and code of compliance certificates (CCC) issued. Mr Wong explained that the 1991 Building Act made no provision for follow-up, however the 2004 Act places a two year limit on a building consent before a decision to sign-off is required. After 18 months, Council officers will write to property owners advising that the CCC hasn’t been signed off. If sign-off isn’t completed within two years, the CCC is refused but that doesn’t stop the owner from completing the work and asking for a CCC in the future.

Officers are progressively working through the schedule of properties as resources allow. 5.3.1 • Update on Changes to Fire Services

The Committee received an update on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) Bill which, if passed by Parliament, will unify New Zealand’s urban and rural fire services from 1 July this year.

The Group Manager Environmental Services reported that Council is committed to work already budgeted in the rural fire activity, such as the upgrade to the Mt Somers fire station and the new Ashburton fire station. This jointly funded Council / NZFS fire station will be the first of its type in New Zealand and will replace the existing NZFS station on Burnett Street.


27

5.3.4 • Provisional Local Alcohol Policy The Local Alcohol Policy continues to await a hearing and sign-off by the Alcohol Regulatory &

Licensing Authority. Council’s solicitor has advised that Auckland based Alcohol Health Watch has indicated they won’t be signing-off on the Memorandum of Understanding, however it’s now likely the group won’t pursue a hearing. In that case, Council could ask the Court to settle the matter on the papers without the need for a hearing.

5.3.5 • Civil Defence The Emergency Management Officer provided an update on the coastal settlements tsunami warning

plan which is being updated after the tsunami warning that followed the 7.8 earthquake on 14 November 2016. Mr Geddes reported that the evacuation highlighted the need for better planning around temporary accommodation and the updated plan will address this. He further advised that a rep from the Canterbury Regional Civil Defence Emergency Management Group will meet tomorrow with ADC and Timaru DC EMO’s and Comms Officers where there will be discussion on a cell phone ‘hazard app’ that Red Cross have produced.

5.4 Town Centre Working Group Minutes of the Town Centre Working Group meeting held on 9 December 2016 were received.

The meeting concluded at 12.30pm.


28

Committee Minutes

6.4 Service Delivery Committee [Unconfirmed Minutes] Minutes of the Service Delivery Committee meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2017, commencing at 1.06pm in the Council Chamber, 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton. Present Mayor Donna Favel; Councillors Stuart Wilson (Chair), Thelma Bell, Leen Braam, Neil Brown, Russell Ellis, Lynette Lovett, Mark Malcolm, Liz McMillan, Selwyn Price, Diane Rawlinson, Peter Reveley and Alasdair Urquhart.

In attendance Group Manager Service Delivery, Community Relations Manager and Committee Secretary.

Staff present for the duration of their reports: Library Manager, Museum Director, Sports Facilities Manager, Open Spaces Manager, Assets Manager, Operations & Projects Manager, Roading Manager and Waste Recovery Manager. 1 Apologies

Nil. 2 Extraordinary Business

Nil. 3 Conflict of Interest

Nil. 4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Service Delivery Committee meeting held on 1 December 2016, be taken as read and confirmed. Ellis/Urquhart Carried

5 Forward Programme

March 9 --- public conveniences added. 6.1 Road Closure --- The Dubliner Mountain Thunder Motorcycle Street Race

That the following streets in the Methven CBD be closed to ordinary vehicular traffic from 6.00am to 6.00pm on Saturday, 15 April 2017 (Easter Saturday) to allow the Methven Lions Club to hold The Dubliner Mountain Thunder Motorcycle Street Race:

Methven Chertsey Road, from Main Street to Mackie Street Mackie Street, from Methven Chertsey Road to Barkers Road Barkers Street, from Main Street to Hall Street Hall Street, from Barkers Road to Main Street State Highway 77 (Main Street), from Lampard Street to Bank Street Kilworth Street, from Main Street to Mackie Street Forest Drive, from McMillan Street to Main Street.

McMillan/Reveley Carried 7 Activity Reports That the reports be received.

Brown/Price Carried


29

7.2 Museum A report will be provided to Council on 23 February with a proposal for the use of the vacant café space.

The Museum Director responded to questions about the Museum’s retail space, after concern was expressed this area detracts from the overall appearance of the main entrance. The Committee heard that the facility’s resource consent allows for retail space on the ground floor and egress requirements prevent it from being moved to one side. It was further noted that the retail area is generating revenue, contributing to the Museum’s goal of funding extending its opening hours.

7.3 EA Networks Centre The Sports Facilities Manager reported that temperatures in the pool area have exceeded 30deg on approximately six days this summer. The pool remained open with staff activating health and safety procedures for lifeguards. The Sports House is operating well and regular meetings are held with the occupiers. There is one vacant space remaining.

7.4.2 Public conveniences The public conveniences activity management plan is nearing completion. The Open Spaces Manager reported that data being collected shows that 2,100 people per day, on average, are visiting the facilities at the Ashburton Domain, East St, Rakaia, Methven, Mayfield and Hinds. Officers were asked to investigate purchasing portaloos that could be placed on outlying reserve areas to replace outdated facilities.

7.4.3 Biodiversity It was reported that the invertebrate survey carried out at Wakanui Beach had found three rare butterflies and a moth that’s possibly a new species. The survey assessment will be fully reported at the Committee meeting in March.

7.6 Solid Waste The Waste Recovery Manager was asked to report back on the reason for the third day of closure at the resource recovery park over both the Christmas and New Year periods.

7.10.2 Electric vehicle charging stations The Roading Manager reported that the final siting of the Ashburton charging station is yet to be confirmed but it won’t be located in the West Street parking bay opposite McDonalds as originally proposed. Camera surveillance will be installed by EA Networks at each of the charging sites in Ashburton, Rakaia and Methven. While the company has been advised that cameras are not to be located on Council buildings or poles, the Roading Manager agreed to discuss with them the possibility of shared access to the data.

7.11.1 Seal widening Seal widening of Ealing Montalto Road is yet to commence. The Roading Manager reported that three options are being considered by management. Work is to commence in February/March.

7.16 Methven Community Board

• Welcome to Methven signs beautification That the Board requests that planting and flax removal work is done at both of the Welcome to Methven

signs in advance of the Community Boards Conference taking place on 12/13 May 2017.

McMillan/Reveley Carried • Mt Hutt Memorial Hall & Heritage Centre --- Bus Bay

The Roading Manager advised that the request is of Council and not NZTA. A dedicated bus parking space won’t be provided, however Council officers have investigated and agreed that a loading zone will be installed for buses to park and load / unload passengers. The loading zone will be adjacent to the Mt Hutt Hall & Heritage Centre on SH77 (Main Street, Methven).


30

• Methven Chertsey Road Footpath

Council officers have progressed this request and a budget has been placed in the 2017/18 Annual Plan for the footpath on Methven Chertsey Road (between Mackie St and Line Rd). The budget will be subject to Council approval.

The meeting concluded at 2.32pm.


31

Committee Minutes

6.5 Finance & Business Support Committee [Unconfirmed Minutes] Minutes of the Finance & Business Support Committee meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2017, commencing at 2.33pm in the Council Chamber, 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton.

Present Mayor Donna Favel; Councillors Neil Brown (Chair), Thelma Bell, Leen Braam, Russell Ellis, Lynette Lovett, Mark Malcolm, Liz McMillan, Selwyn Price, Diane Rawlinson, Peter Reveley, Alasdair Urquhart and Stuart Wilson.

In attendance Group Manager Business Support, Community Relations Manager and Committee Secretary. Staff in attendance for the duration of their reports: Commercial Manager, Finance Manager, Information Systems Manager.

1 Apologies Nil. 2 Notification of Extraordinary Business That pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the

following items be introduced as extraordinary business for discussion in-committee. • Eastfield Investments joint venture Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities • Council lease agreement Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

Mayor/Reveley Carried 3 Conflict of Interest

Nil. 4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Finance and Community Services Committee meeting held on 1 December 2016, be taken as read and confirmed.

Mayor/Lovett Carried

5 Forward Programme March 16 --- Elderly Persons Housing units, Gravel pit review March 1/2 Budget Workshop --- Sportsfields rentals (Domain & Argyle Park)

6.1 Ashburton Heritage Events Trust That Council approves the Ashburton Heritage Events Trust funds being distributed to the Advance

Ashburton Community Foundation. Braam/Malcolm Carried

6.2 Funding Rehabilitation and Closure of Curries Pit, Methven That Council approves a carryover budget of $100,000 for the rehabilitation works to be undertaken on

Curries Pit, Methven. Braam/McMillan Carried

6.3 Mt Somers Fire Station Extension That Council approves an increase in the budget of $28,000 for the Mt Somers fire station extension

with a total cost estimate of $149,000. Braam/Malcolm Carried A show of hands gave 9 for and 4 against the motion.


32

7 Activity Reports That the reports be received.

Brown/Mayor Carried

7.2 Community Relations • Economic Development Strategy

Market Economics will present the draft strategy to Council at a workshop on 6 April 2017. 7.3 Finance

• Rangitata Huts

It was reported that work has commenced on internal audits of memorial hall committees and reserve boards, as well as the Rangitata camping ground.

The Commercial Manager was asked for an update on the land purchased by the Rangitata Huts Society for the purpose of relocating huts threatened by coastal erosion. He advised that the Huts Society is yet to carry out the subdivision and would need to engage a surveyor to progress this.

That Council officers meet with the Rangitata Hut Holders Association to progress the subdivision.

Wilson/Malcolm Carried 7.3.2 • Financial Variance Report The November 2016 report was presented for discussion. December reports will be circulated to Councillors

this week and included on the 23 February Council agenda. The Finance Manager reported that the process now is for reports to go out on 24/25 of each month. - Capital expenditure and carry-overs

Some capital expenditure on the EDRMS and digitisation won’t be fully spent. If carry-overs are identified before the Annual Plan is finalised they will be included in the budget. Similarly, where officers are aware a budget isn’t going to be spent that will also be identified and reported.

- Forestry sales A report on the Riverbank View joint venture will be provided following its winding up.

- Investments A report will be provided on the Mania-o-Roto Scouts investment.

7.6 Audit & Risk Subcommittee

The Committee received the minutes of the Subcommittee meeting held on 29 November 2016. 7.7 Community Grants & Funding Subcommittee --- 15/12/16

• Biodiversity Grant Fund

The Subcommittee’s recommendation to fund travel and fuel expenses was not fully supported. Councillors opposing the motion agreed this approach could create inconsistency, noting that travel and fuel costs are not funded in any other category of grant. The Community Relations Manager advised that while officers had not advocated the change, a case was made by the Open Spaces Planner to assist volunteers who travel significant distances for some biodiversity projects (eg Maori Lakes).

That the biodiversity grant scheme 2017 criteria be amended to allow funding for fuel and travel expenses.

Lovett/Rawlinson Lost

A show of hands gave 5 for and 6 against and the motion failed to pass.


33

8 Business transacted with the public excluded (4.05pm) That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meetin4.g, namely --- the general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item no

General subject of each matter to be considered:

In accordance with Section 48(1) of the Act, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter:

8.1 Audit & Risk Subcommittee 29/11/16

Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

8.2 Ashburton Contracting Ltd Shareholder Reporting


8.3 Property Sales Update Section 7(2)(h) Commercial activities

8.4 Extraordinary Business --- Eastfields Joint Venture


8.5 Extraordinary Business --- Council lease agreement


Brown/Reveley Carried

The Committee concluded at 12.49pm.


34

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Museum Director Subject: Museum exhibition area --- use of vacant café space

6.6 Ashburton Museum --- Funding New Exhibition Area

6.6.1 Summary At the 7 July 2016 Service Delivery Committee meeting, Council made a decision to allocate use of the unused café area in the Heritage Centre for Museum activities. Ashburton Museum was endorsed to seek external funding for fit out costs.

A private benefactor, the Hank Murney Family Trust (the Trust) has offered to fund all expenses related to the complete fit out and scheduled maintenance of high quality wall, floor and ceiling finishes, and museum standard lighting.

In return, the Trust has requested a term of 20 years for naming rights with a right of renewal.

6.6.2 Recommendation

1 That Council accepts the offer from the Hank Murney Family Trust (the Trust) of full funding for the complete fit out and scheduled maintenance of the Museum’s new exhibition area; and

2 That the Trust be granted naming rights of the new exhibition area for a term of 20 years, with a right of renewal.

6.6.3 Background At the 7 July 2016 Service Delivery Committee meeting, the following resolution was passed:

Vacant Café Space for Museum Use Appendix 1 1 That Council allocates use of the café area for Museum activities. 2 That Council endorses Ashburton Museum to seek external funding for fit out costs. 3 That the fit out allows the future use of this space for a café if required. Totty/Nelson

The background to this resolution is that early planning for the building had designated this small area on the ground floor of the building for use as a café. Council made repeated attempts to secure a tenant for the space. Despite enquiries by reputable businesses, no formal interest was forthcoming. Feedback suggests that restrictive resource consent conditions may be a contributing factor in making a café business unviable.

The area remains unused and open to the elements. Significant investment is now required to bring the area up to a useable standard for any purpose.

Following Council’s decision to endorse the Museum to seek external funding for fit out costs, a variety of funding options were investigated and potential private and organisational funders approached. As a result of these efforts, the Hank Murney Family Trust has offered to fund all expenses related to the complete fit out and scheduled maintenance of the space for exhibition purposes.


35

The Trust will fund the installation and ongoing maintenance of high quality wall linings, floor and ceiling finishes, replacement glazing, fire system compliance, and museum standard lighting.

The Trust’s intent is that the new Museum exhibition area be a community space suited to in-house and touring exhibitions that reflect the diversity of the Ashburton district, provide leisure and learning opportunities for the community, and help put Ashburton on the map by showcasing our District. Potential exhibitions are shown in Appendix 2. This matches the Museum’s objectives under the Ashburton District Long Term Plan 2015-25, ‘to enable our residents and visitors to enjoy social, cultural and heritage experiences which enrich the character and vibrancy of our community and showcase our unique identity.’

The project will also deliver positive benefit through increased visitation and learning resulting from enhanced exhibitions and public programmes.

In return, the Trust has requested a term of 20 years for naming rights, with a right of renewal. Based on this offer a formal agreement would be drawn up by the Commercial Manager, which will include provision for future use of the space for a café if required, with a pro rata payment returned to the Trust.

Resource Consent Implications Resource consent implications have been discussed with the Group Manager, Environmental Services who has advised the following:

‘‘Resource consent was granted for this facility in 2011, subject to a number of conditions. The first condition requires that the facility be established, operated and maintained in accordance with the plans and particulars set out in the application. The application proposed a 58m² café on the ground floor. The current proposal is to use this area for museum exhibitions instead.

A condition requiring general compliance with the plans and details set out in an application is widely used in resource consent decisions. It holds an applicant to undertakings given in the application and removes the need to repeat every detail in the decision. If a consent holder wishes to depart from what was approved, an application to vary the consent would usually be required. If the change was significant, a fresh application may be required.

In this case the proposal is to revert a small ancillary area to the core use of the facility. That is, to use this area as exhibition space instead of a café. This is an inconsequential change which does not require a variation to the consent. The area will be used in accordance with the consented purpose of the facility, and from a Resource Management Act perspective there will be no adverse effects arising from the change of use.’’

6.6.4 Options and Risks Considered Options: 1 Status Quo. Ashburton Museum continues to seek external funding for fit out costs.

2 Council accepts the Trust’s offer of a 20 year term with right of renewal for naming rights of the new museum exhibition area.

Risks: The risks are considered to be negligible as the proposal matches the Museum’s objectives under Council’s Long Term Plan. These conditions are favourable and Council is unlikely to receive a better, unencumbered offer, given the generous sum outlaid and commitment to this community project. It is recommended that Option 2 be accepted.


36

6.6.5 Statutory Implications

The proposal complies with Council’s statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 2002, Section 11A, Core services to be considered in performing role to ‘have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities … (e) libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and community amenities.’

6.6.6 Significance and Engagement

This recommendation is not regarded as significant under Council’s significance and engagement policy.

6.6.7 Financial Implications

The financial implications are negligible as funds are sourced externally. Some staff time will be required. There is a significant positive benefit anticipated due to increased visitation and service delivery.

Prepared By:

TANYA ROBINSON Museum Director

Approved By:

NEIL McCANN Group Manager Service Delivery

ATTACHMENTS: pg 38-45 Appendix 1 Previous reports (26/11/15 & 7/07/16) Appendix 2 Potential exhibitions


37

e.

Description A unique WW1 commemorative exhibition that tackles the story of wartime rugby.

In popular memory, rugby players during the Great War were heroes, athletes turned soldiers, making noble sacrifices for the ‘greater game’ of war as they traded the cheers of spectators for the roar of artillery fire.

This interactive, multimedia-based exhibition explores the impact that the harsh reality of war had on colonial sportsmen (and their loved ones) as they were transplanted from the rugby fields of home overseas to fight for the ‘mother country’.

Follow their journey from rugby field to battlefield and back again...

Local content Exhibition includes two Ashburton Rugby players and can be adapted to include local content and signage.

Available During the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele, 1917

Developed and toured by the New Zealand Rugby Museum

38

Description Hand Grown is an interactive, colourful, bilingual and fun exhibition that aims to inspire the younger audiences and families to get excited about growing fruit and vegetables. The key focus is the fruit and vegetable patch filled with knitted vegetables and fruit which sits within a back yard garden setting. Children can pick their own knitted vegetables and fruit and put them back on to the plants or pull them from the ‘ground’ and explore the garden tool shed. Parents can relax on the outdoor furniture or join in with the fun. All vegetables and fruit have been created by members of the Waikato Museum staff and their whanau. Te Reo Maori | English All graphic and text panels will tour and all text is in Te Reo Maori as well as English

Interactives An AV section will show a warm bright day change to overcast and rain. Day will turn into night. Sounds of a back yard garden will be heard in the distance; bees buzzing, birds, etc Audio and projector equipment can be supplied if required. Public Programmes Vegetable spares can be created by the venues. Potential for public programmes that include knitting circles, craft days, te reo, garden events, composting sessions, etc.

Developed and toured by Waikato Museum | Te Whare Taonga o Waikato

39

SOUNDS LIKE US

Description Based on a Radio New Zealand print and television campaign focusing on iconic and traditional New Zealand images. With some Kiwiana twists these images were developed into ten classic and quirky model radios created by the very talented team at WETA Workshop. A further five radios were created from winning designs from a radio design competition. The touring exhibition From a campaign concept and radio competition Radio New Zealand now have an assortment of fantastical radio creations they want everyone to enjoy. Exhibition content Information panels tell the story of radio in New Zealand. There are two audio stations with 100 audio clips from the Sound Archives Ngā Taonga Kōrero collection. Sounds Like Us is a fun and informative exhibition that will produce a chuckle or two as you recognise a slice of Kiwi life, imagined through these clever and extraordinarily detailed models. Kiwi content – about Radio New Zealand Radio New Zealand is our public radio broadcaster, with a primary purpose of reflecting New Zealand and supporting our cultures. Content includes Maori, Pacifica, rural, and iconic references that all will recognise and enjoy. The Sounds Like Us exhibition uses model radios to literally show this - demonstrating what it can mean to be a Kiwi.

Developed and toured by Radio New Zealand National Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa

40

http://www.wetanz.com/kiwiana-weta-style-how-to-make-radio-a-visual-medium/

http://www.soundarchives.co.nz/

Service Delivery Committee 7 July 2015

[Copy of report to Service Delivery Committee 7/07/16]

Date: 7 July 2016 Report to: Service Delivery Committee From: Museum Manager

Subject: Use of vacant café space

Vacant Café Space for Museum Use

1 Summary Ashburton Museum’s ability to showcase its collection and to engage new and repeat audiences is

limited, as exhibition areas are restricted to a mix of semi-permanent fixed exhibition, and a very small

area for changeover exhibition (under 12m2).

This presents risks and challenges that impact visitor satisfaction, community engagement and

community representation, and limit potential revenue opportunities.

The unfinished café area adjacent to the Museum presents an ideal solution. Under Museum management, a professional fit out would allow the space to be used for a varied programme of

exhibitions and events. It will enable the Museum to deliver the level of service expected of a

contemporary museum at the heart of its community.

2 Recommendation

1 That Council allocates use of the café area for Museum activities.

2 That Council endorses Ashburton Museum to seek external funding for fit out costs.

NB The Committee resolved

That Council allocates use of the café area for Museum activities. That Council endorses Ashburton Museum to seek external funding for fit out costs. That the fitout allows the future use of this space for a café, if required.

3 Background Ashburton Museum is the leading heritage and culture destination for the Ashburton District, and for

visitors to the region. It is also home to one of the largest museum collections in the South Island, ranked in the top 5 for significance and size.

We aim to provide a diverse programme of entertaining and educational exhibitions, events and activities that have high community relevance and engagement. Satisfaction and repeat visitation are

measures that demonstrate this success.

Planning for Ashburton Museum was undertaken within expectations that fulfilled the needs and interests of the museum when located at Baring Square. Contemporary museums have changed rapidly over the past decade. Museums are increasingly outward-looking community facilities where

people come together to share, experience and enjoy heritage and leisure activities that reflect their

interests and identity, and they actively contribute to community wellbeing.

The Museum’s collections are extensive. Significant investment has ensured quality storage and preparation areas, and a well-designed fixed long-term exhibition area that gives a small glimpse of the collection. Little attention was paid to providing adequate space for a changeover and travelling

exhibition programme, such as is standard practice in museums elsewhere.

The original design of the building included a small designated café area located at the West Street

road frontage. Today, this space is unfinished, unused and sits vacant.

41

Service Delivery Committee 7 July 2015

A programme to seek tenders has gained no interest from commercial café operators, and recent informal interest from a reputable provider did not proceed, likely due to constraining resource

consent conditions that make use of the space for a café operation unviable.

Resource consent conditions will not affect proposed use for museum exhibitions, as the consent

allows this area to revert to Museum use.

Considerable community investment has helped build an exceptional Museum. Developing the unused

café area for museum exhibitions will complete the building project. It will deliver a contemporary,

outward-looking facility that is worthy of its collection, and returns value to the community through an

active, diverse, and contemporary exhibition programme.

4 Options and Risks Considered The mix of fixed exhibition area and cramped changeover space presents the following risks and

challenges:

1. A perception that little changes in the museum, so there is no reason for repeat visitation.

2. An inability to maximise the number of items that can be exhibited over a period of time through industry standard changeover exhibitions.

3. Lost opportunities to present in-coming travelling exhibitions that offer quality visitor experiences

of high local and national interest.

4. Inadequate space for representative or co-curated community exhibitions.

5. Limited means to develop and present exhibitions that have high community relevance, reflect local identity, or generate ‘blockbuster’ visitor interest.

6. No opportunity to host special fee-paying exhibitions, which limits revenue potential through door

sales and branded exhibition merchandise.

Option 1. To leave the café area in an unfinished condition.

This will mean that exhibitions remain in fixed and cramped conditions.

Option 2. To allocate use of the unused café area for museum activities.

This will address the risks and challenges listed above; and return value to the community

through an active, diverse, and contemporary exhibition programme

It is recommended to proceed with Option 2.

5 Statutory Implications Not applicable.

6 Significance and Engagement

This matter is not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Approval of the recommendations contained in this report is consistent with outcomes and strategic

objectives outlined in the LTP.

Outcome 3: An enjoyable place to live

Strategic Objective: Our community has access to a range of cultural and heritage facilities and

activities.

7 Financial Implications

The financial implications are negligible as external funding will be sought for fit-out. Exhibitions will

be funded from current allocation.

PREPARED BY

TANYA ROBINSON

Museum Director

APPROVED BY

NEIL McCANN

Group Manager Service Delivery

42

Council 26 November 2015

[Copy of report to Council 26/11/15]

Date: 26 November 2015 Report to: Council From: Group Manager Business Support

Subject: Art Gallery Cafe

Art Gallery and Heritage Centre Café Space

1 Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise the Council on the designated café space within the Art Gallery and Heritage Centre.

2 Recommendation

That use of the café space for art gallery or heritage purposes be explored, and that a final decision regarding its use be delegated to the Commercial Property Manager.

NB Council resolved That use of the café space for art gallery or heritage purposes be explored and reported back to Council.

3 Background

The consents granted for the Ashburton Art Gallery and Heritage Centre included a 58m2 space for a café. Requests for proposals to set up and operate a café have been publicly notified on two occasions, however no proposals have been received. The lack of interest is likely to be due to the facility’s resource consent conditions.

As there is no apparent interest in operating a café, it is recommended that alternative use of the

space be explored instead. The building houses two tenants and Council’s museum operation. The Council would have the first right of use of this area, either on a part time or full time basis. If Council does not require the space for its museum operation it could be offered to the tenants

of the building, being the Art Gallery or the Family History Group, again on a full/part time basis. As a matter of courtesy, the final use of this space would be communicated to the building’s tenants.

The use of the space will be dictated to some extent by the fact that the area is not finished. The final work in making this café ready was removed from the contract in order to reduce costs.

There is exposed plumbing, no ceiling, and part of the internal wall is unlined.

Unless Council is willing to commit to additional expenditure, the area’s future use may be compromised by the current stage of fit out.

4 Options and Risks Considered

Council could continue in its effort to get a café operator interested but indications are that there is little interest. Council could operate a café itself, but has no experience in managing a café

operation and under the current consent conditions, there is little prospect that this would be financially successful without rates subsiding the operation.

Council could investigate the possibility of vending machines (hot and cold drinks and snacks). Council would need to purchase tables and chairs to allow visitors to consume the food and drinks

in this area. Such expenditure would be unbudgeted.

43


5 Statutory Implications

The resource consent for the Art Gallery and Heritage Centre was granted subject to conditions. The first condition was that it be established, operated and maintained in accordance with the plans and particulars submitted in the application. The proposed café was described in the

application as a 58m2 area on the ground floor. The café and reception area (20m2) would be the only retail space in the facility.

The proposed café was intended to complement the primary activities of the facility. If no café is established, the consent holder is entitled to revert back to the primary activities of the facility and

use the space for art gallery or heritage purposes.

6 Significance and Engagement

This matter is not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement

Policy.

7 Financial Implications

There will be no commercial return from the vacant area. The 2015/25 Long Term Plan did not

include any income from a café operation.

PREPARED BY

PAUL BRAKE

Group Manager Business Support

APPROVED BY

ANDREW DALZIEL

Chief Executive

44


45

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Group Manager Business Support Subject: Administration & Library Facilities Feasibility Study --- Preferred Site

6.7 Administration and Library Facilities Feasibility Study --- Preferred Site

6.7.1 Summary This report recommends the preferred site for the new Administration and Library facilities and follows on from the Council workshop held on 26 January 2017, and the material supplied for that workshop. It follows extensive independent investigation and consultation into the site options and the recommendation is based on this work.

To date Council has been spent over $250,000 of the approved budget gathering independent expert advice from Council’s chosen consultant on all the Council confirmed site options. The process has been transparent and rigorous with an independent organisation overseeing the process and ensuring the information is complete and reliable, and forms a sound basis on which Council is able to make its decision.

There has been extensive consultation and one site has been identified as being the site that best meets the Council’s requirements for both now and into the future based on the Council approved site criteria. That site is the old County Council/Methodist Church site adjacent to Baring Square East. A co-located Administration and Library facility located on this site best meets Council’s defined outcomes and success factor site criteria requirements. This will be the most cost efficient and effective solution to deliver these services now and for the future in accordance with s10 of the Local Government Act.

This site offers the greatest flexibility with the ability to minimise the risks that impact on the other sites. The ability to purchase additional land will future proof this site.


1 That Council confirms the Baring Square East (old County Council building and Methodist Church) site as the preferred site to build a new Administration and Library building, subject to agreeing appropriate commercial terms.

2 That Council enters into negotiations with both the adjoining land owners to purchase additional land, being the site immediately to the rear of the current County building and two of the three Methodist Church lots (excluding the actual Church).

6.7.3 Background In 2002 Council recognised that the current Administration building had significant deficiencies and requested that a space assessment be prepared. A budget provision of $1.3 million was included in the 2006/16 Community Plan spread over the 2006-2009 years.


46

The work was delayed and Council increased the budget to $5.4 million for this project in year 6 (2014/15) of the 2009/19 Long Term Plan. This project was then included in the subsequent 2012/22 Long Term plan with a budget of $6 million in years 7 and 8 (2017/18 and 2018/19).

In 2013/14 the Council requested that the space assessment be updated and that the library be included in that space assessment on the basis that the administration and library activities be in the one building /site. The library’s inclusion was a result of the 2011 earthquakes and the ongoing maintenance issues associated with the current library facilities. The space assessment totaled 3,873m2 and this was externally peer reviewed by Arcus who confirmed this to be reliable, although they did identify possible space savings of 6%. All additional work and costings were based on the original space estimate.

The Canterbury earthquakes resulted in earthquake assessments being undertaken on Council’s Administration building, Library and the old County building with the following results.

• Administration Building is rated at 24% of the New Building Standard (if the Civil Defence headquarters is included which requires the building to be IL4) and 34% if the Civil Defence headquarters is no longer included in the building (IL3).

• The Library was assessed at 20% and temporary repairs and strengthening was undertaken to bring this up to 34% (IL3).

• The old County building was rated at 40% (IL3).

This information reinforced Council’s view that the Library facility needed urgent review in addition to the Administration building.

As well as earthquake risks, both buildings have been identified as having significant problems including:

• Requiring significant renewals expenditure • Having end of life plant • Having an inflexible use due to poor structural layout • Insufficient space • Inefficient energy use • Inability to undertake minor changes without triggering significant building consent

issues.

In summary the buildings are no longer fit for Council’s purposes.

In 2015 Council decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study on the options regarding these two facilities. In 2016 Council appointed Morrison Low and Associates to act as advisors to this project. Morrison Low and Associates had previously undertaken a review of the Art Gallery and Heritage Centre project and had identified several deficiencies in the way that project had been managed. They had recommended that one of the key requirements was the need to undertake a feasibility study at an early stage and Council accepted this advice.

Morrison Low and Associates brief included: • Assisting in the preparation of the Tender strategy document and Request for Proposal • Tender management • Tender evaluation and reports • Ongoing independent review to provide quality and process assurance.


47

A Project Control Group was established and a request for proposal was prepared and issued on 12 October 2015. The request for proposal was evaluated by the Project Control Group with the following weightings:

Relevant experience 25% Technical skills 20% Management skills 10% Methodology 30% Price 15%

Ten proposals were received with a price range of $70,000 to $256,000. The Project Control Group (made up of the Mayor, Cr Reveley, Cr Ellis, Cr Brown, Chief Executive, Group Manager Business Support, Commercial Manager and Ewen Skinner from Morrison Low and Associates) recommended that Opus Architecture be contracted to undertake the feasibility study and this was confirmed by Council. Opus Architecture demonstrated that they were able to provide expertise in all the areas required to be addressed in the brief, including advice from other experts outside Opus Architecture.

Phase one of the project involved Opus Architecture gathering information and the selection of the long list site options (informed by previous Council analysis). These options were subsequently used to develop the short list of options.

Opus Architecture developed a consultation plan that was approved by Council. The first consultation undertaken was to gather information and this commenced in March 2016. This involved media releases, two drop-in sessions, a dedicated website, leaflets and an online survey. Opus Architecture received 136 responses.

Specific questions were around: • Use of the facilities • Combined or separate facilities • Required features • Proximity and access • Any other general comments

The key themes coming from the consultation were; • An increasing use of the Library • Declining visitor numbers to the Administration building • A preference for a combined facility with the expectation of capital and operating cost

savings • Proximity to the Ashburton town central business area • Ease of access • ‘Welcoming’ building desired, achieving value for money • Public car parking needs identified as important.

A long list of site options had been identified by Council being: 1. Extension to existing Administration building to accommodate both Administration and

Library 2. New building on either existing Library or Administration building site 3. New combined building in the Eastfield development 4. New Library building at Ashburton College on Walnut Ave, Admin building located

elsewhere 5. New combined building at Ashburton Business Estate (north of the town) 6. Rebuild both Administration and Library buildings on their respective sites 7. Stay on existing sites and do minimum upgrade


48

8. Stay on existing sites and expand existing Administration building 9. Upgrade Library building, extend Administration building 10. Strengthen Library building, extend Administration building 11. New combined building on corner of Cass and Cameron Streets 12. Strengthen Administration building and erect new Library on Ministry of Education Land

(site owned by the Ministry of Education) 13. Build new Library and Administration building on an alternative site (not owned by ADC).

A new option was added --- build on the Methodist Church / County building site. This was a result of feedback from the public consultation as this option had not been part of the original options identified by Council. It was also in response to work undertaken by the Church which identified significant expenditure was required to address serious earthquake risks associated with the Church building.

Following the initial consultation Opus Architecture undertook a needs analysis which involved: • Demographic profile

• The Council’s policy and plans including the 2015 LTP, and the Boffa Miskell Ashburton Town Centre Concept Plan

• A high level review of the current facilities • Best practice literature review • The results of the stage one consultation • Development of a site evaluation matrix • Specialist high level technical assessments of the long list options including:

Planning considerations Possible site contamination risks Traffic impact assessments Archeology assessments Landscape and visual amenity considerations Geotechnical Review Architectural comments and assessments.

The site evaluation matrix took account of the critical success factors and site evaluation criteria (see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to this report) which were developed by Opus Architecture and approved by Council. Each long site option was scored against criteria such as location, accessibility, planning aspects, potential cost impacts and the results of the high level technical work.

Opus Architecture ranked the long list sites to arrive at a short list of preferred sites, based on all the information and investigation done to that stage.

The short list options were: 1a New extension to the existing Administration building to accommodate the Administration

and Library on the current Administration site in Havelock Street

1b New Administration and Library facility on the current Administration site in Havelock Street (Demolition of the current Administration building)

2 New Administration and Library building constructed on the old Polytechnic site bounded by Cass and Cameron Streets (demolition of the current Polytechnic and Balmoral Hall buildings).


49

3a New Administration and Library building constructed on the Methodist Church and old County Building site at Baring Square East (demolition of the Methodist Church, retention of the old County building).

3b New Administration and Library building constructed on the Methodist Church and old County Building site at Baring Square East (demolition of the Methodist Church and the old County building).

4 New Administration and Library building constructed on part of the Eastfield Development site.

Opus Architecture undertook:

o Condition and structural assessments on existing buildings o Cost estimate comparisons for strengthening, upgrading and modifying existing buildings

to 100% of the NBS o Comparison of those costs to a new build o Estimate of property valuations o Comprehensive costings including relocation and ancillary costs.

Using the Council agreed evaluation criteria these sites were ranked and the preferred site option was 3b.

Opus Architecture prepared a further consultation document (Appendix 3), and this information included for each site the evaluation criteria the site met, those it did not and the estimated capital build cost for each respective site. A bulk location form was provided to give an indication on how the building would fit on each site option. The Opus Architecture ranking is summarised below.


50

Stage 2 of the consultation commenced on 10 August 2016 and ran until 19 September 2016. This consultation focussed on the short list options and their evaluation criteria and results. The consultation included media coverage, website with FAQs, billboards and posters, and use of a touchscreen. Feedback was per the touchscreen, questionnaires and online survey.

Opus Architecture received 444 on line surveys, 77 touchscreen surveys and 238 paper questionnaires, a total response of 759. Like the Stage 1 consultation, this was a low participation rate which represented 2.3% of the District’s population.

270 favoured the Eastfield site, 203 favoured the current site and 103 favoured option 3b (the Opus Architecture favoured site --- Baring Square East Methodist Church and old County building site)

A requirement of the Opus Architecture brief was to evaluate all the information and feedback from the public consultation and make a final site recommendation to Council. Their final recommendation strongly recommended option 3 b as still the most favoured site. Based on their work, and the criteria and success factors agreed to by Council, this was the site that had the most potential , best met the Council’s requirements, had most flexibility in building solutions and the most benefits in the long term for Ashburton and the community. Opus Architecture’s brief has been completed with the final report and recommendation having been received. This means that Council has completed Phase 1 of the project per the agreed project plan (see Attachment 5)

6.7.4 Options and Risks Considered Risks A number of critical issues and risks were identified as a result of the Opus Architecture work.

These were: o Parking o Civil Defence and Emergency Management, and access to the building o Building refurbishment o Property sales o Future proofing

Parking An investigation into parking requirements show that up to 90 staff drive cars to work, and that together with Council’s own fleet, Councillor parking and public car parking, up to 140 cars may be present at a peak period. All sites do allow for some car parking (up to 60 on site car parks) other than the Eastfield option which can provide parking at an annual cost. Eastfield’s have advised that this cost (15 car parks at $15-20 each per week and an additional 45 at $30 each per week) would be $86,000 each year. This additional annual cost was not factored into the Opus Architecture work, and represents a significant cost over the life of a building operating from this site.

The parking needs over and above the 60 on site car parks can be mitigated to a certain extent for all sites. The old Polytechnic site could be used for additional car parking if the preferred site was Eastfields or the Baring Square East site. If the old Polytechnic site was the preferred site then the old County building site could be used for additional car parking. A cleared existing Library site could be used for car parking for the current Administration site option, although this is a very valuable piece of land to utilise as a car park. The extra costs of garaging vehicles, if required, is not included in any of the cost estimates.


51

These parking options will come at a cost in that the additional sites used for parking will not be able to be sold and will therefore increase the Council’s net project cost and reduce the Council’s flexibility around these sites in the future.

It should be noted that there is no requirement to provide off street car parking in the Business A zone but the consultation has clearly identified some community concern around car parking, especially Library car parking that is currently nonexistent. Civil Defence and Emergency Management As well as providing part of the build to an IL4 standard to house Council’s Civil Defence headquarters, consideration needs to be given to ensure that the new Civil Defence headquarters can actually be accessed during an emergency. This means that the immediate surroundings of the building need to be considered. Most of the site options should be able to provide access in an emergency. Building Refurbishment The option to bring an old building up to 100% of a new build carries significant risks that are difficult to mitigate. Whilst a new build can generally be costed with some accuracy, costing strengthening and refurbishment of an existing building is extremely difficult. It is not until the work is well underway before all the actual conditions can be established, i.e. ground and foundations, internal concrete strength etc.

Opus Architecture have significant experience with these issues during the rebuild of Christchurch since the earthquakes. They have indicated that a design life for an upgraded building will be less than that of a new building. Seismic strengthening below 100% of the new building code could see further damage and cost in another seismic event. Their experience is that bringing an existing building up to 100% of the code is almost always significantly more expensive than a new building and that often the inherent operational inefficiencies of the building remain even after the work has been done. Opus Architecture have estimated that bringing the old County building up to 100% of the new building code would cost at least $1 million more than demolition of the existing building and a new build.

The decision is not just to consider the minimum national building standards but is also on the appropriate performance required from the buildings to maintain continuity of service as well as the financial investment being made. There is a significant risk that an upgraded building will not have the same ability to withstand an earthquake event and will need to be demolished and rebuilt at substantial cost and disruption to Council following an earthquake.

It is not recommended that Council refurbish or strengthen any of the existing buildings due to the significant risks, additional costs and acknowledging the fact that all these building and plant have reached, or are reaching, the end of their useful life without extensive investment. Property Sales The various site options have raised the fact that once the decision is made the future of the Council owned alternative sites will need to be considered. Opus have estimated the value of the Council sites so that Council can offset the project costs against possible sales of the surplus sites. Council requested a valuation from Telfer Young to test whether the Opus Architecture figures were reasonable. The independent valuation had a wide range varying between $1.75 - $3.9 million depending on the use and type of sale. The wide range indicated the difficulty in valuing a building in the current condition and earthquake rating, and whether a purchaser is able to use the buildings as they are currently.


52

The Opus Architecture valuation is within this range albeit the top of the range. This gives some assurance the valuations may be reasonable. Future Proofing No site option is a greenfields site and all present challenges in ensuring some future proofing is built into the facilities. The space assessment allowed for some growth and having the two facilities in the one building on the one site does increase the flexibility of future use. Option for Separate Sites The option for relocating the Library and Administration building onto two separate sites was identified at the initial consultant stage. Consultation feedback indicated a preference for a combined facility with 48% believing the facilities should be combined (almost half due to cost savings). A further 16% expressed their preference for a combined facility if cost savings could be demonstrated or a suitable design could be achieved. Separate sites was an option favoured by 26%. Opus Architecture confirmed a one site option was the preferred approach for a number of reasons as follows:

A memo sent out to Councillors on 31/1/17 (Appendix 4) detailed the benefits of a combined site over separate sites, which are further detailed below:

• Cost savings in the order of 10-15% which would equate to an additional $3 million. • Reduced operational costs over the life of the building including staffing, utilities,

maintenance etc. • Better accessibility for the community in the co-location of facilities. • Create a greater numbers of users, and therefore maximising optimal usage, which will

flow through into economic revitalisation of the immediate surrounding areas. It is estimated that a combined facility will attract visitors of around 200,000 per annum, excluding any outside visitors/tourists using the i-Site (if incorporated in the development). These foot traffic numbers will promote private commercial enterprises to develop adjacent to the development and within the CBD area.

• Flexibility to better use the facility as part of Civil Defence Emergency Response Centre in a natural disaster.

• Greater opportunities for accommodating community events, farmers markets, festivals, performances, celebrations etc.

A combined facility not only offers significant flexibility and benefits, but also is the most cost effective option. The single site option was confirmed by Council as the basis for the Stage 2 work. CBD Revitalisation and Economic Benefits A key critical success factor was the location of the new building to act as a catalyst to provide CBD revitalization and flow-on economic benefits to the CBD area. Opus Architecture used the Ashburton Town Centre Concept Plan as well as their significant experience to inform this key issue. Post Opus Architecture Evaluation Developments Since Opus Architecture recommended option 3b (the Baring Square East --- Methodist Church and old County building site) Council has received further information from representatives of the Methodist Church. There was some feedback from the stage two consultation round expressing concern at the possible demolition of the Methodist Church. While it is not listed as a heritage building with Heritage New Zealand some submitters believed it was worth saving. There was some support for its retention in correspondence in the local media.


53

Subsequently a representative of the Methodist Church has advised that as their land is in three titles, they may wish to sell two titles (the car park and the hall) and retain the Church.

This would give the Church (and the community) the best chance of providing funds to save the Church which requires extensive earthquake strengthening. Opus Architecture have confirmed that the site would still be sufficient with only the purchase of the two titles and leaving the Church remaining on site.

In addition we have been advised by the property owner to the immediate rear of the site (Paul May Motors) that this business is winding down and there is the likelihood that this site may come on the market in the near future. This would increase the flexibility and future proofing of the recommended site and address all car parking issues.

The cost implication of buying the Paul May site would be partially offset by only acquiring the car park and hall from the Methodist Church. The original costings included the whole Methodist site being purchased and a provision for Church demolition costs.

If the Paul May site is purchased in addition to the two Church lots, then the advantages of the Baring Square East site become even greater than originally indicated. It is the only site that will meet the total parking needs on one site (including Council’s fleet vehicles), therefore ensuring there will therefore be no compromise in public car parking. In addition this option has the greatest flexibility in terms of size and orientation that clearly future-proofs the site should expansion be required in the future, something the other sites cannot offer. Given these developments, this site is the only site that will meet all of Council’s needs (as identified in Council’s critical success factors and site criteria).

Options Option 1 There has been substantial work, consultation and investigation into the options that have been identified and investigated. The costs have been substantial and the process has been rigorous and subject to independent expert overview from Morrison Low and Associates. Public consultation was undertaken and all feedback was considered. The recommended option was assessed again after consideration of that feedback.

The Opus Architecture preferred option remains the recommended option. This preferred option is to site the new Library and Administration building on the old County building and Church site adjacent to Baring Square East. This plan would involve the demolition of the existing County building which is only rated at 40% of the new building standard and would require substantial expenditure to bring it to 100% of the new building standards.

Without any unforeseen matters discovered during the rebuild, the estimate of an upgrade is $1 million more than a new build which would still result in a building with significant structural limitations in how space could be used.

This is the option that best meets Council’s requirements based on the criteria evaluation and critical success factors. In addition this option provided the best opportunity for the Community to see the retention of the Methodist Church albeit that any final decision on its future rest with the Church administration.

Opus Architecture have confirmed that the site is big enough with the Church remaining on site. If the additional land to the rear of the County site is purchased, this will provide the future-proofing and car parking solution that none of the other sites can provide. However, the site still remains the preferred site with only one or other of the land purchases going ahead. This option would be subject to agreeing satisfactory commercial terms for the land purchases. If these could not be agreed then Council would move to the next preferred option as identified within the Opus Architecture report, being the Eastfield’s option.


54

Option2 Council could select one of the lesser preferred Opus Architecture options. While the remaining options can be made to work they will not meet Council’s criteria as completely as the recommended site does and will all be deficient in both car parking and any ability to future proof the Council requirements for years to come. Option 3 Council has undertaken extensive planning and consultation since 2002 on this project. Retaining the current facilities will result in a falling level of service and increased maintenance costs. There are significant deferred repairs and maintenance issues that will need to be addressed in the near future.

A consent has been applied for renewing and extending the temporary life of the Library, but this will be a one-off five year extension only. Council will need to have alternative premises in place after that time to continue offering a library service.

The Administration building currently houses the Civil Defence headquarters. In the event of a Civil Defence declaration a response cannot be coordinated from the current Administration building. Alternative Civil Defence headquarters will need to be able to be found.

As a result the option to do nothing is not realistic. Council could decide not to proceed with the project as currently proposed and request more information to inform its final decision.

A further deferral or cancellation of this project would need to be consulted on with the public and given the investment in the work to date there is little evidence that this would be a wise option.

The significant work to date on this project has been comprehensive and if further information is required then the Councillors’ requirements as to what the scope of that additional work would be and which external specialists would undertake the work must be clearly articulated to expedite the work and minimise additional costs.


There are a number of statutory requirements to be considered. Local Government Act 2002 s10 --- The purpose of local government is:

a. to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

b. to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are------

a. efficient; and b. effective; and c. appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances

When making decisions Council must meet the needs of the current and future needs of the community. The building of a new Administration and Library facility is not just about providing what is need today, but ensuring as far as possible that it meets the future needs. The recommended site option has been demonstrated to provide the best option and flexibility to adapt to the future needs. The possibility of purchasing adjoining land will increase the ability to meet this requirement.


55

The costs are considered under financial implications, however the recommended site option and a new build (as opposed to a refurbishment) should ensure that the infrastructure is delivered in the most cost effective way and will meet the requirement that he infrastructure be efficient, effective and appropriate to present and future circumstances. s11A: Core services to be considered in performing role In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities: network infrastructure: public transport services: solid waste collection and disposal: the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards: libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and community amenities. Libraries are a service of Council. This project does and will address the particular regard Council needs to have around the contribution libraries make to the Community. s82 --- The principles of consultation This section states any consultation the local authority undertakes on any decision must follow these principles: Affected parties must: Have access to the information Be encouraged and given the opportunity to present their views appropriately Be given clear information about the purpose and scope of the consultation and decision Have access to a clear record of relevant decisions Have their views received by Council with an open mind

This will be considered under Significance and Engagement further on in this report. S39(a) A local authority should be a good employer Clause 36, Schedule 7 Local Authority and CEO must operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer A ‘‘good employer’ includes providing: Good and safe working conditions Recognition of the employment requirements of women Recognition of the employment requirements of persons with disabilities Council is required to provide good and safe working conditions. Although the current building meets the minimum of the code to be considered safe (34% of the new building standards), this is the minimum only. The requirement to provide safe working conditions is reinforced by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 which has penalties of up to five years imprisonment and fines of up to $600,000 for the CEO if the requirements are not met.

The current facilities do not meet the legislative requirements of women or persons with disabilities. Examples of this are a lack of facilities around breast feeding, and no disabled toilets on each floor. The new facilities will address these issues.


56

Building Act Implications The Building Act 2004 and Building code have requirements around Civil Defence and emergency response centres.

In the event of a Civil Defence emergency, the current administration building at Importance Level 4 is only rated at 24%NBS and if Council decides to continue to utilise the existing building it would need to be strengthened to a minimum of 34%NBS. (IL4 buildings include buildings that are essential to post-disaster recovery such as fire and police stations, hospitals and any other building intended to be used as command centres or emergency shelters).

In terms of the legislative framework, earthquake strengthening is considered the same as standard building work and all the same building control processes apply. Generally, strengthening work will be a specifically engineered design. It is the responsibility of the building owner or designer to prove that all the requirements of the Building Code are met. So if the current Administration building was to be strengthened, it would also need to be assessed for all of the other provisions of the Building Code clauses, such as means of escape for fire and accessibility. Therefore not only having to consider costs for strengthening but also costs for upgrading other aspects of the existing building. In most cases it is uneconomic to strengthen an older builder that has reached the end of its design life.

6.7.6 Significance and Engagement This is a significant project. Council has recognised this by undertaking extensive consultation on this project. The need for new facilities has been consulted on in Council’s Long Term Plans and Annual Plans since 2002.

The brief given to Opus Architecture was to undertake specific consultation to find out what the community believed were the important considerations and requirements of these new facilities, and once these were known, to undertake consultations on specific site options.

This consultation has been completed. All known information was included in the stage two consultation. While the response numbers were low, this does not detract from the fact that Council has well and truly met the statutory consultation requirements.


The financial implications of this project were included in the stage two consultation. Given the long term nature of this infrastructure the costs are similar for all sites. The gross capital costs range from an estimated $21.8 million for the Eastfield option to $19.5 million for an addition to the current Administration building. There are additional annual operating costs associated with the Eastfield option where 60 on site car parks will cost $86,000 per annum.

If all Council owned sites, other than the successful site, were sold then the net price will be in the range of $12.8 million (the preferred site) to $15 million (new build on the current ADC site). As discussed under risks there is some uncertainty around future sale prices of the Council sites, and whether Council even wishes to sell them. It would be sensible to not retain sites that were bought for a specific Council service delivery, especially given the need to undertake upgrades on them.

The 2015/25 Long Term Plan budgeted the total net costs as $16.032 million. This was shown as $900,000 in 15/16, $1,026,000 in 16/17 and $14,106,000 in 17/18. The Long Term Plan was prepared before the detailed Opus Architecture work was completed and therefore before any detailed cost estimated had been prepared. The Long Term Plan reflected this as capital expenditure but did refer to the fact that a leasing option may be considered if that was more beneficial to Council.


57

There was little negative public feedback to either the need to build new facilities or the indicated costs or rate impact.

As part of the feasibility study Morrison Low and Associates were requested to prepare a report on the benefits of own vs lease and whether Council’s 33% ownership in the Eastfield development had any effect on a decision to own v lease.

Their report was presented to the Finance and Business Support Committee on 8 September 2016, and recommended that the preferred option for Council is to own the new facilities, rather than lease them if Eastfields was the preferred site. This was the lowest cost option if Eastfield was the preferred site.

Morrison Low and Associates subsequently confirmed that the Council’s 33% ownership of the Eastfield Development did not change their recommendation.

The 2015/25 Long Term Plan indicated that the source of funding of the $16.032 net cost was from the property reserve and sales of property. The LTP land sales projections are being met and Council will have sufficient cash reserves. The interest costs used in the LTP were in a range of 5-6%. These costs are now likely to be 3.5%, which will reduce the annual interest costs (or forgone interest income) by up to $300,000. If Council decided to retain all existing sites then the additional interest cost of borrowing the difference between the calculated net cost and gross cost would be approximately $165,000 on interest per annum (20.6 million -$16 million at 3.5%), excluding loan repayments. Council is therefore not totally reliant on the estimated sale price to stay within the LTP interest costs for this project.

The project costs are estimates only. Actual costs will be known only at the tender stage. There is some flexibility around the total space assessment area, and that would be again reviewed at design and tender stage, and a possible reduction in build costs investigated if required.

The external costs of the process to date is $255,000.

Prepared By:

PAUL BRAKE Group Manager Business Support

Approved By:

ANDREW DALZIEL Chief Executive

ATTACHMENTS: pg 59-63 Appendix 1 Critical success factors Appendix 2 Site evaluation criteria Appendix 3 Opus Architecture Consultation (separate document) Appendix 4 Memo to Councillors 31/01/17 Appendix 5 Project Framework / Governance Steering Group


58

59

60

APPENDIX 4

Two sites v one site – Additional costs

The Council in 2013 requested that the space assessment be prepared on the basis that the library

and administration functions were in a combined building. The space assessment indicated that the

common space that can service the library and the Administration building was approximately

800m2. This common space included:

Entrance Lobby and Foyer

Public Reception Area

Reception Counters,

Public Toilets

Staff Toilets/showers

Interview Rooms and meeting rooms

Staff room/Kitchen

Combined storage areas

Combined Plant rooms

General Provision spaces

If the library and administration building are separated onto two sites then the above facilities will

need to be duplicated. Although this does not mean that each building would need 800m2 of the

above, it will be necessary to have duplication to a certain level as each building will need the same

facilities although they may in some cases be smaller. The gains from sharing these facilities is lost.

The estimated additional common areas of building on two sites is 400m2. Using an estimate cost of

$4,000 m2 would add $1.6 million to the capital cost. This is just the increase based on floor area.

Two building would involve additional external walls and there will be other additional costs, such as

the additional Council development costs on waste water as a result of the duplication of services.

Additional costs would be incurred in duplicated car parking, landscaping, security, building consent

costs and professional fees. Design costs, preparing tender documentation and project managing

two builds is likely to add costs and risks. There may be cost advantages in the tender price for one

larger build than two separate builds.

Two builds will reduce the chances of an efficient use of renewable energy and mean duplication of

plant and IS equipment, i.e. two air conditioning systems, two separate data hardware systems, two

emergency generators etc.

Utilising two sites reduces the revenue available from land sales.

Opus has indicated that the possible savings of one site over two could be in the range of 10-15% of

the total project build. On a gross cost of $20 million, this could be as high as $3 million.

Operational efficiencies

Having a combined facility allows Council flexibility in how it offers its services to the public. For

example the customer service area may be housed in the library area (in whole or in part) to allow

more flexible opening hours to the public. If this service is in a separate library facility on another

site this would mean that when customer service staff cannot deal with the enquiry, the public

would need to be directed to another site.

61

APPENDIX 4

There are likely to be operational savings in power (currently a total of $100,000 per annum for the

library and administration building), security, cleaning and staffing with an increased flexibility in

how staff are utilised within one large site rather than two. The cost of servicing two sites by

Council’s internal teams (i.e. IS and property etc.) would be higher with two sites. Maintenance

costs over the life of two buildings is likely to be higher than maintenance costs in one building (Due

to the level of duplication of plant and services).

Additional Consultation costs

If Council wished to reconsider the option of two sites then Council would need to undertake further

consultation. This consultation would need to identify the benefits of two sites as opposed to the

benefits one site would bring. The estimate for a further round of consultation (printing of

information to all residents, advertising, collating the information and analysis of the results would

cost an estimated $20,000 plus.

62

63

REPORT

Date: 23 January 2017 Report to: Council From: Commercial Manager Subject: Set aside part of Tinwald Domain as Camping Ground

6.8 Tinwald Domain --- Set Aside Part as Camping Ground

6.8.1 Summary The Reserves Act 1977 requires that where areas within a reserve are used for camping then the body administering the reserve must set apart that portion of the reserve for that purpose. Currently the Tinwald Domain Management plan does not set apart any area for camping. The adoption of the resolution contained within this report will formalise the setting apart of a portion of the Tinwald Domain as camping ground.


That Council, as administering authority acting under delegation from the Minister of Conservation, sets apart that part of the Tinwald Domain outlined in red in Appendix 3 to this report, as camping ground under Section 53(1)(h)(ii) of the Reserves Act 1977.

6.8.3 Background The Minister of Conservation, with the consent of the Minister of Lands, can set apart any Crown land as a reserve. Once this is undertaken then the land is governed by the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and administered by the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation can delegate some of the powers and functions of the Reserves Act to a number of differing bodies; these can be individuals, committees or local authorities. The result of this delegation is that the administering body can undertake actions under the Reserves Act without the need to consult with the Minister of Conservation.

Ashburton District Council is the administering body for the Tinwald Domain with the Domain being administered on behalf of the community by a Reserve Board. Council provides assistance to the Board, ie accounting, administration and property advisory services; insurance; funding for elections, advertising and general operational funding.

Tinwald Domain is divided into three parts --- two parts between Maronan and Frasers Road with the ex-Mt Somers-Tinwald railway line separating the main area from the Tinwald Golf Club, and the third portion of the reserve being on the northern side of Lagmhor Road.

Tinwald Reserve Board made a decision to relocate the present camping ground to the area as outlined in red in Appendix 3 to this report. This will allow for improved facilities to be provided including the construction of an accommodation lodge. To assist with the construction of this facility Ashburton District Council is providing a loan of up to $1million to compete the work. The relocation of the camping ground and other facilities within the Domain, were proposed as part of the Tinwald Reserve Development Plan.

Council 23 February 2017 64

The relocation of the camping ground has highlighted the need for the area to be used as camping to be clearly identified within the Domain.

Ashburton District Council adopted the Tinwald Domain Reserve Management Plan, including the Development Plan for the Domain, on 11 August 2011. Its development was concurrent with, but separate to, its review of the Ashburton District Plan, which was also publically notified in 2010.

The Council attempted to include the Development Plan within the new the District Plan, however this was rejected by the hearing Commissioner who made the decision on the subject at the Plan hearings stage.

Ashburton District Plan became operative on 25 August 2014, and shows the Domain as Open Space (Appendix 2), with an area to the east of the site ‘‘scheduled’’ for the activities associated with the Plains Historic Village. A map of the Scheduled Area, is attached as Appendix 4.

6.8.4 Options and Risks Considered

Ashburton District Council, as the administering authority is obliged to comply with the Reserves Act 1977 and set apart land within the Tinwald Domain which is intended to be used as a camping ground.


There are two principal acts which specify how reserves are managed --- the Reserves Act 1977 and the Resource Management Act 1991.

Reserves Act 1977 The Reserves Act was passed by Government in 1977; the Act contains provisions for acquisition, control, management, maintenance, development and use of public reserves within New Zealand. The Act is administered by the Department of Conservation, with the Minister of Conservation from time to time having the ability to delegate functions under the Reserves Act to the administering body. This means that for decisions under the Act which would normally require Ministerial consent this would not be necessary and these decisions could be undertaken by the administering authority, i.e. Ashburton District Council.

One such function is the preparation of management plans for reserves under the administering authority’s control. These plans detail what can take place on a reserve including the development. The Act also requires that areas within a reserve to be used as camping grounds are set aside for this purpose. The only reserves which are not required to have management plans are Local and Government purpose reserves.

A plan showing the Tinwald Domain is shown as Appendix 2.

All development within the Domain must be allowed for and meet the requirements of the management plan. Resource Management Act 1991 In April 2010, Ashburton District Council’s proposed District Plan was released for comment; when this was undertaken the Tinwald Reserve was proposed to have four different zonings applied to it based upon the zonings in the previous District Plan.

▪ The designation for the Maronan Road section of the Reserve including the Plains Railway area is proposed to be ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed District Plan for recreation purposes with an underlying zoning of Rural A.

▪ The Plains Railway area is proposed to be scheduled as a historic village with an underlying zoning of Rural A.


65

▪ The Tinwald Golf Club course is proposed to be scheduled as a private recreation facility with an underlying zoning of Open Space A.

▪ The northern part of the Reserve on Lagmhor Road is proposed to be zoned Open Space A.

This did not transpire and when the District Plan was adopted following public consultation and the release of the Council’s decisions, all of the Tinwald Domain was zoned Open Space A with a schedule developed over spaces identified for specific purposes on the Domain such as the golf course and Plains Historic Village.

Details regarding zoning and rules applying to each of the zones and areas are detailed in the Ashburton District Council’s District Plan. All development within the Domain must comply with The Resource Management Act 1991.


The Reserves Act requires that a public notification and submission process be undertaken for the preparation of reserve management plans. Councils notify the intention to produce a management plan, call for and consider submissions, then produce a management plan; these plans should continually be reviewed. This process aims to ensure that management of reserves is based on sound principles and that through the consultation process the needs of the public are clearly identified.

Management Plans for reserves can either be for a specific reserve or generic for a number of reserves within the district. Refer Appendix 1.

Development in the Tinwald Domain is to comply both with the requirements of the Resource Management Act and the Reserves Act, making development more complex than usual including the level of public consultation required under both Acts.

The proposal supports --- • Community Outcome --- a thriving and diverse local economy.

Council’s investments provide a return to the community and contribute to economic development.

• Ashburton District Plan (2014)

As the recommendation is simply formalising the area set aside for camping, there is no further consultation required.

6.8.7 Financial

There are no financial implications for the adoption of the resolution.

Prepared By:

COLIN WINDLEBORN Commercial Manager

Approved by:

PAUL BRAKE Group Manager --- Business Support

ATTACHMENTS: pg 67-70

Appendix 1 Reserve Management Plan preparation process Appendix 2 Plan of Tinwald Domain Appendix 3 District Planning map Appendix 4 Scheduled activities


66

Appendix One ---Reserve Management Plan Preparation Process


67

Appendix Two --- Plan Tinwald Domain


68

Appendix Three - District Planning Map

District Plan Zonings


69

Appendix Four --- Scheduled Activities

Hatched area is Scheduled Activities


70

REPORT File No: 12/15 Date: 14 February 2017 Report to: Council From: District Forester Subject: Sale of Carbon Credits

6.9 Sale of Carbon Credits

6.9.1 Summary Ashburton District Council has had 225 hectares of forest estate (15%) registered in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) earning carbon credits since 2008. Council also received credits for its pre-1990 forests (one off) allocation to compensate for possible deforestation. After initial sales of carbon credits in 2010 and 2011 the carbon markets dropped dramatically. Council has therefore not sold any carbon credits since this period. Over the last year the carbon price has recovered to point where the sale of carbon credits needs to be considered by Council.


That the Chief Executive be authorised to sell 92,000 carbon credits when the price is $18.00/unit or greater within six months of this resolution.

6.9.3 Background The New Zealand ETS ended up going from a peak of over $23/unit to less than $2/unit in 2013. The Council made the decision not to trade its carbon when the prices dropped. The use of cheap European ERUs and a virtual collapse of the NZ carbon market forced the government to make changes and maintain the viability of the NZ ETS. Eventually regulations were introduced which ended the use of ERUs and this led to a recovery in the price for NZUs. Further gains in the price were helped by the government removing the 2 for 1 subsidy for many of the emitters. This has seen the carbon price reach over $18/unit although the market did drop recently when Donald Trump was elected US President. Trump is less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change.

Ashburton District Council currently has 102,968 NZUs in its Emission Unit Register account current worth $1,817,385. Of these credits 85,500 were allocated for pre-1990 forests owned by the Council. This allocation is compensation for the liabilities that now accrue when you deforest pre-1990 forest land. Council has also earnt 39,388 credits from the Cavendish Farm Forest that has now been sold. For the remaining post 1989 forests registered in the ETS just under 9,500 NZUs have been accumulated since 2008. Some NZUs have been surrendered for the deforestation of reserve land.

6.9.4 Options and Risks Considered It would appear there is currently a good opportunity to sell carbon credits. How many are sold and when they are sold needs to be decided by considering the trend of carbon prices, future harvesting liabilities and how many credits will be available in the future. Council’s remaining post 1989 forests are accumulating 1500 units/year.


71

If all carbon credits earned in the future are banked, an additional 11,000 units will be required to cover the liabilities following harvesting. The price of carbon credits in 2026 and beyond is not certain. Currently the government has a buy option available to meet liabilities set at $25/NZU which effectively sets a maximum price.

Other potential use of carbon credits is to cover deforestation liabilities for reserve land that Council does not wish to replant; these are generally smaller uneconomic plantations. Council has used its carbon credits for this purpose in the past and there are potentially up to another 20 small plantations on reserve land that could be taken out of production. A recommendation is made that 92,000 credits are sold for a price of $18/unit or better. This will yield about $1,656,000 and leave enough units in the register to cover future post-1989 forest liabilities. There is a risk where the price rises and Council misses out on this additional revenue or the price could fall and the Council would miss out on selling units at the current price. How liabilities are met for post-1989 areas to be harvested in the future needs to be considered. Credits could be set aside for these liabilities; this is an option, especially considering the current low interest environment.


No statutory implications.

6.9.6 Significance and Engagement The buying and selling of carbon credits is an integral part of the forestry operation and the recommendation can be viewed as business as usual. As a result the recommendation is not considered significant and does not require consultation.

Outcome 1: A thriving and diverse local economy.

Strategic Objective: Council’s investments provide a return to the community and contribute to economic development.

6.9.8 Financial Implications Currently these credits are held in the NZ Emissions Trading Register (NZETR) and do not yield the Council any dividends. The Council could retain the units and speculate that they will rise in value and yield Council more money when they are sold. The recovery to date of the price for NZUs does though present an opportunity to realise the value held in these carbon credits.

The funds raised will be retained in the forestry reserve to cover a period when there is very little harvesting income scheduled while there are still some forestry maintenance costs to fund. These funds can also be used as part of Council’s general reserves.

PREPARED BY

TERRY O’NEILL District Forester

APPROVED BY

COLIN WINDLEBORN Commercial Manager

ATTACHMENTS: pg 73-76 Appendix 1 Introduction to Emissions Trading Scheme


72

INTRODUCTION TO THE

NEW ZEALAND

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME (ETS)

&

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL’S

INVOLVEMENT IN THE ETS

AND CARBON CREDIT TRADING

Report to: Prepared By:

Council Terry O’Neill (BForSc)

Ashburton District District Forester

14 February 2017

73

AN OVERVIEW OF FORESTRY IN THE

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

NEW ZEALAND’S EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a way of meeting our international obligations around climate

change. It puts a price on greenhouse gases to provide an incentive to reduce emissions and encourage landowners to

establish and manage forests in a way that increases carbon storage. The main unit of trade in the ETS is the New Zealand

Unit (NZU). One NZU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide. The Government issues NZUs for increases in carbon stock

in some forests, and these may be held or bought and sold within New Zealand. NZUs are held in the New Zealand

Emission Trading Register (NZETR). ETS participants must have a holding account in the NZETR for unit transfers.

Forest owners participate in the ETS in two ways: • Voluntarily – owners can apply to register their post-1989 forest land into the ETS to earn NZUs.

• Mandatorily – owners become participants when non-exempt pre-1990 forest land is deforested.

Generally, where forest land is established after 31 December 1989 on previously non-forest land, it is post-1989 forest

land. Where forest land was first established before 1 January 1990, it is pre-1990 forest land.

POST-1989 FOREST LAND PARTICIPATION Post-1989 forest land owners, or holders of a registered forestry right or lease, may voluntarily apply to register as an ETS

participant at any time. They are entitled to receive NZUs for increases in carbon stocks and must pay units for decreases.

Participants can only claim units for the period in which they are registered, and can register part or all of their Post-1989

forest land. They can also apply to add or remove forest land at any time.

Post-1989 forest land participants’ legal obligations include: • Account for the change in carbon stocks in the forest at least once every five years. • Pay units if there is a decrease in carbon stock, for example, due to harvesting or fire.

• Notify the Government if any part of their registered forest land is transferred to another party. • Repay units that have been issued for that forest land if it is withdrawn from the ETS.

PRE-1990 FOREST LAND PARTICIPATION

If pre-1990 forest land that has not received an exemption is deforested, the landowner (or a third party who has deforestation rights over the forest, where the landowner has no control over the decision) automatically becomes an ETS participant. They must pay units for deforestation emissions if more than 2 hectares of non-exempt forest is deforested in any five-year period. They do not receive NZUs for increases in their forests carbon stock.

Pre-1990 forest land owners must notify MPI of deforestation, and either:

• submit an emissions return and pay units for emissions or

• apply to offset their deforestation prior to deforesting, and establish a carbon and area equivalent forest elsewhere

74

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THE

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

Post 1989 Forest Land The Council first registered its post 1989 forests in February 2009 and started claiming credits the following year. Credits

were able to be claimed from 2008 when the ETS scheme was launched. The Council registered 225ha as post-1989

forests of which just over 80% (185ha) was the Cavendish Farm Forest. Another 33ha of forest is at the Rakaia Gorge with

a few other scattered plantations. Most these plantations are Radiata Pine with exception of 72 ha of Douglas fir and

Macrocarpa at Cavendish. In 2016 the most significant area of post-1989 forests, Cavendish Farm Forest, was sold. All

future liabilities associated with these trees were passed on to the purchaser. Unfortunately the earning power of these

trees through the accumulation of carbon has been lost, this could have helped reduce the forestry deficit for a period

when we have limited areas to harvest.

The carbon that the Council is able to trade with the residual forests (38ha) over the next ten years is limited with liabilities

from harvesting due to start in 2021. The graph below shows the balance of carbon credits that the Council will receive

and need to surrender as the residual Post-1989 forests grow and are eventually harvested;

When these plantations are harvested or are lost through an event such as a fire or wind storm, the Council is then

required to surrender credits. Some of the carbon lost is surrendered immediately with the balance surrendered over a

ten year period which reflects the decay of roots and slash. The Council is only required to surrender the quantity of

credits they actually received for each Carbon Accounting Area (CAA).

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

NZU

s

Year

Accumulated Balance NZUs Next Ten Years

75

Pre-1990 Forest Land The Council’s Forest Estate when the ETS started (2008)

was approximately 1740 hectares. As already mentioned

225ha is Post-1989 forest leaving the balance defined as

Pre-1990; forests on land that was planted in forest prior

to 1990. These forests cannot earn carbon credits, they

do however attract liabilities if they are harvested and not

replanted. The Council has deforested a few smaller

reserves which have been leased to the neighbouring

landowners. Other plantations that have been sold the

liabilities accruing from deforestation are the

responsibility of the new landholder. Council has applied

for and been granted its carbon credits available through

the forestry allocation plan, 60 NZUs per hectare of pre-1990 forests. The total stocked area of Pre-1990 forest that the

Council claim credits for was 1441 hectares and was therefore allocated 86,460 NZUs. These units are a one off allocation

in compensation for possible future deforestation and can be used by the forest owner as they wish. It is unlikely that

the Council will wish to deforest many more of its Pre1990 forests and as already mentioned if plantations are sold and

subsequently deforested, these liabilities will be meet by whoever purchases the plantation and makes the decision to

change the land use.

Trading of Carbon Credits The Council as at 31 December 2016 had 102,968 NZUs in its New Zealand Emissions Trading Register (NZETR) account.

The forester has made another voluntary return for carbon in the 2016 year and has claimed 1513 units. The Council

needs to decide how it wishes to trade these units so that their value can be realised and make the forestry operation as

profitable as possible.

The units which the Council has earned from its forest

estate are purchased by emitters to surrender for their

liabilities, this is the carbon market. This carbon market

since the launch of the ETS has seen some rather

dramatic changes. Initially carbon traded between $17

and $23 per NZU and during this period the Council sold

two consignments of credits (9,720 NZUs) and netted

approx. $180,000. The NZ carbon market however would

crash with the GFC taking the heat out of European

carbon markets and meant cheap ERUs flooded the New

Zealand market. The New Zealand ETS ended up going

from a peak of over $23/unit to less than a dollar in 2013.

The use of cheap European ERUs and a virtual collapse of the NZ carbon market forced the governments hand to make

changes and maintain the viability of the NZ ETS. The eventual change saw the end of ERUs being accepted in the NZETS,

this lead to a recovery in the price for NZUs. Further gains were guaranteed when the government removed the 2 for 1

subsidy for many emitters. This has seen the carbon spot price rise to almost $19/unit with a small drop recently which

was caused by the Donald Trump Effect, Trump has negative views on climate change. With emitters still required to

surrender credits the “Trump effect” will fade and it is expected that the carbon price will rise again.

Acknowledgement: Portions of this report have been derived from the MPI Website.

76

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Community Relations Manager Subject: Safer Community Council Overview

6.10 Safer Community Council Overview

6.10.1 Summary Council has requested a report on the Safer Community Council, including the history from its establishment and the amounts of funding over the years.


1 That Council receives the report;

2 That Council determines its current role in community safety;

3 That Council requests an independent Section 17A Review to determine the most cost effective means of delivering Council’s community safety initiatives in Ashburton, and approves the funding of $25,000 to conduct this review.

6.10.3 Background

Safer Community Councils --- Historical Overview Safer Community Councils were established in the early 1990s as a result of the NZ National Government’s Crime Prevention Action Group (CRAG) who were tasked to develop a national crime prevention strategy. These were initially managed by the Crime Prevention Unit (CPU), the inter-agency unit established to deliver on the CRAG’s strategy that reported to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Safer Community Councils model was based on a French crime prevention and urban safety initiative, and was piloted in four NZ cities until 1992. From 1 July 1993, Safer Community Councils were completely funded by central government through the CPU. They were seen as the appropriate mechanisms to advance the strategy’s principles of central government/community cooperation.

At its heyday, the CPU was managing and funding 56 Safer Community Councils throughout NZ. In 2003, when the government’s funding model changed to target a more project-focused approach instead of the funding of administrative infrastructure, most of the Safer Community Councils wound up. There are now less than 10 Safer Community Councils remaining in the country (two of these are in Canterbury --- Ashburton and Timaru). These have been replaced mainly by Safe Communities which will be discussed later in this paper.

The CPU was disestablished and replaced by the new Investment Approach to Justice in May 2016, which is a more evidence-based funding model to ensure all funding investment initiatives are achieving the crime reduction outcomes the Ministry has determined are its priorities.


77

Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board In January 1994, Ashburton District Council Mayor Geoff Geering and Cr Joy Harris, along with businessman Richard Lye and Ashburton school principal Raymond King, established the Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust. This enabled access to the CPU funding for Safer Community Councils. At its inception, Ashburton District Council did not provide operational funding.

In 2000, after the Labour Government transferred the CPU to the Ministry of Justice, Ashburton District Council supplemented the $40,000 central government funding from the CPU with the amount of $25,000. Gradually over time this has increased and Council now funds the Safer Community Council (operating as Safer Ashburton) to the amount of $177,000 per annum (a 600% increase over 16 years). Council also provides an additional $30,000 funding for Neighbourhood Support, Ashburton Youth Health Trust, and the Mid-Canterbury Newcomers Network which the Safer Community Council manages as the umbrella organisation.

There has been a change in the funding streams of the Safer Community Council’s activities over the years. The original trust deed specified the delivery of crime prevention and community safety, including deterrence of crime with young people and reducing fear in the elderly through education, which was funded by the CPU. The latest annual report (2015/16) shows that Council funding amounted to $198,000, with the Ministry of Justice providing an additional $226,000 for programmes such as restorative justice, but the bulk of the central government funding was from the Ministry of Social Development for the social service programmes now operating from Safer Ashburton (such as SEEDS and parenting support). Although these programmes make valuable contributions to family wellbeing and support, it is a shift from crime prevention and more into the social services sector.

Town Safety Ambassadors were also piloted in 2008 as a result of concerns of residents’ safety perceptions in the town centre. This initiative was jointly funded between the Ministry of Justice and Council, with the initial amount being projected at $30,000 per annum but which increased to $50,000 per annum (equally funded between the two agencies). In May 2016, the Ministry of Justice announced its intention to cease funding the project with its introduction of the Investment Approach to Justice. Council decided to maintain its funding for the 2016/17 financial year of $25,000, with a view to reconsider this for the 2017/18 grants allocation depending on any new information Council may obtain about the programme. The reduction in funding has meant the Safety Ambassadors are currently only working one night per weekend (Saturdays) doing both foot and vehicle patrols between the hours of 10pm until 4am. For two people being paid from $20-30 per hour, the wage cost varies between $240-360 per night for the patrols.

It is important to note that aside from providing funding to the Safer Community Council, the Council does contribute almost $80,000 per annum to community safety in a wider context through the provision of CCTV, paying for security patrols by Talbot Security, and providing core infrastructure such as street lighting and signage of liquor ban areas in the CBD.

The trust deed adopted in 1994 stated the board could comprise of up to 25 appointees from a range of agencies, including Council. In 2007 the Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board changed the trust deed to state the chair must be an Ashburton District Councillor and the board must only have five trustees, but other organisations could appoint non-trustees to the board. See Appendix 1 for the Trust Deed and 2007 amendment.


78

Government Changes The changes to central government direction have been significant over the past 20 years. The initial piloted scheme for Safer Community Councils was of a partnership between central government and the community, but that altered when the Labour Government gave clearer directives for local government to take a leading role in 2000. Since then, there have been changes within central government agencies for the funding of different priority areas of crime prevention initiatives. Ashburton District Council’s financial records shows it did not provide any financial support until the year 2000 and as stated previously, it’s increased significantly over the years.

For local government, the Local Government Act 2002 section 10(b) initially stated its purpose was to ‘‘promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future’’. With the amendments adopted in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014, this was revoked and replaced with ‘‘to meet the current and future needs of the communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses’’. This is a fundamental shift in the direction of local government to what the government has defined are core services as stated in section 11A:

a. network infrastructure; b. public transport services; c. solid waste collection and disposal; d. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and, e. libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and community amenities.

The changes in legislation also introduced the s17A service delivery reviews, where councils must assess the cost effectiveness of delivering their services to the community. This requires councils to consider the cost effectiveness of having the service delivery in-house, in a joint partnership, or contracted out.

Safe Communities When government funding changes occurred in 2003, the majority of Safer Community Councils were disestablished throughout NZ and replaced with the Safe Communities model. The Safe Communities Foundation NZ (SCFNZ) was established and is essentially a non-government organisation (NGO) that receives funding from the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Ministry of Health, and the Health Promotion Agency. Its focus is on community-based injury prevention and safety promotion, works to International Safety Standards as determined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and is an accreditation centre of the Pan-Pacific Safe Communities Network. SCFNZ aims to have 32 Safe Communities throughout NZ. It currently has 25 Safe Communities covering 31 territorial authorities that get reaccredited every five years to maintain their Safe Communities status. In Canterbury, these include Christchurch and Waimakairiri.

The majority of the NZ accredited Safe Communities have territorial authorities that have in-house resourcing that either coordinates or manages the inter-agency groups that have been formed to administer the community safety initiatives. Even Timaru, which is one of the few remaining districts to still have a Safer Community Council, employees a 1.0FTE Safer Communities Manager and a Safer Communities facilitator 0.5FTE. Timaru operates the Ministry of Justice funded restorative justice programme using contractors when needed.


79

6.10.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One: Council considers its role to play in community safety and commission a full section 17A review (Recommended) Council needs to decide, in light of the changes to LGA02, if it wishes to continue being involved in the delivery of programmes for community safety in Ashburton; and if so, determine the best mechanism to deliver that service through a s17A review by an independent contractor of the Council’s choosing. This would need to be budgeted for and in view of previous s17A reviews, budget for approximately $25,000 +GST would be needed to do this robustly and objectively.

It is proposed that the contractor who has conducted the economic development and district promotion s17A review for Council previously be contracted again to do this one as he is familiar with the process and expected level of detail in the report to Council.

The advantage of this approach is that Council would be making a considered decision to be actively involved in community safety beyond its provision of CCTV, security patrols, lighting, and other infrastructure; a s17A review would then determine how best this additional service provision should be delivered to get the best value for money.

The disadvantage of this approach is it will require additional funding to do the s17A review, but in the LTP a $25,000 budget was set aside for Safety Ambassadors, and with the MOJ no longer providing funding it is feasible that Council could redirect the funds allocated to that to the s17A in the new financial year.

Depending on the outcome of the review, the relationship between Council and community safety stakeholders could be affected for better or worse. However, using an external contractor will bring objectivity and ensure all options for the delivery of service are considered. Option Two: Council maintains the status quo Council would maintain its current involvement in community safety, keep the Safer Community Council in its current form, and retain its involvement as being a funder to the current level of service that Safer Ashburton provides. This is not a core service activity identified in s10 or s11A of the LGA, but Council is able to put its resources into key areas where there is an identified need (providing it is not under the jurisdiction of central government agencies).

The advantage of this approach is that Council will maintain good relations with community safety stakeholders. These groups will continue to receive funds from Council, therefore no strain will be placed on the relationship(s). However, this review provides an opportunity for Council to strengthen relationships with community safety stakeholders. There has been no evidence provided to show the expenditure for mainly administrative purposes to the Safer Community Council has resulted in any tangible reduction in crime, and given the difficult nature of the area it’s not clear that evidence could ever be provided.

The disadvantage of this approach is that this is not in line with the intended purpose of local government (according to the LGA). However, the Council can choose this approach if it determines it is a clear need in the community.


Local Government Act 2002. • Section 10 --- Purpose of Local Government • Section 11 --- Role of local authority • Section 11A --- Core services to be considered in performing role • Section 17A --- Delivery of services.


80


This paper presents options that may have significant interest for the community safety provider network, and particularly for the Safer Community Council itself who see the need for an elected member to be its ‘‘champion’’ around the Council table. However, it is purely a Council decision on how it best utilises its limited resources for elected member appointments and whether it wants to make an exception to the Mayor’s stance that elected members focus on core Council committees and subcommittees. A s17A review is a statutory obligation for Council that requires no community consultation, but the service providers would be interviewed as part of the review process in due course.

6.10.7 Financial Implications The amount of $25,000 potentially needs to be allocated for a s17A review if Council determines it wishes to have this done. This could potentially be a reallocation from the proposed 2017/18 Safety Ambassadors budget to the s17A.

Prepared By:

VINCIE BILLANTE Community Relations Manager

Approved By:


ATTACHMENTS: pg 82-92 Appendix 1 Trust Deed


81

Appendix One: Trust Deed

The Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board (Revised 2007)

This deed was originally made the 31st day of January 1994 By Geoffrey John Geering J.P., QSO of Ashburton, Mayor, Joy Myrtle Harris of Ashburton, District Councillor, Richard John Lye, of Ashburton, Company Director and Raymond Henry King of Ashburton, School Principal (hereinafter together referred to as “the Trustees”) Whereas the Trustees have each subscribed the sum of $1.00 for the establishment of a Charitable Trust to provide a formal Safer Community Council organisation for the people of Ashburton. And Whereas the Trustees desire to incorporate themselves as a trust Board pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and to declare the trusts upon which they hold such sums and will hold any further property acquired by them. Now Therefore These Presents Witnesseth as follows: 1. The Trustees do hereby declare that they hold the said sums of money together with any other property whether real or personal which may hereafter be given to or otherwise acquired by them upon the following trusts:

a. To acquire by gift, purchase, leasing or otherwise suitable premises to hold as administration and publicity office base/s for use by the Safer Community Trust Board for the people of Ashburton

b. To work toward a Safer Community through:

I. Community Awareness II. Community Involvement III. Community Responsibility

c. To encourage community ownership of crime and the sharing of the responsibility for shaping responses with community social services, voluntary groups and agencies.

d. To develop programmes and raise the awareness of crime prevention and community safety in four areas:

I.To reduce the opportunity for crime II.To deter young people from criminal activity III.To educate against the fear of crime especially in the elderly IV.To be mindful of the individuals and families who have become the victims of crime

e. To deliver nationally initiated crime prevention campaigns on behalf of the Governments Crime Prevention Unit and in accordance with the National Prevention Strategy.

f. To be accountable to central Government through the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding.

g. To be accountable to Local Government and the people of the Ashburton District by:

V.Ongoing consultation VI.Providing representation opportunity on the Safer Community Council VII.A publicly advertised annual Think Tank VIII.Six monthly reporting to the Local Authority. IX.An annual plan and budget. X.An independent audit. XI.An ongoing evaluation process for each project.

h. To work with the Crime Prevention Unit to secure long term funding for the operation of the Ashburton Safer Community Council trust Board.

i. To ensure the Local Authority provides tangible financial support for crime prevention as part of its partnership with Central Government and the community.


82

j. To develop sponsorship relationships with business and organisations in the community.

k. To do all such other lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the above objects.

2. The Trustees will forthwith take all necessary steps to become incorporated under the provisions of Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and will constitute themselves as a Trust Board under the name of Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board. 3.

a. Upon incorporation the Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) shall consist of not less then fifteen (15) nor more than twenty five (25) members. The foundation members of the Board shall be those appointed as such by the various Board member appointing organisations named in clauses 3(b) (i) and (ii) hereof. The Board shall have power to appoint up to four further members to the Board for a period being not less than six (6) months nor more than (2) years as the Board shall see fit.

b. Board members shall be appointed by those of the below listed organisations (hereinafter referred to as “Board member appointing organisations”) as may choose to do so:

i. Organisations each entitled to appoint two (2) Board members:

1.1 Ashburton District Council 1.2 Department of Justice 1.3 New Zealand Police 1.4 Mid-Canterbury Principals Association 1.5 Hakatere Maori Committee

ii. Organisations each entitled to appoint one (1) Board member:

1.6 Children & Young Persons & Their Families Service 1.7 New Zealand Employment Service 1.8 Ashburton Youth Advisory Council 1.9 Ashburton Licensing Trust 1.10 Ashburton Retailers Association 1.11 Rakaia Residents association 1.12 Ashburton Ministers Association 1.13 Aged Concern 1.14 Methven Community Board 1.15 Women’s Division of Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc (Mid Cant District) 1.16 Ashburton College (Student Representative) 1.17 Health Link South – Child and Family Health Division (Ashburton) 1.18 Mid-Canterbury Community Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs

c. Each member of the Board shall hold office for two (2) years or such other period of time as his or her Board member appointing organisation shall from time to time determine or until he or she earlier dies, is declared bankrupt, becomes subject to a Personal order or a Property order under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 or resigns his or her office by notice in writing delivered to the Chairperson for the time being of the Board. Any retiring member shall unless otherwise disqualified by the provisions of this sub clause be eligible for reappointment.

d. Any vacancy on the Board whether arising by the expiry of a term of appointment, death, resignation or disqualification shall be filled by the Board member appointing organisation whose appointee has ceased


83

to hold office as a Board member, appointing a replacement Board member in writing to the Chairperson of the Board.

e. For the purpose of initiating alternate year Board member appointments:

i. On the 30th June 1994 those Board members appointed by the Board member appointing organisations named in Clause 3(b)(i) hereof shall automatically retire and those named organisations shall make appointments of Board members pursuant to Clause 3(b)(i) hereof.

ii. On the 30th June 1995 those Board members appointed by the Board member appointing organisation named in Clause 3(b)(i) hereof shall automatically retire and those named organisations shall make appointments of Board members pursuant to Clause 3(b)(i) hereof.

Power of the Trust Board

4. In the execution of the Trusts herby declared the Board may in addition to all powers vested in Trustees by the General Law of New Zealand or by the Trustee act 1955 or any Act passed in substitution therefore.

a. Acquire further property by way of gift or otherwise

b. Sell, let or lease any land or buildings on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

c. Construct, alter, pull down and re-erect, improve, maintain and generally provide any buildings required for the general purposes of the Board and provide these buildings with light, water drainage, electricity and all other amenities though desirable

d. Employ such staff including a Co-ordinator (Senior Executive Officer) upon such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.

e. Borrow money for all or any of its purposes whether by way of unsecured advance or by mortgage, debenture of=r any form of security or acknowledgement of debt whatsoever whether or not the same creates any charge upon the property of the Board and otherwise upon such terms or conditions as the Board may in its absolute discretion deem fit.

f. Accept subscriptions from any person or corporation.

g. Do all things necessary as may from time to time appear necessary or desirable to the Board to give effect to and attain the objects of the Trust.

h. Assume liability for and implement and by agreements or arrangements made by the Ashburton Safer Community Council as if any such agreements or arrangements had been made with the Board.

i. Pay any costs incurred by the Ashburton Safer Community Council in the establishment of the Trusts hereby declared and the incorporation of the Board.

Proceedings of the Trust Board

5. a. The Board shall meet at such times and places as it determines. The Ashburton District Council shall

appoint one of its two appointees as the Chairperson of the Board prior to the Board’s first meeting and may review that appointment annually thereafter, or at such other times as the Ashburton District Council shall in its absolute discretion determine.


84

b. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board at which he or she is present. In the absence of the Chairperson from any meeting the members present shall appoint one of their number to preside at that meeting.

c. At any meeting of the Board a majority of members shall form a quorum and no business shall be transacted unless a quorum is present.

d. All questions before the Board shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present at the meeting of the Board an entitled to vote on that question. At any meeting of the Trust Board the person presiding shall have a deliberative vote and in the case of an equality of votes shall also have a casting vote.

Accounts

6. a. The Board shall keep full and correct accounts of all money received and expended by it and the accounts

shall be audited by a Chartered Accountant in public practice who shall be appointed by the Board for that purpose.

b. The Board shall as soon as practicable after the 30th day of June in each year cause a full and complete statement of its income and expenditure for the period to that date to be prepared together with a balance sheet showing all the assets and liabilities of the Board as at such date. Copies of such financial statement shall thereupon be presented to all persons, bodies, councils or other organisations which are represented upon the Board or which may appoint or participate in appointing a member of the Board.

Power to Appoint Committee 7.

a. The Board may from time to time appoint any Committee and may delegate any of its powers and duties to any such committee or person or to any person or to any organisation supportive of the aims of the Board and the committee or person or organisation as the case may be, may without confirmation by the Board exercise or perform the delegated powers or duties in like manner and with the same effect as the Board could itself have exercised or performed them.

b. Every such delegation shall be revocable at will and no such delegation shall prevent the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty by the Board.

c. It shall not be necessary that any person who is appointed to be a member of any such committee or to whom any such delegation is made, be a member of the Board But any such committee member is nevertheless bound by the Charitable terms and objectives of this Trust Deed.

8. The Board may from time to time make and alter such rules as are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Deed for the administration of the Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board, the conduct of its business and for the guidance of its servants or officers.

Common Seal 9. The Common Seal of the Board shall be kept in the custody of such officer as shall be appointed by the Board and shall be used only as directed by the Board. It shall b3 affixed to any document only in the presence of two duly authorised members of the Board who shall attest its affixation.

Alterations to This Deed 10. The Board may by supplemental Deed alter or add to the terms and provisions of this Deed provided that no such alteration or addition shall in any way detract from or alter the exclusively charitable objects of the Trust as herein declared.


85

11. If the Board in its sole and unfettered discretion shall decide that all of the principal objects set out in clause 1 Deed are incapable of fulfilment or that it is impossible or impracticable or inexpedient to carry them out then the Board may resolve to transfer all of its assets and liabilities to the Ashburton District Council to be held by the said council upon and subject to the Trusts declared in Clause 1.(b) of this Deed and must focus on Community Crime Prevention projects through raising Aware Involvement and Responsibility. In Witness Whereof these presents have been executed the day and year first hereinbefore written Signed by the said [ Joy Myrtle Harris [ In the presence of: [ Signed by the said [ Richard John Lye [ In the presence of [ Signed by the said [ Raymond Henry King [ In the presence of [ Signed by the said [ Geoffrey John Geering [ In the presence of [


86

Schedule

Trustees of the Ashburton Safer Community Council who shall all be initial members of the Board of the Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board: Full Name Board Member appointing organisation 1. Joy Myrtle Harris Ashburton District Council 2. Arnold Joseph Rushton Ashburton District Council 3. Robert Geoffrey John Gane Department of Justice 4. Russell Paul Department of Justice 5. Senior Sergeant Peter Joseph Keegan New Zealand Police 6. Senior Sergeant Colin Leslie Roper New Zealand Police 7. Raymond Henry King Mid-Canterbury Principals Association 8. Digby Stephen Prosser Mid-Canterbury Principals Association 9. Tiaria Isabel Wilkie Hakatere Maori Committee 10. Margaret Mapu Hakatere Maori Committee 11. Jillian Mary Ross Children & Young Persons & Their Families Service. 12. Lyndon Alexander Hay New Zealand Employment Service 13. Karen Lesley Palmer Ashburton Youth Advisory Council 14. Peter O’Leary Ashburton Licensing Trust 15. Terence Graeme Thompson Ashburton Retailers Association 16. Margaret Ilka McIntyre Rakaia Residents Association 17. Reverend Dugald Eric John Wilson Ashburton Ministers Association 18. Eleanor June Lindores Aged Concern 19. Appointment Pending Methven Community Board 20. May Millicant Greenslade Women’s Division of Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc. (Mid-Canterbury District) 21 Appointment Pending - Annual Ashburton College (Student representative) appointment of

seventh former 22. Jacqueline Mary Girvan Health Link South – Child and Family Health Division

(Ashburton) 23 Pauline Winifred Wilson Mid-Canterbury Community Council on Alcohol and Other

Drugs 24. Derek Glass Independent co-opted member 25. Richard John Lye Independent co-opted member


87

Deed of Variation of Trust

BETWEEN

LESLIE JOHN LEADLEY and

CHRISTINE MARGARET CLARK and

ARNOLD JOHN KELLY and

RODNEY CHARLES BEAVAN and

ARNOLD JOSEPH RUSHTON

THIS DEED dated the day of 2007

BY LESLIE JOHN LEADLEY, Deputy Mayor of Ashburton, CHRISTINE MARGARET CLARK, Manager of Ashburton, ARNOLD JOHN KELLY, Senior Sergeant of Ashburton, RODNEY CHARLES BEAVAN, Councillor of Ashburton and ARNOLD JOSEPH RUSHTON, Older Persons Representative of Ashburton (“Trustees”)

BACKGROUND

The Trustees are the current trustees of the Trust.

The Ashburton Safer Community Council is wishing to obtain registered Charitable Trust status pursuant to the Charities Act 2005. In order to obtain this charitable status, the Ashburton Safer Community Council needs to make a number of variations to its Trust Deed.

Under clause 10 of the Trust Deed, the Trustees have the power to vary the terms of the Trust Deed.

The Trustees have decided to exercise their power of variation under clause 10 of the Trust Deed, on the terms of this deed.

WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:

1. INTERPRETATION

In this deed unless the context indicates otherwise:

1.1 Definitions:

“Operative Date” means 1 August 2007;

“Trust” means the Ashburton Safer Community Council Trust Board; and

“Trust Deed” means the deed creating the Trust, dated 31 January 1994;

1.2 Clauses: references to clauses are references to this deed’s clauses;

1.3 Defined Expressions: expressions defined in the main body of this deed have the defined meaning in the whole of this deed including the background;

1.4 Headings: clause and other headings are for ease of reference only and do not affect this deed’s interpretation; and

1.5 Plural and Singular: singular words include the plural and vice versa.


88

2. VARIATION

2.1 The Trustees record that, with effect from the Operative Date, Clause 3 of the Trust Deed is removed entirely and replaced as follows:

Clause 3

a. The number of Trustees, pursuant to Clause 3 of the Trust Deed, shall be reduced from between 15 to 25 Trustees to a maximum of 5 Trustees.

b. The following Trustees are to remain as Trustees for two years from the operative date of this Deed of Variation, then the provisions of clauses 3 e) and 3 f) shall apply:

1.1 John Leadley, Ashburton District Council Deputy Mayor (Chair Person). 1.2 Arnold Kelly, Senior Sergeant of the Ashburton Police Force. 1.3 Chris Clark, Manager of Alcohol and Drug Service. 1.4 Rod Beavan, Ashburton District Council Councillor. 1.5 Arnold Rushton, Older Persons Representative.

c. Each of the following organisations may choose to appoint non-Trustee members:

1.1 Organisations each entitled to appoint two (2) non-Trustee members: 1.2 Ashburton District Council 1.3 Department of Justice 1.4 New Zealand Police 1.5 Mid-Canterbury Principals Association 1.6 Hakatere Maori Committee

1. Organisations each entitled to appoint one (1) non-Trustee member:

1.1 Children & Young Persons & Their Families Service 1.2 New Zealand Employment Service 1.3 Ashburton Youth Advisory Council 1.4 Ashburton Licensing Trust 1.5 Ashburton Retailers Association 1.6 Rakaia Residents association 1.7 Ashburton Ministers Association 1.8 Aged Concern 1.9 Methven Community Board 1.10 Women’s Division of Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc (Mid Canterbury District) 1.11 Ashburton College (Student Representative) 1.12 Health Link South – Child and Family Health Division (Ashburton) 1.13 Mid-Canterbury Community Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs 1.14 Ashburton Community Alcohol and Drug Service 1.15 Community Probation 1.16 Community and Public Health 1.17 Neighbourhood Support 1.18 Pacific Liaison 1.19 Victim Support

2. The Trustees may elect up to four (4) further community organisations to appoint non- Trustee members.

3. In addition, the Trustees may elect to appoint non-Trustee members from Government departments or Government Ministries as they see fit.

1.7 The Chair Person will hold office for three years and the Trustees will hold office for the period of two years following election.


89

1.8 Appointment of Chair Person. The Chair Person will be an Ashburton District Councillor and will be appointed by Council at their first inaugural meeting which will take place at the conclusion of local body elections held every three years.

1.9 Appointment of Trustees. The four Trustees will be voted for from the pool of members appointed by each of the organisations listed in 3 c) above. The Chair Person, Trustees and non-Trustee members will each have one vote. The four candidates who receive the most votes shall be appointed as Trustees for the upcoming term.

1.10 In the event that the Chair Person or a Trustee becomes ineligible to hold the position as Trustee or Chair Person as pursuant to the terms of Clause 3 i) below, a vote may be held to appoint a new Trustee or Ashburton District Council will appoint a new Chair Person according to the provisions of clauses 3 e) or 3 f) above.0

1.11 Appointment of non-Trustee members. Non-Trustee members may be appointed by each of the organisations outlined in 3 c) above. Once a non-Trustee member has been appointed they are eligible for election as Trustee. Non-Trustee members have no set duration of term. When one organisation’s Non-Trustee member retires, another representative may be appointed by the organisation.

1.12 Eligibility of Trustees: The following persons may not hold office as a Trustee:

i. Youth: an individual who is under the age of 16 years.

ii. Bankrupt: a bankrupt:

a. No Final Discharge: who has not obtained a final order of discharge;

b. Suspended Discharge: whose order of discharge has been suspended for a term not yet expired;

c. Conditional Discharge: who is subject to a condition not yet fulfilled, or to any order under section 111 of the Insolvency Act 1967; or

d. Section 111 Order: who is subject to any order under section 111 of the Insolvency Act 1967.

iii. Liquidation, Receivership or Statutory Management: a company, incorporated society or any other body corporate:

a. Winding Up or In Liquidation: which is being wound up or has gone into liquidation;

b. Resolution to Appoint Liquidator: in respect of which a resolution has been passed appointing a liquidator;

c. Order to Appoint Liquidator: in respect of which an order has been applied for or made by the court appointing a liquidator;

d. Meeting to Appoint Liquidator: in respect of which a meeting of shareholders or members has been called at which the appointment of a liquidator will be considered;

e. Receiver or Statutory Manager Appointed: for which a receiver or statutory manager has been appointed in respect of all or any part of its assets; or


90

f. Arrangement in Respect of Creditors: which has made or entered into, or attempted to make or enter into, any compromise, assignment or other arrangement with or for the benefit of all or any class of its creditors;

iv. Conviction or Sentence: a person who has been convicted of any crime involving dishonesty, within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, or any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of two or more years, or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any offence, unless that person has:

a. Pardon: obtained a pardon; or

b. Service of Sentence: served, or otherwise suffered, the sentence imposed on that person;

v. provided that that person will not be disqualified from appointment as a Trustee, or may continue to hold office as a Trustee and will be deemed to have taken leave of absence, until the expiry of the time for appealing against the conviction or sentence of imprisonment, and if there is an appeal against conviction or sentence, until the appeal has been determined;

vi. Disqualified Director: any person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of or being concerned or taking part in the management of a company under any of sections 382, 383 or 385 of the Companies Act 1993 or under section 60A of the Securities Act 1978 or under section 44F of the Securities Markets Act 2006 or under section 44F of the Takeovers Act 1993;

vii. vi) Property Order: a person who is subject to a property order made under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 or whose Property is managed by a trustee corporation under section 32 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988; or

viii. viii) Charities Commission Order: a person who is subject to an order made under section 31 of the Charities Act 2005 disqualifying the person from being an officer of a charitable entity.

2.2 The Trustees record that, with effect from the Operative Date, Clause 5 of the Trust Deed is varied as follows:

Clause 5 Proceedings of the Trust Board

a. The Trust Board is comprised of the Chair Person, Trustees and the non-Trustee members. Board shall

meet at such times and places as it determines.

b. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board at which he or she is present. In the absence of the Chairperson from any meeting the members present shall appoint one of their number to preside at that meeting.

c. At any meeting of the Board a majority of members shall form a quorum and no business shall be transacted unless a quorum is present.

d. All questions before the Board shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present at the meeting of the Board and entitled to vote on that question.


91

At any meeting of the Trust Board the person presiding shall have a deliberative vote and in the case of an equality of votes shall also have a casting vote. Non-Trustee members are not entitled to vote. However, any recommendation they make is persuasive (ie, not binding) and should be considered by the Chair Person and the Trustees.

3. CONFIRMATION OF OTHER TRUST TERMS

Except as expressly varied by this deed, the terms of the Trust Deed remain fully effective and unaltered.

Executed as a deed.


92

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Community Relations Manager Subject: Triennial Agreement 2017-19

6.11 Triennial Agreement 2017-19 and Mayoral Forum Charter of Purpose

6.11.1 Summary The Local Government Act 2002 (section 15) requires all councils to enter into a ‘‘triennial agreement’’ that sets out how they will work together. The agreement must be in place by 1 March following each triennial election.

This report invites Council to approve the 2017---19 Triennial Agreement between local authorities in Canterbury.

The draft documents are attached. Appendix 1 and Appendix 2


1 That Council ratify the Canterbury Local Authorities Triennial Agreement 2017-19.

2 That Council ratify the Canterbury Mayoral Forum Charter of Purpose 2017-19 as attached to this report.

6.11.3 Background Not later than 1 March after each triennial general election of members, all local authorities within each region must enter into a triennial agreement under Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002.

The purpose of this agreement is to ensure that appropriate levels of communication, co-ordination and collaboration are maintained between local authorities within the region. The agreement must include:

• protocols for communication and co-ordination between the councils • the process by which councils will comply with section 16 of the Act, which applies to

significant new activities proposed by regional councils • processes and protocols through which all councils can participate in identifying,

delivering and funding facilities and services of significance to more than one district.

Agreements may also include commitments to establish joint governance arrangements to give better effect to the matters set out above.

A triennial agreement may be varied by agreement between all the local authorities within the region, and remains in force until local authorities ratify a new agreement.

The attached Triennial Agreement 2017---19 was prepared at the direction of the outgoing Mayoral Forum by the Chief Executives Forum, and was agreed by the Mayoral Forum at its first meeting on 27 January 2017.


93

Only minor changes are proposed to the 2013---16 Triennial Agreement. The most significant of these are explicit reference in Section 3 (collaborative commitment) to:

• collective ‘voice’ --- a shared vision and joint advocacy for Canterbury and its communities • continuing to develop and implement the Canterbury Regional Economic Development

Strategy • an explicit focus on civil defence and natural hazard risk management

Canterbury Mayoral Forum While a non-statutory body, the Mayoral Forum is the primary mechanism to give effect to a statutory requirement (the Triennial Agreement). The Mayoral Forum’s Charter of Purpose (terms of reference) is part of the Triennial Agreement.

The Mayoral Forum is supported by the Chief Executives’ Forum, which is also mandated by the Triennial Agreement (Section 5). The Canterbury Policy Forum and other regional forums and working groups support the Chief Executives’ Forum to provide advice to the Mayoral Forum and implement its decisions.

Next steps If Council agrees, the Mayor will sign the 2017---19 Triennial Agreement on behalf of Ashburton District Council.

When all councils have ratified the Agreement, it will be published on the regional forums website at http://canterburymayors.org.nz.


Not applicable. 6.11.5 Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 2002 (section 15) requires all councils to enter into a ‘‘triennial agreement’’ that sets out how they will work together. The agreement must be in place by 1 March following each triennial election. There are no statutory requirements associated with the Mayoral Forum Charter of Purpose.


Not applicable. 6.11.7 Financial Implications

Not applicable.

Prepared By:


Approved By:


ATTACHMENTS: pg 95-101 Appendix 1 Canterbury Local Authorities Triennial Agreement 2017-19 Appendix 2 Canterbury Mayoral Forum Charter of Purpose 2017-19


94

http://canterburymayors.org.nz/

Appendix 1

Canterbury Local Authorities Triennial Agreement 2017–19

1. Purpose Not later than 1 March following triennial local government elections, local authorities within a regional council area are required to enter into a Triennial Agreement (S.15 of the Local Government Act 2002). The purpose of the Triennial Agreement is to ensure appropriate levels of communication, co-ordination and collaboration between local authorities within the region. The Triennial Agreement is ratified by all member councils.

2. Agreement The parties:

Ashburton District Council Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) Christchurch City Council Hurunui District Council Kaikōura District Council Mackenzie District Council Selwyn District Council Timaru District Council Waimakariri District Council Waimate District Council Waitaki District Council

agree to work collaboratively and in good faith for the good governance and success of their districts, cities and the region. As signatories to this Agreement, each local authority will ensure that pursuant to Section 15, Local Government Act, 2002:

a) early notification to affected local authorities party to this Agreement through the distribution of draft documentation of major policy initiatives or proposals that may have implications beyond the current geographic boundaries (or for constituent authorities) of the decision-making authority. This includes the requirement of Section 15 (2) of the Local Government Act for consultation on proposals for new regional council activities where the following process will be followed.

b) any new significant activity, as defined in Section 16 (1) of the Act, proposed by the Canterbury Regional Council, will be advised to the appropriate meeting of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, in addition to any Section 16 (1) requirement

c) any new activity proposed by the Canterbury Regional Council not considered significant will be advised to the appropriate territorial authorities in the Canterbury Region

d) the application of a “no surprises” policy where early notice will be given of potential disagreements between, or actions likely to have significant impact on, other local authorities.


95

Appendix 1

3. Collaboration The local authorities in Canterbury, as signatories to this Agreement, commit to working collaboratively to drive efficiencies and better provide for the needs of their communities through the provision of good quality local infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions. This collaboration may either be Canterbury wide or on a sub-regional basis. Collaborative commitment for the 2016-2019 term will include but is not restricted to:

a) an effective Canterbury Mayoral Forum (Charter of Purpose attached) b) developing and voicing a shared vision for Canterbury c) continuing to develop and implement the Canterbury Regional Economic Development

Strategy, and advocating on economic and social development opportunities for Canterbury d) continuing to implement the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) e) integrated transport planning for the region f) investigating options for the delivery of integrated transport and 3 Water services in

Canterbury g) supporting regional and sub-regional collaborative opportunities, such as refreshing and

implementing the Urban Development Strategy (UDS) for greater Christchurch h) developing a three-year work programme for the Canterbury Chief Executives Forum,

including a framework for collaboration in the governance and management of effective and efficient delivery of services, infrastructure and regulatory functions across the region

i) working through the Canterbury Policy Forum to address common strategic policy issues, generating where possible common positions and submissions, and facilitating the co-ordinated sharing and reporting of information

j) implementing a collaborative planning and decision making process including integrated RMA planning

k) ensuring effective resilience and response to civil defence and emergency management, and natural hazard risk management.

4. Canterbury Mayoral Forum Co-ordination, communication and collaboration in relation to this Agreement will be primarily through, but not limited to, the Canterbury Mayoral Forum (the Forum). The Forum will meet at least three-monthly and operate in accordance with its agreed Charter of Purpose (attached). The Forum will be supported by:

the Chief Executives Forum the Canterbury Policy Forum other regional and sub-regional forums and working groups as required.

5. Chief Executives Forum There will be a Chief Executives Forum reporting to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, which will develop a three-year work programme that:

a) implements and manages collaborative projects and agreed actions of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum


96

Appendix 1

b) identifies and escalates strategic issues and opportunities for collaboration on strategy, policy and planning from the Canterbury Policy Forum to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum

c) includes a framework for collaboration in the governance and management of effective and efficient delivery of services, infrastructure and regulatory functions across the region.

6. Review and Agreement to Review The parties to the Triennial Agreement will meet to consider and agree on progress on and to amendments, if any, to the agreement annually before the end of each calendar year. In addition, following a request for amendment from any one or more authorities party to this agreement in writing to the Chair of the Forum, received at least two weeks prior to the meeting date, the Forum will meet to consider the amendment at the next available Forum meeting. This Agreement will be placed on the Forum agenda at the final Forum prior to a triennial election to review, with the purpose of recommending changes (if any) to the incoming councils.

7. Local Government Structure Notwithstanding the spirit of co-operation and collaboration embodied within this Agreement, the local authorities, individually or collectively, reserve the right to promote, consult, and/or research change to the structure of local government within the Region. This right is consistent with the intent of effective and efficient governance sought in the Local Government Act 2002, having particular relevance to the ideals of community interest and community representation. Local authorities will participate in the review of the regional council’s representation arrangements, as required under statute, and the Mayoral Forum will also participate in the review providing the Forum’s views.

8. Other Agreements This Agreement does not prevent local authorities entering into other agreements among themselves or outside the region to facilitate their responsibilities. Any other such agreement should not be contrary to the purpose and spirit of this Agreement.

9. Regional Policy Statement Review This Triennial Agreement will apply to any change, variation or review of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.


97

Appendix 1

10. Authority This agreement is signed on this day of 2017 by the following on behalf of their respective authorities:

COUNCIL SIGNATURE

Ashburton District Council __________________________ Canterbury Regional Council __________________________ Christchurch City Council __________________________ Hurunui District Council __________________________ Kaikōura District Council __________________________ Mackenzie District Council __________________________ Selwyn District Council __________________________ Timaru District Council __________________________ Waimakariri District Council __________________________ Waimate District Council __________________________ Waitaki District Council __________________________


98

Appendix 2

Canterbury Mayoral Forum Charter of Purpose 2017–19

1. Name

The name of the group shall be the Canterbury Mayoral Forum.

2. Objectives

(a) To provide a forum to enable Canterbury councils to work more collaboratively with each other and with central government and other key sector leaders in Canterbury to identify opportunities and solve problems together.

(b) To identify and prioritise issues of mutual concern and foster co-operation, co-ordination and collaboration to address these issues (including where appropriate joint work plans).

(c) To formulate policies and strategies on matters where all member councils may act collaboratively in determining plans for the co-ordination of regional growth.

(d) To ensure increased effectiveness of local government in meeting the needs of Canterbury communities.

(e) To act as an advocate to central government or their agencies or other bodies on issues of concern to members.

(f) To develop and implement programmes, which are responsive to the needs and expectations of the community.

3. Principles

In pursuit of these objectives the Canterbury Mayoral Forum will observe the following principles. (a) Establish and maintain close liaison with other local government networks to ensure

as far as possible the pursuit of common objectives and the minimisation of duplication.

(b) Establish and maintain close liaison with Ministers of the Crown and local Members of Parliament.

(c) Establish and maintain close liaison with a wide number of diverse stakeholders and key sector organisations within the region.

(d) Exercise its functions with due regard to the tangata whenua and cultural diversity of the Canterbury community.

(e) Keep the local community informed about its activities by proactively releasing information about key projects in a timely manner, as agreed by the member councils.

(f) Encourage member councils to promote and apply cross-boundary structures and systems.

(g) Establish a provision for reporting back to its respective Councils.


99

Appendix 2

4. Powers

(a) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum shall have the power to: (i) levy for any or all of its objects in such amount or amounts as may be

mutually determined and acceptable to individual local authorities (ii) determine and make payments from its funds for any or all of the purposes of

its objects (iii) receive any grant or subsidy and apply monies for the purposes of such grant

or subsidy (iv) fund appropriate aspects of the Forum’s activities regionally.

(b) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum does not have the power to legally bind any council to any act or decision unless that act or decision has been agreed to by decision of that council.

5. Membership

(a) Membership of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum shall be open to the following councils: Ashburton District Council Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) Christchurch City Council Hurunui District Council Kaikōura District Council Mackenzie District Council Selwyn District Council Timaru District Council Waimakariri District Council Waimate District Council Waitaki District Council

(b) Each member council shall be represented by its Mayor (or Chairperson in the case of Environment Canterbury) and supported by its Chief Executive. On occasions where the Mayor or Chair cannot attend, a council may be represented by its Deputy Mayor or Chair.

(c) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum will have the power to co-opt other members on a

permanent and/or issues basis.

6. Chairperson

(a) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum shall select a Chairperson at the first meeting immediately following the Triennial Elections. This appointment may be reviewed after a period of 18 months.

(b) The Chairperson selected will preside at all meetings of the Canterbury Mayoral

Forum. (c) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum shall select a Deputy Chairperson at the first meeting

immediately following the Triennial Elections.


100

Appendix 2 (d) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum may appoint spokespersons from its membership for

issues being considered, in which case each member council agrees to refer all requests for information and documents to the duly appointed spokespersons.

7. Meetings

(a) Meetings will be held as required with an annual schedule, covering a calendar year, to be determined by the members. It is anticipated that meetings would be held three-monthly at venues to be determined.

(b) Special meetings may be called at the request of four Mayors/Chairpersons. (c) A working group of Chief Executives will facilitate preparation of material for

consideration by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. (d) Agendas for meetings will be issued and minutes will be taken and circulated.

(e) A summary of each meeting will be drafted, agreed by the Chair, and circulated by

the secretariat to the Mayors / Chair with the intention that the Mayor / Chair will distribute within each Council as a high level record of the meeting.

(f) Approved minutes and approved final reports and papers will be made available via

a Mayoral Forum website as agreed by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum.

8. Decision making

(a) The practice of the Forum will be to determine issues before it by consensus. (b) If the consensus is to determine issues by voting, the determination shall be

determined by a majority of votes of the authorities represented at the meeting through the Mayor (or Chair) or their nominated representative.

9. Secretariat

The Canterbury Mayoral Forum will appoint Environment Canterbury to carry out the secretariat function on such terms and conditions as it shall decide for the discharge of duties, including the taking of minutes and the keeping of any books and accounts and attending to any other business of the forum.


101

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Policy Advisor Subject: Local Governance Statement

6.12 Local Governance Statement

6.12.1 Summary Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 to prepare and make publicly available, a Local Governance Statement. The purpose of this report is to seek Council adoption of the Local Governance Statement 2016. Appendix 1


That Council adopts the ‘Local Governance Statement 2016’.

6.12.3 Background

The Local Governance Statement is a collection of information about the processes that Council uses to engage with the residents of Ashburton district. It also outlines how Council makes decisions and how the citizens of the district can influence those processes.

The local governance statement is made available on Council’s website and in hard copy form in the Council offices.


The Local Governance Statement is a legislative requirement therefore the only available option is to adopt the document. There are no risks associated with this option.


Section 40 of the Local Government Act 2002 states:

(1) A local authority must prepare and make publicly available, following the triennial general election of members, a local governance statement that includes information on------

(a) the functions, responsibilities, and activities of the local authority; and (b) any local legislation that confers powers on the local authority; and (ba) the bylaws of the local authority, including for each bylaw, its title, a general description of it, when it was made, and, if applicable, the date of its last review under section 158 or 159; and (c) the electoral system and the opportunity to change it; and (d) representation arrangements, including the option of establishing Māori wards or constituencies, and the opportunity to change them; and (e) members’ roles and conduct (with specific reference to the applicable statutory requirements and code of conduct); and (f) governance structures and processes, membership, and delegations; and


102

(g) meeting processes (with specific reference to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and standing orders); and (h) consultation policies; and (i) policies for liaising with, and memoranda or agreements with, Māori; and (j) the management structure and the relationship between management and elected members; and (ja) the remuneration and employment policy, if adopted; and (k) equal employment opportunities policy; and (l) key approved planning and policy documents and the process for their development and review; and (m) systems for public access to it and its elected members; and (n) processes for requests for official information.

(2) A local authority must comply with subsection (1) within 6 months after each triennial general election of members of the local authority. (3) A local authority must update its governance statement as it considers appropriate.

6.12.6 Significance and Engagement The decision to adopt the Local Governance Statement 2016 is of low level significance given the minimal changes made to the document. The adoption of this document is unlikely to generate community interest.


There are no financial implications associated with the decision to adopt the Local Governance Statement 2016.

Prepared By:

RACHEL THOMAS Policy Advisor

Approved By:


ATTACHMENTS: pg 104-135 Appendix 1 ‘‘A Guide to Council --- Local Governance Statement 2016’’


103

A Guide to Council LOCAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2016

ADOPTED 23 FEBRUARY 2017

3

If you would like further information or have questions about any information contained in this document please contact Council offices for further information.

Contact Us

Ashburton District Council

5 Baring Square West

PO Box 94

Ashburton 7740

New Zealand

Phone 03-307-7700

[email protected]

ashburtondc.govt.nz

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/

4

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

District Profile ............................................................................................................................................... 5

2. What Council Does ................................................................................................................................. 6

Local Government in Ashburton District ..................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of Local Government ...................................................................................................................... 6

Functions Undertaken by Council ................................................................................................................ 6

3. Legislative Framework ........................................................................................................................... 6

4. Governance ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Electoral System ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Reviewing the Electoral System ................................................................................................................... 7

Representation Arrangements ..................................................................................................................... 7

Council Elected Members 2016 - 19 ............................................................................................................. 9

Methven Community Board Elected Members 2016 - 19 ...........................................................................10

Role of Elected Members .............................................................................................................................11

Council Standing Committees ....................................................................................................................12

Council Meetings ..........................................................................................................................................16

Conduct of Elected Members ......................................................................................................................16

5. Management Structures and Relationships .......................................................................................... 18

Chief Executive .............................................................................................................................................18

Organisation Structure ................................................................................................................................18

Equal Employment Opportunities Policy ...................................................................................................19

6. Key Planning and Policy Documents .................................................................................................... 20

Statutory Plans and Policies .......................................................................................................................20

Non-statutory Plans and Policies ................................................................................................................21

Engaging with Māori ....................................................................................................................................21

7. Official Information ............................................................................................................................... 22

Records held by Council ..............................................................................................................................22

Requests for Official Information ................................................................................................................22

Appendix 1 – Council Committees & Appointments .................................................................................... 2

Appendix 2 – Key Council Policies ............................................................................................................... 2

Appendix 3 – Council Bylaws....................................................................................................................... 6

5

1. Introduction

This Local Governance Statement provides information about Council; outlining the responsibilities, structure

and governance processes of Council. It provides information about how Council engages with the community,

makes decisions, and how the community can engage with decision-making and contribute to making our

district a better place.

This document is updated within six months of each triennial local authority election and every effort is made to

ensure it is kept up to date over the three year period.

District Profile

Geography

The Ashburton District is located in the central part of the South Island. The district covers approximately 6,175

square kilometres, bounded in the east by the Pacific Ocean and the west by the Southern Alps. It has as its

northern and southern boundaries, the Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers respectively.

Our People

The district’s population has grown steadily in

recent years, driven primarily by strong local

economic growth. Ashburton District’s

population looks set to continue this growth.

The latest subnational population estimates

approximate the population of Ashburton

District as 33,700 as at 30 June 2016. 2013

Census information released by Statistics New

Zealand shows that in Ashburton District:

The median age is higher at 40.7 years than

the national median of 37.1

17.9% of residents are aged 65 or over, compared to a national figure of 14.2%

84% of people belong to the European ethnic group, whereas nationally only 64% of people belong to this

group

7% of people belong to the Māori ethnic group, below the national figure of 14%.

Our Towns

Ashburton (population approximately 19,860) is the commercial and services hub of the district, with a

strong and growing manufacturing sector. Ashburton is the location of many of the district’s major sports

and cultural facilities and where the Council offices are located.

Methven is located at the base of the foothills of the Southern Alps. The tourist centre of the district, servicing

the Mount Hutt ski field, Methven has a population of around 1,860 for much of the year. This can more than

double during the ski season.

Rakaia (population 1,190) is located on the southern bank of the Rakaia River. Renowned for salmon fishing

in the Rakaia River and its highly fertile, productive land, Rakaia is an important service centre for the

surrounding area.

Mt Somers, adjacent to Ashburton Gorge, is the gateway to the high country of the district. Hinds, Chertsey,

and Mayfield, are local service centres for their respective surrounding rural areas.

Figure 1 - Ashburton District

6

2. What Council Does

Local Government in Ashburton District

There are 78 local, regional and unitary councils in New Zealand. Ashburton District Council (‘Council’) was

formed in 1989 with the amalgamation of the Ashburton Borough and Ashburton County Councils.

Environment Canterbury (ECan), the regional authority for Canterbury, was also formed at this time with a

mandate to manage the region’s environmental wellbeing, water, air and land. Changes to local government

legislation have broadened this mandate but a focus on these issues remains.

Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (‘the Act’) sets out the purpose of local government as being:

1. to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

2. to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public

services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and

businesses.

Functions Undertaken by Council

In fulfilling the purpose as described in s10 of the Act, Council carries out a variety of functions, including:

formulating a strategic direction and detailing Council’s work programmes and budgets through the Long

Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan processes

determining the services and activities to be undertaken by Council

providing and managing local infrastructure including:

o network infrastructure like roads, footpaths, wastewater, drinking water, stormwater and

stock water

o community infrastructure such as the public library, parks and recreational facilities

administering various regulations to promote the safety and wellbeing of residents, including the

formulation and enforcement of bylaws

advocating on behalf the local community to central government, the regional council, other local

authorities and non-government organisations

environmental planning, regulation and management through the Ashburton District Plan and through local

bylaws

ensuring local communities are encouraged to be part of local decision making processes

encouraging citizens to be active and engaged members of their local community.

3. Legislative Framework

Councils are required to work within and towards implementing the objectives of numerous statutes. Council is

not bound by any local legislation (Acts that apply specifically to it). Some of the key legislation that applies to

all local authorities in New Zealand includes but is not limited to:

Building Act 2004

Burial and Cremation Act 1964

Bylaws Act 1910

Civil Defence Emergency Management Act

2002

Dog Control Act 1996

Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977

Gambling Act 2003

Health Act 1956

Litter Act 1979

Local Authorities (Members Interest) Act 1968

Local Electoral Act 2001

Local Government Act 1974

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government Official Information and

Meetings Act 1987

Privacy Act 1992

Public Works Act 1981

Reserves Act 1977

Rating Valuation Act 1998

Resource Management Act 1991

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

7

4. Governance

Electoral System

Council uses the first past the post (FPP) electoral system. This form of voting is used in parliamentary elections

to elect Members of Parliament to constituency seats. Electors vote by indicating their preferred candidate(s),

and the candidate(s) that receives the most votes is declared the winner. Electors have a vote for each vacant

position.

The other electoral system permitted under the Local Electoral Act 2001 is the single transferable vote system

(STV). This system is used in District Health Board elections.

Reviewing the Electoral System

The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires councils to review its electoral system and representation arrangements at

least every six years. As part of a review Council can resolve to change the electoral system to be used at the next

two elections or conduct a binding poll on the question, or electors can demand a binding poll. A poll can be

initiated if at least 5 per cent of electors sign a petition demanding that a poll be held.

Once changed, the electoral system must be used for at least the next two triennial general elections, (i.e. we

cannot change our electoral system for one election and then change back for the next election).

Council undertook a review of its electoral system and representation arrangements in 2012. This review resulted

in the first past the post electoral system being retained.

Representation Arrangements

Council: The Ashburton District is divided into three local electoral wards:

Ward No. of Representatives

Ashburton ward 7

Eastern ward 3

Western ward 2

The Ashburton District Mayor (‘the Mayor’) is elected from the district at large. Councillors are elected from within

the wards - there are no Councillors elected from the district at large.

A map showing ward boundaries can be viewed at Council offices or online at ashburtondc.govt.nz

Methven Community Board

The Methven Community Board has a Chairperson and six other members. Five members are elected triennially

by voters in the Methven community, and Council appoints two Councillors. The Board elects its own

Chairperson at its first meeting after the triennial election.

Māori Wards and Constituencies

Council does not have separate Māori wards. The Local Electoral Act 2001 gives Council the ability to establish

separate wards for Māori voters. Council may resolve to create separate Māori wards or conduct a poll on the

matter, or the community may demand a poll. The demand for a poll can be initiated by a petition signed by five

percent of electors within the district.

Reviewing Representation Arrangements

Council is required to review its representation arrangements at least once every six years. The review must

consider:

the number of elected members (within the legal requirement to have a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 30

members, including the Mayor)

if elected members (other than the Mayor) will be elected by the entire district, if the district will be divided

into wards for electoral purposes, or if there will be a mix of ‘at large’ and ‘ward’ representation

o if election by wards is preferred, the boundaries and names of those wards and the number of

members that will represent each ward


8

whether to have separate wards for electors on the Māori roll

whether to have community boards

o if so, how many, their boundaries and membership and whether to subdivide a community for

electoral purposes.

Council undertook a formal review of representation arrangements in 2012, resulting in only one change to

representation arrangements for the triennial elections in 2013. The review resulted in:

the number of elected members remaining at 1 mayor and 12 Councillors

the number of Councillors representing the Ashburton urban ward remaining at 7

the number of Councillors representing the two rural wards remaining at 5

the Methven Community Board being retained

a boundary change to the Methven Community Board boundary to represent new residential and

commercial areas of Methven.

Further details on the matters Council must consider in reviewing its representation arrangements can be found

in the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Representation Reorganisation

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out procedures which must be followed during proposals to:

unify districts or regions

create a new district or region

abolish a district or region

alter the boundaries for a district or region

transfer a statutory obligation from one local authority to another

allow a territorial authority to assume the powers of a regional council.

The process for reorganising local government was significantly changed in 2012. An application or proposal for

change can now be lodged by anyone, provided it shows the rationale for change and explains how the proposed

option will promote good local government.

The Local Government Commission (LGC) considers all reorganisation applications and will consult with the

community to establish the level of support for reorganisation in the affected areas. The LGC will also conduct

its own research to identify all reasonably practicable options.

Should the LGC recommend changes to the current arrangements, a draft proposal will be prepared and the

community will be formally consulted. Following the conclusion of this process, if the LGC decides to proceed

further, they will issue a final proposal.

A petition signed by 10 percent of the electors in any of the affected districts can demand a poll on the final

reorganisation proposal. If the final proposal is supported by a poll, or if no poll is held, then a reorganisation

scheme is prepared and implemented by an Order in Council.

Further information on these requirements can be found in the Local Government Act 2002.

The Local Government Commission has guidelines on procedures for local government reorganisation available

on their website at lgc.govt.nz

http://www.lgc.govt.nz/

9

Council Elected Members 2016 - 19

Mayor

Donna Favel

[email protected]

Ashburton Ward

Neil Brown (Deputy

Mayor)

[email protected]

Russell Ellis

[email protected]

Thelma Bell

[email protected]

Selwyn Price

[email protected]

Diane Rawlinson

[email protected]

Alasdair Urquhart

[email protected]

Leen Braam

[email protected]

Eastern Ward

Lynette Lovett

[email protected]

Mark Malcolm

[email protected]

Stuart Wilson

[email protected]





mailto:alasdair





10

Western Ward

Liz McMillan

[email protected]

Peter Reveley

[email protected]

Methven Community Board Elected Members 2016 - 19

Chairperson

Dan McLaughlin

[email protected]

Hamish Gilpin (Deputy

Chairperson)

[email protected]

Sonia McAlpine

[email protected]

Ron Smith

[email protected]

Sarah Lock

[email protected]

Council Appointees

Cr Liz McMillan

[email protected]

Cr Peter Reveley

[email protected]








11

Role of Elected Members

The Mayor and Councillors have the following roles:

setting the policy direction of Council

monitoring the performance of Council

representing the interests of the district. All members must declare, on election, that they will perform their

duties faithfully and impartially and according to their best skill and judgment in the best interests of the

district)

employing the Chief Executive. Under the Local Government Act, Council employs the Chief Executive, who

in turn employs all other staff on its behalf.

Role of the Mayor

The Mayor is elected by the district as a whole and, as one of the elected members, shares the same

responsibilities as other members of Council. In addition the Mayor has the following roles.

Role Responsibilities

Presiding member at Council meetings Ensuring the orderly conduct of business during

meetings, as determined in the Standing Orders

Advocate on behalf of the community Promoting the Ashburton District community and

representing its interests.

Advocacy will be most effective when carried out with

the knowledge and support of Council.

Ceremonial head of Council

Leading Council Providing leadership and feedback to other

Councillors, including teamwork advice and chairing

committees.

Changes to the Local Government Act in 2012 expanded the powers and responsibilities available to the Mayor.

This means that the Mayor is now able to do the following:

lead the development of council plans, policies and budgets

appoint the Deputy Mayor

establish council committees

appoint Chairpersons to Council committees.

Councils still have the power to disestablish a committee established by a Mayor, or remove a Mayor-appointed

Chairperson from office.

Role of the Deputy Mayor

The Deputy Mayor can be appointed by the Mayor or elected by Council at the first meeting following elections.

Generally, the Deputy Mayor exercises the same roles as other elected members.

If the Mayor is absent or incapacitated, or if the office of Mayor is vacant, then the Deputy Mayor must perform

the responsibilities and duties, and may exercise the powers, of the Mayor (as summarised above). The Deputy

Mayor may be removed from office by resolution of Council.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee is comprised of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the Chairs of the three Standing

Committees. The Executive Committee has delegated authority to:

make emergency decisions on behalf of Council as and when specifically authorised

maintain an overview of Council’s operations and interests

act on behalf of the full Council at any time when the urgency of the matter would make the delaying of a

decision contrary to the best interests of Council or its community.

12

Council Standing Committees

Council may create one or more committees of Council. A committee Chairperson is responsible for presiding

over meetings of the committee, ensuring the Committee acts within the powers delegated by Council, as set

out in Council’s Delegations Manual. A committee Chairperson may be removed from office by resolution of

Council.

Council reviews its committee structures after each triennial election and is able to make changes at any time

by resolution of Council. Following the October 2016 election Council established the following standing

committees:

Environmental Services Committee

Chair: Cr Peter Reveley

Deputy Chair: Cr Diane Rawlinson

Council delegates to the Environmental Services Committee all of the duties and decision-making powers within

the following areas of responsibility:

Regulatory Activities including:

o Building Control

o Hazardous Substances

o Environmental Health

o Fencing of swimming pools

o Animal Control

o Litter

o Alcohol Licensing

o Naming of roads

o Noise Control

o Parking Enforcement

o Planning and Resource Management

o Street names and property numbering

o Subdivision and development control

o Class 4 Gambling Venue Licensing

o Rural Fire

o Civil Defence

o Freedom Camping

o Food Safety

Community Services including:

o Community Safety

o Grants for community projects and to social agencies

To conduct statutory hearings on regulatory matters including:

o Dog and stock control

o Health

o Swimming Pools

o Building

13

o Resource Management

o Litter.

To approve commissioners and/or panels of elected members for resource management hearings

The power to appoint a Hearing Committee or Hearing Commissioner is delegated to the Chairperson of the

Environmental Services Committee, or in their absence, to the Deputy Chairperson of the Environmental

Services Committee.

Planning and strategic direction with regard to:

o Building Control

o Animal Control

o Alcohol Licensing

o Gambling Venue Licensing

o District Plan

to make decisions on District Plan changes exclusive of making them operative

the initiation of District Plan changes or District Plan variations

administration

open space

o Civil Defence and Emergency Management

o Freedom Camping

o Community Safety and Wellbeing

o Local Approved Products.

14

Finance and Business Support Committee

Chair: Cr Neil Brown

Deputy Chair: Leen Braam

Council delegates to the Finance and Business Support Committee all of the duties and decision-making powers

within the following areas of responsibility:

Amenity provision including:

o Ashburton Airport

o Camping grounds

o Community halls and facilities

o Elderly Persons Housing

o Community Services including community initiatives and events

Financial management, including:

o statutory compliance in respect to financial disclosure (delegated to the Audit and Risk

Subcommittee)

o corporate risk and internal risk management (delegated to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee)

o reviewing the annual audit plan with auditors, ensuring the emphasis is placed on areas where the

Audit and Risk Subcommittee, Council management, or auditors believe is necessary (delegated to

the Audit and Risk Subcommittee)

o monitoring and reporting on compliance with Long Term Plan / Annual Plan policies under sections

101A-110 of the Local Government Act 2002

o review of information derived from the audit (delegated to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee)

o Council insurance

o Council’s special funds accounts, loan accounts and investment portfolios

o Forestry

o writing off debt considered to be bad or uncollectible (greater than $5,000).

Organisational services including:

o Information services and record management

o Plant and vehicles

o Democracy

o Communications

o Customer services


o Community planning

o Forestry

o Camping grounds

o Community halls and facilities

o Elderly persons housing

o Community initiatives and events

o District promotion

15

Service Delivery Committee

Chair: Cr Stuart Wilson

Deputy Chair: Russell Ellis

Council delegates to the Service Delivery Committee all of the duties and decision-making powers within the

following areas of responsibility:

Amenity provision including:

o Cemeteries

o Conservation works

o Public conveniences

o Public swimming pools

o Walkways

o Cycleways

o Parks and reserves

o Roads and utilities including:

o Land drainage

o Refuse collection and disposal

o Recycling

o Roading, footpaths and bridges

o Sewerage reticulation and disposal

o Street lighting

o Traffic control

o Water supply

o Trade Waste

o Stockwater

Community services including:

o Library

o Recreation

o Art Gallery and Heritage Centre

o EA Networks Centre


o Cemeteries

o Public conveniences

o Recreation, parks and reserves

o Refuse and recycling

o Roads and footpaths

o Water supply

o Wastewater

o Stockwater

o Library

16

Council may establish ad hoc committees and sub-committees as needed to consider a particular issue or

issues.

For a full list of Council committees, subcommittees and appointments to other committees and organisations,

please see Appendix 1.

Council Meetings

Council and its Standing Committees meet a on a six weekly cycle. Extraordinary meetings may be called as

required to deal with specific issues that arise.

A schedule of meeting dates for the current year can be found on Council’s website. Further details on these

committees, including terms of reference, membership and meeting arrangements can be obtained from

Council’s Community Relations Manager or online at ashburtondc.govt.nz

Conduct of Meetings

The legal requirements for Council meetings are detailed in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local

Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

All Council and committee meetings must be open to the public unless there is a valid reason to consider an

item with the public excluded. Although meetings are open to the public, members of the public do not have

speaking rights unless prior arrangements are made with Council.

LGOIMA contains a list of the circumstances when councils may consider items with the public excluded. These

circumstances generally relate to protection of personal privacy, professionally privileged or commercially

sensitive information, and the maintenance of public health, safety and order.

For an ordinary meeting of Council, at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the meeting must be given.

Extraordinary meetings can be called with 3 working days’ notice. The Council agenda is a public document,

although parts may be withheld if the above circumstances apply.

The Mayor or committee Chairperson is responsible for maintaining order at meetings and may, at his or her

discretion, order the removal of any member of the public for disorderly conduct, or remove any member of

Council who does not comply with standing orders.

Meeting minutes must be kept as evidence of the proceedings of the meeting. These must be made publicly

available, subject to LGOIMA provisions.

During meetings, the Mayor and Councillors must follow Standing Orders (a set of procedures for conducting

meetings). Council may suspend Standing Orders with a vote of 75 per cent of the members present. A copy of

the Standing Orders can be obtained from Council’s Community Relations Manager or online at

ashburtondc.govt.nz

Conduct of Elected Members

Elected members have specific obligations regarding their conduct, as prescribed by the following statutes:

Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which includes obligations to act as a good employer to the

Chief Executive and to abide by the current Code of Conduct and Standing Orders.

The Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 which regulates the conduct of elected members in

situations where there is, or could be, a conflict of interest between their duties as an elected member and

their financial interests (either direct or indirect).

The Secret Commissions Act 1910 which prohibits elected members from accepting gifts or rewards which

could be seen to sway them to perform their duties in a particular way.

The Crimes Act 1961 regarding the acceptance of gifts for acting in a certain way and the use of official

information for private profit.

Code of Conduct

Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for elected members. The Code sets out Council’s understanding and

expectations of how the Mayor and Councillors will relate to one another, to staff, to the media and to the

general public in the course of their duties. The Code of Conduct also covers disclosure of information that



17

elected members receive or possess, and details sanctions Council may impose if an individual breaches the

code.

Adopting a Code of Conduct is a requirement of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. All elected

members are required to adhere to the Code of Conduct. Once adopted, it may only be amended by a 75 per

cent or more vote of Council.

A copy of the full Code of Conduct can be obtained from Council’s Community Relations Manager or online at

Council’s website ashburtondc.govt.nz

18

5. Management Structures and Relationships

Chief Executive

The Chief Executive is appointed by Council in accordance with section 42 and clauses 33 and 34 of Schedule 7

of the Local Government Act 2002. The Chief Executive implements and manages Council's policies and

objectives within the budgetary constraints established by Council.

Under section 42 of the Local Government Act 2002, the responsibilities of the Chief Executive are:

Andrew Dalziel

Chief Executive

[email protected]

implementing the decisions of Council,

providing advice to Council and Community Boards,

ensuring that all responsibilities, duties and powers delegated to the

Chief Executive or to any person employed by the Chief Executive, or

imposed or conferred by any Act, regulation or bylaw, are properly

performed or exercised,

managing the activities of Council effectively and efficiently,

maintaining systems to enable effective planning and accurate reporting

of the financial and service performance of Council,

providing leadership for the staff of Council, and

employing staff (including negotiation of the terms of employment for

the staff).

Organisation Structure

Service Delivery

This group of Council delivers infrastructure and community services. These include:

Neil McCann

Group Manager – Service Delivery

[email protected]

Transportation

Solid Waste

Public Conveniences

Cemeteries

Arts, Culture and Heritage

Library

Drinking Water

Waste Water

Stock Water

Storm Water

Parks and Recreation

Recreation Facilities and

Services.

Business Support

This group of Council delivers business support functions. These include:

Paul Brake

Group Manager – Business Support

[email protected]

Communication

Community Planning

Democracy and

Governance

Community Grants and

Events

District Promotion

Camping Grounds.




19

Environmental Services

This group of Council delivers regulation to ensure community safety and wellbeing is maintained through

education, monitoring and enforcement . These include:

Jane Donaldson

Group Manager - Environmental Services

[email protected]

Building Regulation

District Planning

Animal Control

Liquor and Gambling

Venue Licensing

Public Health

Parking

Land Information

Emergency Management

Community Safety and

Wellbeing.

People and Capability

This group of Council delivers organisation development and human resources support to managers and

employees.

Sarah Mosley

Manager – People and Capability

[email protected]

Human Resources.

Equal Employment Opportunities Policy

Council is an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) employer, has an EEO policy and a commitment to EEO

principles.

The recruitment/selection, opportunities for training, promotion and transfer, and conditions of employment

are to be undertaken or offered without preference being given on the basis of gender, marital status, religious

or ethical belief, race, age, ethnic or national origins, and regardless of any disability irrelevant to an individual's

ability to carry out the job.

A copy of Council’s EEO policy is available from the Group Manager – People and Capability.



20

6. Key Planning and Policy Documents

For a list of key Council policies please see Appendix 2. An up to date list of all Council policies is available on

Council’s website at ashburtondc.govt.nz.

Statutory Plans and Policies

Long Term Plan: The Long Term Plan (LTP) details Council’s vision for the future of the district, the roles Council

undertakes to achieve its stated objectives and the activities required to carry out these roles. The LTP also

details Council’s key financial policies and details its proposed spending for the coming ten years.

The LTP must be reviewed at least every three years. It can, if necessary, be amended during the three year life-

cycle, but any amendment requires a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) and is subject to external audit.

The LTP is available on Council’s website ashburtondc.govt.nz. Copies are also available at Ashburton Public

Library or from Council offices.

Annual Plan: The Annual Plan outlines Council’s proposed activities, spending and rate requirements for the

coming financial year. Under section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002, an Annual Plan is only required in

years when no LTP is produced and only if there are significant or material differences from the content of the

LTP for the financial year to which the proposed Annual Plan relates. The Annual Plan can be viewed on

Council’s website ashburtondc.govt.nz , at Council offices, or at the Ashburton Public Library.

Annual Report: The Annual Report provides information on how Council has performed over the preceding

financial year, whether it has operated within budget and whether it has delivered the levels of service indicated

in the LTP and/ or Annual Plan. The Annual Report is required under the Local Government Act 2002 to be

adopted by the end of October each year.

The Annual Report is audited by Council’s independent auditors Audit New Zealand.

Ashburton District Plan: Council has powers and responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA). These are given effect primarily through the District Plan, which details the environmental features of

the district and how Council proposes to manage and monitor these. The RMA requires Council to monitor the

effectiveness of the decisions made under the District Plan and to monitor the state of the environment within

the district.

On 7 August 2014, Ashburton District Council formally approved the adoption of the second generation

Ashburton District Plan, this decision was notified on 14 August and the District Plan formally became operative

on 25 August 2014.

The District Plan is available online at ashburtondc.govt.nz or can be viewed at Council offices.

Ashburton District Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Council has worked with our community to

develop a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) that sets out Councils vision, goals, objectives

and specific strategies to promote waste minimisation and reduce the amount of residual waste going to

landfill. Council’s WMMP can be viewed at Council offices and is available online at ashburtondc.govt.nz.

Regional Land Transport Plan: Council has a representative on the Regional Land Transport Committee. This

committee oversees significant land transport issues and planning over the Canterbury region.

The Regional Land Transport Plan document can be viewed at Council offices, or on the Environment

Canterbury website ecan.govt.nz

Triennial Agreement: Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires all local authorities within a region

to agree protocols for communication and collaboration over the next triennium after each triennial election.

The Triennial Agreement requires that all local authorities within the region work collaboratively and in good

faith for the good governance and success of their districts, cities and region.

Councils must reach agreement not later than 1 March after each triennial general election.

Council Bylaws: Council has a number of bylaws in effect to enable the control of certain nuisances. Examples

include bylaws to control dogs, stock, open spaces etc. A list of all Council bylaws is provided in Appendix 3.The

bylaws can be viewed at Council offices or on Council website ashburtondc.govt.nz

Local Alcohol Policy: The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 enables Councils to develop a Local Alcohol Policy

(LAP) to set rules concerning the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol. This gives communities a way to tailor






http://www.ecan.govt.nz/


21

alcohol licensing approaches to suit local requirements and help minimise alcohol related harm in the district.

Council adopted a provisional Local Alcohol Policy on 26 February 2015 and publicly notified it on 3 March 2015.

A final LAP will be adopted by Council in 2017.

Non-statutory Plans and Policies

Significance and Engagement Policy: Section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to adopt

a policy setting out a general approach to determining significance of proposals and decisions, how Council will

respond to community preferences for engagement and how to engage with communities on other matters.

This policy enables Council and the community to identify the degree of significance attached to decisions,

issues, assets, proposals and activities and provides clarity about how and when communities will be engaged.

The policy must also list which assets Council considers to be strategic assets under the Act.

A copy of the policy is available from Council offices or from Council’s website, ashburtondc.govt.nz

Council’s consultation approaches are also required to meet legislative requirements contained in the Local

Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and other relevant legislation.

The Local Government Act 2002 (Part 6) sets out consultation principles and a Special Consultative Procedure

(SCP) that local authorities must follow when making certain decisions. Council can and does consult outside

of the SCP.

Other legislation which Council is bound by may have statutorily specified consultation processes to be used

when the SCP is not used. This includes the Resource Management Act and the Ngai Tahu Settlements Act 1998.

Other Strategic Planning Documents: Council has prepared a variety of strategic planning documents to guide

Council and community decision-making and work programmes. These strategies have been prepared in

consultations with the community. These include:

Activity Management Plans

Ashburton District Biodiversity Action Plan

Ashburton District Sport and Recreation

Strategy

Community Strategies

Open Spaces Strategy

Reserve Management Plans

Engaging with Māori

Council is committed to developing and maintaining positive working relationships with tangata whenua and

taura here. These relationships recognise the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi and recognise and provide for the

special relationship with Māori and for the values of signatory parties.

Te Runanga o Arowhenua have mana whenua in Ashburton District and Council and others must consult with

the runanga regarding issues which may impact on the quality of waterways and land and matters of cultural

significance.

In order to maintain a strong and effective relationship with Te Runanga o Arowhenua Council ensures

appropriate issues are made available for consultation and feedback and meets on a twice yearly basis to

discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.

The runanga also provide information and feedback on social and economic issues affecting the district.

Hakatere Marae Komiti is the main representative organisation for maata waka Māori in the district (Māori from

other parts of New Zealand). Council liaises with the Komiti to ensure information and feedback on social issues

within the district is received. Council is committed to continuing to develop its relationship with the Hakatere

Marae Komiti.


22

7. Official Information

Records held by Council

Council is required to keep and manage records in accordance with statutes including the Local Government Act

2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and Public Records Act 2005.

Records kept by Council include but are not limited to:

standard files containing inward and outward correspondence, memorandums, reports, etc., held on all

aspects of Council activities

financial records, annual budgets and audited accounts

order papers, agendas and minutes of Council and standing committee meetings

a register of policy decisions made by Council

a register of authorities delegated by Council to its Committees and senior officers

applications, proceedings of hearings and decisions under Resource Management Act 1991 and previous

Town Planning legislation

maps relating to land use

aerial photographs of streets

plans of underground reticulation and services (water, sewerage, stormwater and drains)

Civil Defence plans

contract documents

Local Government Act and other Acts relating to the activities of Council

lease documents and deeds of Council owned real estate.

Requests for Official Information

All requests for information are considered to be made under LGOIMA and the Privacy Act 1993. Requesters do

not have to state that they are making a request under an Act.

Once a request is made, Council must supply the information unless there is a reason for withholding it.

LGOIMA provides that information may be withheld if release of the information would:

endanger the safety of any person

prejudice maintenance of the law

compromise the privacy of any person

reveal confidential or commercially sensitive information

cause offence to tikanga Māori or disclose the location of waahi tapu

prejudice public health or safety

compromise legal professional privilege

disadvantage Council carrying out negotiations or commercial activities

allow information to be used for improper gain or advantage.

Requesting information

Any individual, group or organisation can request information held by the council either about:

themselves, under Section 33 of the Privacy Act 1993, or

aspects of Council's activities under Section 10 of the LGOIMA

Requests for official information may be written or verbal.

The request should be as specific as possible - Council may seek clarification to help determine if there is a

reason for withholding the requested information.

Council must answer requests for information within 20 working days. If Council needs extra time to source and

provide the requested information, the applicant must be advised in writing that an extension of time is

required, the reason for this and the estimated period of the extension.

23

If the information requested is extensive, Council may charge for time spent processing the request and for

printing and copying costs. Council's Policy on Charging for Local Government Official Information and Meetings

Act 1987 (LGOIMA) Requests includes further information on possible charges. The policy is available online at

ashburtondc.govt.nz

If the requested information is held by another agency, Council will either pass your request on to that agency

or advise you of the agency to make the request to.

To make a request for official information in writing, please address it to:

Community Relations Manager


PO Box 94

ASHBURTON 7740

To make a request for official information by email, please email us.

To make a request for official information by telephone, please contact our Customer Services team on

(03) 307 7700.


mailto:%[email protected]

Appendix 1 – Council Committees & Appointments

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES AND

ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS

Mayor Donna Favel

Deputy Mayor Neil Brown

STANDING COMMITTEES (Adopted by Council 26/10/16)

Environmental Services Service Delivery Finance & Business Support

Chair Peter Reveley

Deputy Chair Diane Rawlinson

Members Thelma Bell

Leen Braam

Neil Brown

Russell Ellis

Lynette Lovett

Mark Malcolm

Liz McMillan

Selwyn Price

Alasdair Urquhart

Stuart Wilson

Mayor ex officio

Chair Stuart Wilson

Deputy Chair Russell Ellis

Members Thelma Bell

Leen Braam

Neil Brown

Lynette Lovett

Mark Malcolm

Liz McMillan

Selwyn Price

Diane Rawlinson

Peter Reveley

Alasdair Urquhart

Mayor ex officio

Chair Neil Brown

Deputy Chair Leen Braam

Members Thelma Bell

Russell Ellis

Lynette Lovett

Mark Malcolm

Liz McMillan

Selwyn Price

Diane Rawlinson

Peter Reveley

Alasdair Urquhart

Stuart Wilson

Mayor ex officio

(Adopted by Council 24/11/16)

Executive Committee Code of Conduct Committee

Chair Donna Favel

Deputy Chair Neil Brown

Members Peter Reveley

Stuart Wilson

A panel of the Mayor and 5 elected members to be

appointed from which the two Committee

members will be selected by Council as and when

necessary.

Mayor (ex officio) Donna Favel

Councillors Thelma Bell

Selwyn Price

Diane Rawlinson

Alasdair Urquhart

Stuart Wilson

COMMUNITY BOARD

Methven Community Board 2 Crs (Western Ward)

Crs Liz McMillan and Peter Reveley

3

SUBCOMMITTEES Member(s) Reports to

Ashburton Airport Authority Subcommittee 3 Crs + external members Finance and Business Support

Crs Urquhart (C), Braam & Malcolm

Audit & Risk Subcommittee Mayor & 3 Crs (Chair & D/Chair

Finance + 1 Cr)

Finance and Business Support

Mayor, Crs Brown (C), Braam & Urquhart

Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee Mayor & 6 Crs (Chairs & D/Chairs) Council

Mayor (C), Crs Braam, Brown, Ellis, Rawlinson,

Reveley and Wilson

Community Awards Subcommittee Mayor (C) & Crs Brown, McMillan & Rawlinson

Mayor & 3 Crs Finance & Business Support

Community Grants and Funding

Subcommittee Crs Brown (C), Bell, McMillan, Lovett, Rawlinson,

Malcolm & Reveley

7 Crs (Chair Finance + 6) Finance & Business Support

Wastewater Subcommittee 6 Crs Service Delivery

Crs Ellis (C), Brown, Malcolm, Price, Reveley &

Wilson

Youth Council Crs Bell & Ellis

2 Crs Council

Memorial Hall and Reserves Boards

1 Cr + external members on each

Council

Memorial Hall Appointees

Lagmhor Westerfield Cr Urquhart Rakaia Cr Malcolm

Mayfield Cr Reveley Tinwald Cr Urquhart

Methven Cr McMillan +MCB Chair

Reserve Board Appointees

Alford Forest Cr McMillan Mayfield Cr Reveley

Chertsey Cr Malcolm Methven Cr McMillan

Dorie Cr Malcolm Mt Somers Cr Reveley

Ealing Cr Lovett Pendarves Cr Malcolm

Greenstreet Cr Rawlinson Rakaia Cr Malcolm

Highbank Cr McMillan Ruapuna Cr Reveley

Hinds Crs Lovett/Wilson Seafield Cr Malcolm

Lynnford Cr Lovett Tinwald Cr Rawlinson

Maronan Cr Lovett

4

WORKING GROUPS

Administration & Library Facilities Working Group

Mayor & 3 Crs + CEO & GM

Business Support

Council

Mayor (C); Crs Brown, Ellis & Reveley

Biodiversity Working Group Mayor & 1 Cr Service Delivery

Crs Price (C ) & Malcolm

Chinese Settlement Working Group 4 Crs [15/12/16] Finance & Business Support

Crs Braam (C ), Bell, Malcolm & Price

Community Road Reference Groups

Rural Road Reference Group

Crs Wilson (C), Malcolm, McMillan & Lovett

Urban Road Reference Group

Crs Rawlinson (C), Ellis, Price & Urquhart

Rural x 4 Crs

Urban x 4 Crs

Service Delivery

Shiozawa Sister City Working Group 3 Crs [15/12/16] Finance & Business Support

Crs McMillan (C ), Price & Bell

Stockwater Working Group 7 Crs Service Delivery

Crs Wilson (C ), Brown, Ellis, Malcolm, Price,

Rawlinson & Reveley

Town Centre Working Group 5 Crs Environmental Services

Crs Rawlinson (C), Braam, Brown, Ellis & Price

COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATIONS (CCOs) and SHAREHOLDING

Ashburton Community Water Trust

Ashburton Contracting Ltd

Ashburton Stadium Complex Trust

Canterbury Regional Economic Development Corporation

Eastfield Investments Cr Brown

Experience Mid Canterbury

Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) Management Ltd Cr Brown(CE alternate) Council

ADVISORY GROUPS

Creative Communities NZ

Crs Braam & Price 2 Crs + external appointees Finance & Business Support

Electricity Ashburton Shareholders Committee External appointees Council

David Ward, Chris Robertson, Ann Marett

Trustpower Awards

Mayor (C) & Crs Bell & Brown Mayor & 2 Crs + external

appointees

Finance & Business Support

5

JOINT COMMITTEES (with other Authorities)

Ashburton District Road Safety Co-ordinating

Committee

Crs McMillan (C) & Ellis Service Delivery

Ashburton Water Management Zone Committee Cr Wilson Council

Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Cr Brown (Mayor alternate) Service Delivery

Canterbury Regional Water Management Committee

Mayor Council

Canterbury Waste Joint Committee Cr Brown (Mayor alternate) Service Delivery

Canterbury Regional Civil Defence Emergency

Management Group

Mayor (Cr Reveley alternate) [15/12/16]

Environmental Services

Mid-South Canterbury Rural Fire Authority Cr Reveley Council

Regional Land Transport Committee Mayor (Cr Wilson alternate) [15/12/16]

Service Delivery

Total Mobility Committee Cr Urquhart Service Delivery

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR GROUPS

Mayoral Forum Mayor + CEO

(Deputy Mayor alternate)

Council

Rural Provincial Sector Mayor + CEO Council

Zone 5/6 Mayor & Deputy Mayor + CEO Council

COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

Ashburton Domain Oval Pavilion Trust* 1 Cr

Ashburton Domain Pavilion Committee* 1 Cr

Ashburton Performing Arts Theatre Trust* 1 – appointed by Mayor

(currently David Welsh)

Plains Museum Trust External appointees (2)

Brian Lester, Ian Cullimore

Finance and Business Support

* These groups are being reviewed to determine whether they are still needed

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY RIVER RATING AREAS

Ashburton Hinds Drainage Cr Lovett Lower Rakaia River Cr Malcolm/Brown

Ashburton Rivers Cr Reveley Mt Harding Creek Cr McMillan

Ashburton Town Stopbanks Cr Ellis Rakaia Double Hill Cr McMillan

Cleardale (Rakaia Gorge) Cr McMillan Staveley Stormwater Channel Cr Reveley

Dry Creek Cr McMillan Upper Hinds River Cr Lovett

Lower Hinds River Cr Wilson/Lovett

Appendix 2 – Key Council Policies

Policy Purpose

Appointment and Remuneration

of Directors of Council

Organisations

Outlines Council’s approach to appointment and remuneration of directors

appointed to companies by Council.

Art Collection Sets out acquisition and maintenance of Council's civic art collection.

Backflow Prevention Outlines Council's responsibility to ensure that measures are in place to

mitigate the risk of backflow contamination and to provide guidance and a

pragmatic approach to providing water supply backflow prevention

devices within the Ashburton drinking water supply network operating by

Council.

Bonds in Respect of Formation

of Vehicular Access to Properties

Outlines Council’s approach to deferring the formation of vehicular access

subject to conditions of subdivision consent, providing the applicant

supplies a cash bond.

Cattle / Stock Crossing Roads -

Code of Practice

Outlines code of practice for stock crossing roads in order to maintain

safety of road users and to prevent damage to the road surface.

Closed Circuit Television Outlines how Council operates CCTV cameras and the use of images

obtained from CCTV footage.

Closed Circuit Television

Guidelines

Provides guidance on the installation, monitoring and maintenance of

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) community safety cameras within

Ashburton District.

Code of Conduct Details the standards of behaviour required of elected members.

Communications Policy sets out communications to all residents and the occurrence of a

resident survey.

Community Grants and Financial

Assistance

Details Council grant funding requirements.

Community Honours Awards Details awards, eligibility and the nomination and selection criteria.

Conditions for Granting an

Organisation the Temporary

Sole Use of Part of Council

Managed Domain and Reserves

Details the conditions for the temporary sole use of part of Council

managed domains and reserves.

Control or Removal of

Vegetation

Sets out criteria to ensure road safety is not compromised by vegetation,

and Council's approach to assessing vegetation which does not meet this

criteria.

Dangerous, Earthquake-prone &

Insanitary Buildings*

Details Council's approach to dealing with earthquake-prone and

insanitary buildings.

Development and Financial

Contributions

Outlines the approach used for charging of costs associated with servicing

new development or connections to council infrastructure.

Dog Control Details requirements and conditions for dog owners.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Appointment%20and%20Remuneration%20of%20Directors%20for%20Council%20Organisations.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Art%20Collection.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Backflow%20Prevention.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Bonds%20in%20Respect%20to%20Formation%20of%20Vehicular%20Access%20to%20Properties.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Bonds%20in%20Respect%20to%20Formation%20of%20Vehicular%20Access%20to%20Properties.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Cattle%20and%20Stock%20Crossing%20Road%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Cattle%20and%20Stock%20Crossing%20Road%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Closed%20Circuit%20Television.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Closed%20Circuit%20Television%20Guidelines.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Closed%20Circuit%20Television%20Guidelines.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Communication.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Community%20Honours%20Awards%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Conditions%20for%20Granting%20an%20Organisation%20the%20Temporary%20Sole%20Use%20of%20Part%20of%20Council%20Managed%20Domain%20and%20Reserves.pdf




http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Control%20and%20Removal%20of%20Vegetation%20Damaging%20Roads.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Control%20and%20Removal%20of%20Vegetation%20Damaging%20Roads.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Dangerous,%20Earthquake%20Prone%20and%20Insanitary%20Buildings.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Dangerous,%20Earthquake%20Prone%20and%20Insanitary%20Buildings.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Development%20and%20Financial%20Contributions.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Development%20and%20Financial%20Contributions.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Dog%20Control.pdf

3

Policy Purpose

Elderly Persons Housing Details criteria to qualify to rent Council elderly persons housing units.

Elected Members Allowance and

Reimbursement (Expenses)

Sets out remuneration and expense allowances for Councillors.

Election Signs Outlines election advertising guidelines for candidates in local elections.

Electoral Officer Appointment Sets out the appointment of the Electoral officer for elections or polls

conducted by the Council.

Equal Employment

Opportunities

Sets out Council’s commitment to equal opportunities for employment.

Fencing and Planting of Trees on

Road Reserves

Details restrictions on fencing and planting of trees on road reserves.

Footpath Damage Details Council’s approach to footpaths damaged through construction.

Gambling Venue Policy Sets out the location and number of gaming machines permitted in

Ashburton District.

Insurance for Organisations and

Events

Details Council's approach to providing public liability and statutory

liabilities insurance cover for events run by community and voluntary

groups.

Library Collection Management

Policy

Sets out the criteria to be used in selecting, maintaining and withdrawing

library material.

Library Public Access Computers Details the conditions for the use of the Ashburton Library public use

computers.

Liquor Licensing Policy Sets outs guidelines for Council functions regarding liquor licensing.

Local Approved Products Policy Provides the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority with a local

policy framework when making decisions on licence applications to sell

psychoactive products in Ashburton District.

Local Government Official

Information and Meetings Act

1987 Requests

Details Council’s process and charges for responding to LGOIMA requests.

Mail Boxes Outlines requirements for new, existing or replacement rural mailboxes to

ensure safety.

Maintenance of Low Use

Unsealed and / or Unformed

Roads

Defines what is a 'low use road' and outlines Council's approach to the

level of maintenance on these roads.

Memorial and Community Halls Details rate remissions, operating cost expectations, accounting services

and insurance arrangements.


Code of Conduct

Provides guidance on the standards of behaviour that are expected from

members of the Methven Community Board.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Elected%20Members%20Allowance%20and%20Reimbursement%20Policy%202016-19.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Elected%20Members%20Allowance%20and%20Reimbursement%20Policy%202016-19.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Election%20Signs.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Electoral%20Officer%20Appointment.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Fencing%20and%20Planting%20of%20Trees%20on%20Road%20Reserves.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Fencing%20and%20Planting%20of%20Trees%20on%20Road%20Reserves.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Footpath%20Damage.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Gambling%20Venue.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Insurance%20for%20Organisations%20and%20Events.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Insurance%20for%20Organisations%20and%20Events.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Library%20Collection%20Management.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Library%20Collection%20Management.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Library%20Public%20Access%20Computers.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Liquor%20Licensing.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Local%20Approved%20Products.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Local%20Government%20Official%20Information%20and%20Meetings%20Act%201987%20Requests.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Mail%20Boxes.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Maintenance%20of%20Low%20Use%20Unsealed%20Roads.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Memorial%20and%20Community%20Halls.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Methven%20Community%20Board%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Methven%20Community%20Board%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

4

Policy Purpose


Policy

Sets out the boundary, role of the community board, remuneration, liaison

and consultation and recommendatory authority.

Mobility Parking Policy To ensure holders of mobility permits have access to appropriate vehicle

parking.

Partnerships with the Private

Sector

Details Council approach to partnerships of a business nature with the

private sector.

Plant Purchasing To ensure; plant purchasing decisions are consistent, transparent, fair and

lawful, to ensure plant procurement and holding costs represent value for

money and to promote the health and safety of Council staff and the

community.

Procedure for Prioritising

Unsealed Roads for Sealing

Outlines Council's evaluation process for determining the prioritisation of

sealing unsealed roads.

Procurement Details Council’s approach to procurement.

Property Details Council’s approach to properties, including: Glasgow leases,

freeholding residential leasehold land, leased industrial properties and

rural leasehold land.

Prosecution and Recovery of Fire

Suppression Costs Policy

To ensure that non-complying parties are held responsible for the costs

and consequences of any fire response arising from breaches of these

conditions or acts of negligence.

Protected Disclosures Sets out Council’s approach to protected disclosures as per the

requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

Provisional Local Alcohol

Policy

Details Council’s approach to the sale and supply of alcohol in Ashburton

District.

Rates Postponement Outlines Council’s requirements for postponing rates payments.

Rates Remission Details Council's approach to the provision of non-commercial community

services, facilities and recreational opportunities in the district by way of

rates remission.

Revenue and Financing Details Council’s approach to funding its operating and capital

expenditure, determining who pays for Council activities and on what basis

with a view to achieving the fairest funding mix for the community as a

whole.

Road Naming Outlines process for selection and approval of naming or renaming of a

road vested in Council, or private right-of-way.

Road Stopping Details Council's approach to application for the stopping of roads.

Roadside Drains Sets out the requirements and consideration for applications to construct

and maintain roadside drains.

Sealing of Entranceways - Rural Sets out criteria and requirements for the sealing of rural entranceways.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Methven%20Community%20Board%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Methven%20Community%20Board%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Mobility%20Parking.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Partnerships%20with%20the%20Private%20Sector.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Partnerships%20with%20the%20Private%20Sector.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Plant%20Purchasing.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/our-council/policies-and-bylaws/Pages/policies.aspx

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/our-council/policies-and-bylaws/Pages/policies.aspx

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Procurement.pdf×

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Property.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Prosecution%20and%20Recovery%20of%20Fire%20Suppression%20Costs.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Prosecution%20and%20Recovery%20of%20Fire%20Suppression%20Costs.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Protected%20Disclosures.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Rates%20Postponement.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Rates%20Remission.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Revenue%20and%20Financing.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Road%20Naming.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Road%20Stopping.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Roadside%20Drains.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Sealing%20Of%20Entranceways.pdf

5

Policy Purpose

Sensitive Expenditure To set guidelines for staff and elected members around sensitive

expenditure.

Significance and Engagement Details Council's approach to determining the significance of proposals and

issues and how Council will engage with the community on decisions.

Small Rural Reserves Details permitted uses of Council's small rural reserves, and details about

applying for and transferring a License to Occupy.

Smokefree Outdoor Areas Designates certain areas of Ashburton District as smokefree.

Stock Underpass Outlines the construction requirements and funding of the installation of

stock underpasses.

Stockwater Race Closures -

Closure Guidelines

To identify the issues and options for closing lengths of stockwater race or

areas serviced by the race network. This document also includes Race

Closure Guidelines to assist staff to progress race closures to meet

customer expectations and Council Requirements in a timely manner.

Supply and Installation of Road

Name Signage

Policy sets out the principles to be followed in determining the detail, size,

and positioning of road name signage.

Temporary Closure of Parking

Spaces

Sets out conditions for closing restricted parking spaces for exclusive use.

Treasury Management Policy sets out procedures and guidelines to be used to safeguard Council's

investments, maximise returns and minimise its risks, both in investing and

its borrowing liability.

Use of Footpath for Alfresco

Dining

Sets out the conditions that are to be met when a business within the

Ashburton District wishes to make use of the footpath area in front of their

premises to allow patrons to dine with or without alcohol.

Use of Parking Revenue and

Accounts Funds

Details what purposes parking reserve expenditure can be used for.

Use of Pole Mounted Banners Sets out the conditions for the attachment of display banners on streetlight

poles.

Vehicle Crossings Details the requirements for channel crossings in residential, commercial

and industrial sites.

Water Races on Road Reserves Sets out the permitted conditions of water races on road reserves.

Water Restrictions Details how and when water restrictions are imposed.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Sensitive%20Expenditure.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Significance%20and%20Engagement.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Small%20Rural%20Reserves.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Smokefree%20Outdoor%20Areas.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Stock%20Underpass.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Stockwater%20Race%20Closures.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Stockwater%20Race%20Closures.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Supply%20and%20Installation%20of%20Roadname%20Signage.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Supply%20and%20Installation%20of%20Roadname%20Signage.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Temporary%20Closure%20of%20Parking%20Spaces.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Temporary%20Closure%20of%20Parking%20Spaces.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Treasury%20Managment.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Use%20of%20Footpaths%20for%20Alfresco%20Dining.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Use%20of%20Footpaths%20for%20Alfresco%20Dining.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Use%20of%20Parking%20Revenue%20and%20Account%20Funds.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Use%20of%20Parking%20Revenue%20and%20Account%20Funds.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Use%20of%20Pole%20Mounted%20Banners.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Vehicle%20Crossings.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Water%20Races%20on%20Road%20Reserves.pdf×

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policies/Water%20Restriction.pdf

6

Appendix 3 – Council Bylaws

Title

Date of

adoption

Review

schedule Purpose

Explanatory 2016 2026 To provide a set of provisions which are common to

and form part of, all Ashburton District Council

Bylaws.

Advertising Signs 2008 2017 To ensure that advertising signs are erected,

maintained, and displayed in such a manner that

they do not create a nuisance, cause offence or

present a hazard or a danger to public safety.

Keeping of Animals, Bees and

Poultry

2016 2026 To outline requirements for the keeping of animals,

bees and poultry. The requirements are deemed

necessary for the protection of neighbouring

property owners.

Construction Demolition and

Maintenance of Buildings and

Site Works

2008 2017 To provide rules for the protection of the public,

and public facilities, by ensuring that adequate

safety provisions are made during demolition,

construction, renovation and maintenance of

buildings and site works and to also avoid the

creation of any nuisance to the public during the

demolition, construction, renovation and

maintenance of buildings and site works.

Dog Control 2016 2021 To set standards of control which must be observed

by dog owners, covering matters such as dogs in

public places, wandering dogs, ownership of three

or more dogs and nuisances caused by dogs.

Fires in the Open Air 2012 2017 To allow Council to exercise control over burning

the open air throughout Ashburton District and

prevent discharge from such fires causing a

nuisance.

Mobile Shops, Stalls and

Hawkers

2016 2026 To regulate trading in public places in order to

protect the public from nuisance and to protect,

promote and maintain public health and safety.

Transportation and Parking 2015 2024 To set controls for parking, all types of traffic and

the use of the transportation network within

Ashburton District, other than State Highways

controlled by the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Public Places 2008 2017 To protect the public from nuisance, and to protect,

promote and maintain public health and safety,

and to minimise the potential for offensive

behaviour in public places by the making of rules to

control activities in public places throughout

Ashburton District.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Explanatory.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Advertising%20Signs.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Keeping%20of%20Animals,%20Bees,%20Poultry.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Keeping%20of%20Animals,%20Bees,%20Poultry.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Construction%20and%20Demolition.pdf



http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Dog%20Control.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Open%20Fires.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Mobile%20Shops,%20Stalls%20and%20Hawkers.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Mobile%20Shops,%20Stalls%20and%20Hawkers.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Transportation%20and%20Parking%20Bylaw.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Public%20Places.pdf

7

Title

Date of

adoption

Review

schedule Purpose

Brothel Location 2016 2021 To regulate the location of brothels and minimise

the potential and/or perceived community harm or

offence.

Wastewater Drainage 2016 2021 To manage and protect Ashburton District Council’s

wastewater, drainage and sanitation systems from

misuse or damage and to protect the public from

nuisance.

Water Supply 2016 2026 To manage and protect Council’s water supply

systems from misuse or damage and to protect the

public from nuisance.

Water Races 2012 2017 To define Council’s requirements for the protection

of water races and maintenance of water quality.

Solid Waste 2012 2017 To set conditions that ensure waste is collected and

disposed of in a manner that protects the health

and safety of the public and the Council’s

employees and contractors.

Trade Wastes 2013 2018 To control and monitor trade waste discharges into

public sewers to protect the public from nuisance,

protect the environment and ensure compliance

with discharge consent conditions.

Open Spaces 2016 2021 To protect Council’s open spaces from damage or

misuse and to allow for their effective management

for the benefit and enjoyment of all users.

Cemeteries 2008 2017 To protect the public from nuisance and to protect,

promote and maintain health and safety regulating

the use of cemeteries in Ashburton District.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Brothel%20Location.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Wastewater%20Drainage.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Water%20Supply.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Water%20Races.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Solid%20Waste.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Trade%20Wastes.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Open%20Spaces.pdf

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/Bylaws/Cemeteries.pdf

REPORT Date: 2 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee

6.13 Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee [Unconfirmed Minutes] Minutes of the Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee meeting, held on Thursday 2 February, 2017, in the Meeting Room at 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton, commencing at 9.30am.

Present Mayor Donna Favel (Chair); Councillors Leen Braam, Neil Brown (9.33am), Diane Rawlinson, Russell Ellis, Peter Reveley and Stuart Wilson.

In attendance Crs Liz McMillan, Selwyn Price and Alasdair Urquhart; Paul Brake (Group Manager Business Support), Vincie Billante (Community Relations Manager), Rachel Thomas (Policy Advisor), Mel Renganathan (Senior Policy Advisor) and Phillipa Clark (Committee Secretary).

Shirin Khosraviani (Art Gallery Curator) attended from 9.30am to 10.50am.

1 Apologies & Conflicts of Interest

Cr Neil Brown (lateness).

No conflicts of interest declared. 2 Extraordinary Business

Nil.

3 Bylaw and Policy Overview The Policy Advisors provided an overview of the Council’s bylaws, policies, strategies and plans. A copy of the powerpoint slides will be circulated to Councillors.

4 Draft Terms of Reference Terms of reference amended (membership) to remove second reference to Cr Brown.

Recommendation to Council

That Council adopts the Terms of Reference for the Bylaw & Policy Subcommittee.

Mayor/Brown Carried

5.1 Bylaw Review Update It was agreed that a Forward Programme (A3 fold-out) will be included in future agendas for this

Subcommittee. 1 That the report be received.

2 That the proposed Bylaw Review Schedule 2017 is approved.

Ellis/Rawlinson Carried

Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee 2 February 2017

136

5.2 Policy Review Update 1 That the report be received.

2 That the proposed Policy Review Schedule for 2017 is approved. Braam/Mayor Carried

5.4 Art Collection Management Policy Ashburton Art Gallery Manager/Curator, Shirin Khosraviani was welcomed to the meeting and invited to

comment on the proposed management plan for Council’s art collection that will see a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Ashburton Art Gallery to manage the civic art collection. Ms Khosraviani advised that the Gallery has a full programme but will undertake to set aside time for some work on the collection each year. The first stage will be identifying where the art work is located and the process will include determining the value (cultural and financial) of each item and an appropriate location.

The Community Relations Manager reported that an annual budget of $5,000 for this work will be added to the Art Gallery’s Service Level Agreement.

Recommendation to Council 1 That Council adopts the revised ‘Art Collection Management Policy’ (Option 2).

2 That Council adopts the Memorandum of Understanding with Ashburton Art Gallery Inc.

Wilson/Braam Carried

The Subcommittee adjourned for morning tea from 10.35 to 10.50am. 5.3 Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy The Group Manager Business Support explained that Council has traditionally appointed the Mayor as a

director of the RDR Management Board (Council has 20% shareholding in this organisation). Council will be required to look at its shareholding in this company and it was suggested that discussion with the Ashburton Community Water Trust on this matter would be useful.

Recommendation to Council That the draft ‘Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy’ is adopted

for consultation (Option 2). Mayor/Reveley Carried

5.5 Coat of Arms Policy

Recommendation to Council That the ‘Coat of Arms Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register (Option 1).

Mayor/Braam Carried

5.6 Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy The Policy Advisor reported that new legislation means Council could adopt a policy to allow shops to

trade on Easter Sunday; such a policy would not be binding and businesses would decide whether or not they wish to open on Easter Sunday.

From the early engagement with local retail businesses, Officers have determined that there is minimal need for an Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy. In order to adopt a policy Council would be required to consult with retailers and the wider community through the special consultative procedure (SCP) and the timeframe prohibits adopting a policy before Easter 2017.


137


That Council determines no Easter Trading Policy for Ashburton District is required at this time.

Wilson/Braam Carried

Cr Brown recorded his vote against the motion.

5.7 External Appointments Policy

Recommendation to Council That Council adopts the ‘External Appointments Policy’ (Option 2)

Reveley/Ellis Carried

5.8 Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy The Policy Advisor reported that this outdated policy is one of a number procedural roading documents

which are no longer classed as ‘policies’ and will be removed from the policy register.

In 2015, the footpath treatment (kerb & channel) policy was incorporated in the footpath renewals programme where it was stated that ‘Readylawn’ would be substituted with a soil and seed option for berm surfacing. While that decision cannot be reversed at this time, the Subcommittee was advised that ‘Readylawn’ is a trademark title and this treatment should instead be described as ‘instant turf’.

Discussion followed on unsatisfactory berm replacement work which has apparently resulted from poor preparation. Cr Wilson suggested that consideration be given to a review of the footpath replacement policy and that this matter be referred to the Service Delivery Committee.

Recommendation to Council That the ‘Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy’ is removed from

Council’s Policy Register (Option 2). Wilson/Ellis Carried

5.9 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Requests Policy


That the draft ‘Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Requests Policy’ is adopted for consultation (Option 2). Braam/Reveley Carried

5.10 Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy


That the ‘Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register (Option 1). Reveley/Braam Carried

5.11 Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy This policy is relatively unchanged but an option for smokefree outdoor dining has been provided; this

would require a clause stating that Council encourages smokefree outdoor dining but it is the responsibility of individual business owners to adopt such a policy.


138

The Policy Advisor has met with representatives of the Smokefree Coalition who are working with 8 local businesses to adopt their own smokefree policies.

Councillors in support of imposing a smoking ban on outdoor dining areas were reminded that the policy would be self-policing. It was noted that there are other Canterbury councils intending to have smokefree outdoor dining by 2018 but currently no policies are in place. The Policy Advisor suggested Council may wish to change the review cycle for this policy from 5 to 2 years pending the outcome of other councils’ results.

Recommendation to Council That the draft ‘Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy’ is adopted for consultation (Option 2) with

inclusion that outdoor dining areas will be smokefree.

Brown/Reveley Carried 5.12 Use of Reserve Contributions Policy The Subcommittee acknowledged that the policy is outdated and should be removed and this prompted

discussion on how and where reserve funds are allocated and who determines that. Officers were asked to provide a report to Council.

Recommendation to Council That the ‘Use of Reserve Contributions Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register subject to a report

to Council on 23 February on the way in which reserve contributions are allocated.

Brown/Reveley Carried

5.13 White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy

Recommendation to Council That the ‘White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register

(Option 1). Wilson/Braam Carried

The meeting concluded at 11.45am.

ATTACHMENTS: Refer to the document included with this agenda


139

Bylaw & Policy Review

Attachment to Council Agenda item 6.13

23 February 2017 Agenda pages 136-139

Page Terms of Reference Agenda pg 136 1 Policy Documents

Appointment & Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy Agenda pg 137

- Policy Report - Policy

3

Art Collection Management Policy Agenda pg 137 - Policy Report

Policy

17

Coat of Arms Policy Agenda pg 137 - Policy Report - Policy

29

Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy Agenda pg 138 - Policy Report - Policy

32

External Appointments Policy Agenda pg 138


36

Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb & Channel Policy Agenda pg 138


42

Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act Policy Agenda pg 138


45

Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy Agenda pg 138


51

Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy Agenda pg 139 - Policy Report - Policy

54

Use of Reserve Contributions Policy Agenda pg 139 - Policy Report - Policy

63

White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy Agenda pg 139 - Policy Report - Policy

66

Adopted 2 February 2017

Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee

Terms of Reference

Purpose

The purpose of the Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee is to develop and review Council bylaws and policies as required.

Membership

Membership of the Subcommittee comprises:

Mayor, Donna Favel

Deputy Mayor and Chair, Finance and Business Support Committee, Cr Neil Brown

Chair, Environmental Services Committee, Cr Peter Reveley

Deputy Chair, Environmental Services Committee, Cr Diane Rawlinson

Deputy Chair, Finance and Business Support Committee, Cr Leen Braam

Chair, Service Delivery Committee, Cr Stuart Wilson

Deputy Chair, Service Delivery Committee, Cr Russell Ellis

Subcommittee meetings will be chaired by the Mayor. The quorum is four members.

Meeting Frequency

The Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee will meet a minimum of four times per year, and as required to progress

policy and bylaw development and review.

Subcommittee members shall be given not less than 5 working day’s notice of meetings.

Delegations

The Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee has responsibility for the following functions:

Develop, monitor and review Council bylaws and policies

Approve the bylaw and policy review schedules and monitor review progress

Receive and consider information to inform bylaw or policy review

Evaluate relevant information in an objective manner, based on the needs of the community and agree

on policy provisions

Determine the form and extent of public consultation methods as appropriate in accordance with s82 of

the Local Government Act 2002, and approve consultation plans

Recommend bylaws to Council for special consultative procedure

Recommend draft policies, as appropriate, to Council for special consultative procedure

Hear, consider and deliberate on submissions received under the special consultative procedure, or

submissions received as part of any consultative process undertaken by Council in relation to any

decision or power or recommendation within the subcommittees terms of reference

Recommend new or reviewed bylaws and policies to Council for adoption.

1

Adopted 2 February 2017

The Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee has delegated authority to undertake the administration of all statutory functions, powers and duties within its terms of reference, other than those specifically delegated to any other

Subcommittee, Committee, or retained by Council.

Council shall retain the following functions:

Approval of a draft policy or draft bylaw prior to community consultation

Adoption of all Council policies and bylaws

Reporting

The Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee will report to meetings of Council.

2

REPORT

Date: 2 February 2017

Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy

5.3 Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of

Council Organisations Policy

5.3.1 Summary The Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy is a

legislative requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA). This report

discusses the review of this policy, and proposes a new draft policy incorporating changes

to the appointment and remuneration process. This report proposes two options for a new

policy. These include: (1) a policy more restrictive than the status quo, and (2) a policy less

restrictive than the status quo.

5.3.2 Recommendation to Council

That the draft ‘Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy’

is adopted for consultation (Option Two).

5.3.3 Background Local authorities are accountable to the community for the performance of Council

Organisations (COs) through the use of ratepayer funds and community assets. The

Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations Policy was adopted

in 2003 and is currently due for review. Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the

LGA) requires territorial authorities to adopt a policy of this nature. The policy must set

criteria and ensure an objective and transparent process for the:

identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge and experience required of

a director of a CO;

appointment of directors to a CO; and

remuneration of directors of a CO.

The policy establishes that CCOs and CCTOs are considered a subset of a CO. CCOs are organisations in which the council controls 50 per cent or more of the votes or has the right

to appoint 50 per cent (or more) of directors or trustees. CCTOs are organisations that operate a trading for the purposes of making a profit.

The Office of the Auditor-General and Controller (the OAG) state that the relationship

between local authorities and COs is based on ‘mutual respect and trust.’ It goes beyond the statutory requirements and requires ongoing commitment from both parties. COs must meet the expectations of shareholders and the community. It is therefore important that

3

Council adopt a policy that provides a clear process for expectations regarding appointment and remuneration of directors.

Current policy In general, the policy has been operating well in recent years. However, the policy was last

reviewed in 2003 therefore is overdue for review. The policy also contains a number of inconsistencies with other Council documents, legislation, and current business practice. Council has the opportunity to remedy these inconsistencies by adopting a new policy.

Stakeholder engagement Each of Council's CCOs will be contacted as part of this policy review process and provided with draft versions of the proposed changes set out in Appendix 1. Feedback will be sought

on the issues raised, the proposed improvements to the policy and whether any further issues need to be addressed during this review.


There are three main options available for Council in the development of this policy. Table

1 provides a general overview of each option. The main change proposed is restricting the

ability for elected members and Council officers to be appointed as directors to CCOs and

CCTOs. Some technical and minor changes are also proposed. These changes are detailed

in Appendix 1.

Table 1 – Summary of available options

Explanation

Option One - Status Quo Elected members and Council officers areable to be appointed as directors to COs(including CCOs and CCTOs).

Option Two - More restrictive policy

(RECOMMENDED)

Appendix 2

Elected members and Council officers arenot able to be appointed as directors toCCOs and CCTOs (but are able to be

appointed to COs)

Includes more detailed and specificcompetencies required for directors.

Option Three - Less restrictive policy This option would be similar to the status

quo.

Minor changes would be made to ensure

consistency with legislation and otherCouncil documents.

Policy components explained

The main difference between the options is the ability for elected members and/or Council

officers to be elected as directors for CCOs or CCTOs. The implications of these options are

discussed below.

4

1. Elected members as directors of CCOs or CCTOs

Council may wish to appoint elected members to the boards of CCOs or CCTOs. The same

statutory provisions apply to appointing an elected member as a director: the appointment

process should be objective and transparent, and the elected member should have the

requisite skills, knowledge, or experience to contribute as a director. The OAG states:

We consider that appointing elected members to CCO boards should be the

exception. If local authorities wish to appoint elected members to their subsidiary

boards, then the appointment should be open and transparent, and subject to the

same selection criteria as for independent directors.

Advantages

Elected members:

are likely to have a good knowledge and understanding of local government,

may provide assurance that the subsidiary will remain mindful of the Council’s

expectations,

contribute to the diversity of the board, and

can act as representative for the interests of the community.

Disadvantages

Conflict of interest situations are highly likely given the responsibility elected

members have to Council;

Elected members may lack the skills to perform well as a director;

There is an inherent and somewhat unavoidable conflict between an elected

members’ obligations to the Council and their community, and their obligations to

the subsidiary;

Elected members are more likely to be subject to pressure from community groups;

and

It may become difficult for elected members to maintain confidentiality of

commercial information about the CCOs or CCTOs business.

2. Council officers as directors of CCOs or CCTOs

A local authority may want to appoint a Council officer to the board of a CCO or CCTO. Many

of the advantages and disadvantages with elected members will apply also to Council

officers as directors. There is also real potential for Council officers’ role as advisors to the

Council to conflict with the obligation to the organisation as a director.

If Option Two or Three are the preferred options, the proposed timeline is as follows:

Date Task

23 February 2017 Report to Council. Draft policy adopted for consultation.

24 February 2017 Communication with key stakeholders advising of draft policy

adoption and inviting feedback.

23 February – 23

March 2017

Consultation period.

5

February - March

2017

Consultation, hearings and deliberations.

6 April 2017 Council formally adopt policy. Stakeholders advised.

5.3.5 Statutory Implications Under Section 57, the LGA requires a local authority to have an objective and transparent

process for appointment directors to a CO. The Act provides that a local authority can

appoint only a person with the appropriate skills, knowledge or experience to contribute

effectively to the entity.

Section 57 of the LGA sets out:

57 Appointment of directors

(1) A local authority must adopt a policy that sets out an objective and transparent process for-

(a) the identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge, and experience required

of directors of a council organisation; and

(b) the appointment of directors to a council organisation; and

(c) the remuneration of directors of a council organisation.

(2) A local authority may appoint a person to be a director of a council organisation only if the person has, in the opinion of the local authority, the skills, knowledge, or experience to-

(a) guide the organisation, given the nature and scope of its activities; and

(b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the organisation.

The LGA defines the role of directors of Council–controlled organisations as:

58 Role of directors of Council-controlled organisations

(1) The role of a director of a council-controlled organisation is to assist the organisation to meet its objectives and any other requirements in its statement of intent.

(2) This section does not limit or affect the other duties that a director of a council-controlled organisation has.

5.3.6 Significance and Engagement The proposed amendments to the policy are considered to have a moderate level of significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy. The policy is of

interest to COs but it is unlikely to interest the wider community. As such it is proposed the policy is subject to targeted consultation with key stakeholders. The wider community will also have the opportunity to provide feedback through the submission process. The majority of amendments are minor or technical. The more noteworthy changes generally

codify established good practice, and therefore will be discussed with key stakeholders.

6


If Option One is the preferred option, there will be no financial implications. If Option Two

or Three are the preferred options, there will be associated costs with policy development

and consultation. These costs are yet to be determined but will be met by the Business

Support budget.

PREPARED BY


APPROVED BY


7

Appendix 1 – Proposed changes Note – the clauses are listed in corresponding order to the proposed draft policy (Appendix 2).

Table 1 – Proposed Policy Changes

Policy clause Comment Proposed change

Definitions No definitions included.

Inconsistent with other Council policies whichinclude definitions.

Impacts on the legal standing of the document

High level of ambiguity

Current policy refers to the ‘ExecutiveCommittee’. Now referred to as the

Appointments Committee.

Include definitions for:

Appointments Committee

Candidate

Company

Council

Council Organisation

Council-Controlled Organisation

Council-Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTOs)

Directors.

1. Introduction Determines that COs are listed in Appendix 1,

and may be updated as required.

New introduction added to ensure consistency with other Council

policies and corporate policy template.

2. Skills required Competencies updated for clarity and to

match neighbouring territorial authorities.

Separate competencies identified for directorsof CCTOs.

New section added (‘skills required’) which details competencies

and exclusions from appointments.

Addition of clause specifying exclusions from appointment (suchas bankruptcy, criminal conviction etc).

3. Appointment of directors

New policy now split into specific sections (oldpolicy contained individuals sections for each

component).

Inclusion of new clause stating that, if

required, the initial appointment term may beshorter than three years (if required).

New policy restricts elected members and

Council officers from being appointed as

Section now includes subsections for:

Appointment of new directors

Re-appointing directors

Term of appointment

Elected members and Council officers.

8


directors to CCOs and CCTOs. Rationale detailed in the policy.

Appendix 1 – Council

Organisations Outdated information provided on COs.

Does not include current COs.

COs now included in Appendix 1:

Ashburton Contracting Limited (ACL)

Ashburton Community Water Trust

Ashburton Stadium Complex Trust

Canterbury Economic Development Co. Ltd. (CEDCo)

Electricity Ashburton (EA) Shareholders Committee

Experience Mid Canterbury (EMC)

Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) Management Limited

Transwaste Canterbury Limited (TCL).

Table 2 – Clauses that have been removed

Clause/issue Comment

Purpose of policy Purpose of policy replicates legislation (s57, LGA) therefore is not required.

Empathy with Ashburton District Limits the ability to recruit from outside of Ashburton District.

Director’s pool Director’s pool not currently maintained therefore clause serves no purpose in policy.

Reference to ACL Liaison Group All references removed to ensure clause is applicable to all types of organisations.

9

Policy

APPOINTMENT AND REMUNERATION OF

DIRECTORS OF COUNCIL ORGANISATIONS

TEAM: Community Relations

RESPONSIBILITY: Group Manager - Business Support

ADOPTED: TBC

REVIEW: Every five years, or as required

CONSULTATION: None required

RELATED DOCUMENTS: Local Government Act 2002, Companies Act 1993, Companies Reregistration Act 1993.

Policy Objective

To set criteria and ensure an objective and transparent process is followed for selection, appointment, and setting of remuneration of directors appointed to companies by Council.

Definitions

Appointments Committee: The Appointments Committee is the Executive Committee of Council comprising of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the Chairs of the Standing Committees.

Candidate: a person who has submitted a written application for a director’s position or has formally agreed to be considered for such a position.

Company: has the same meaning as that of the Companies Act 1993 and means a company

registered under Part 2 of the Companies Act 1993 or a company reregistered under that Act in accordance with the Companies Reregistration Act 1993. Generally, a company means a body corporate.

Council: means Ashburton District Council.

Council Organisation: As per section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002, a Council Organisation

(CO) is any organisation in which the Council has a voting interest or the right to appoint a director, trustee or manager (however described). This is a wide-ranging definition, covering a large number

of bodies, including Council-Controlled Organisations and Council-Controlled Trading

Organisations. For the purposes of this policy, the definition of a CO excludes Memorial Halls and Reserve Boards as these are treated as subcommittees of Council.

Council-Controlled Organisation: (CCO) is an organisation in which the Council controls, directly or

Appendix 2

10

indirectly, 50% or more of the votes or has the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors, trustees or managers. Ashburton District Council’s CCOs are set out in Appendix 1.

Council Controlled Trading Organisation: (CCTO) is an organisation that operates a trading

undertaking for the purpose of making a profit (as per section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002). Ashburton District Council’s CCTOs are set out in Appendix 1.

Directors: includes company directors, trustees, managers and office holders of an organisation (s6(3)(b), Local Government Act 2002).

Policy Statement

1. Introduction

1.1 Current CCTOs, CCOs and COs are listed in Appendix 1. 1.2 Council may establish further CCTOs, CCOs and COs during the life of this policy. These will be

added to Appendix 1. 1.3 This policy does not apply to Memorial Halls or Reserve Boards.

2. Skills required

2.1 The criteria set out below shall apply to all appointments of directors of CCTOs, CCOs and COs unless an exclusion is noted in Appendix 1.

2.2 The required skills, knowledge and experience for director appointments are assessed in the first instance by the CCTO, CCO or CO.

2.3 Directors are expected to meet a number of competencies as well as the relevant industry- specific or other technical/specialist skills required for the relevant organisation.

2.4 Core competencies include (but are not exclusive to):

Intellectual ability

Business experience or other experience, skills or qualifications that are relevant to the

activities of the organisation

Sound judgement

High standard of personal integrity

No conflict of interest

Commitment to the principles of good corporate citizenship

Understanding of the wider interests of the publicly-accountable shareholder.

2.5 The following additional competencies are required for directors of CCTOs:

Commercial experience

Understanding of governance issues.

2.6 The following persons may not be appointed as directors, as determined by the Appointments Committee:

A bankrupt person who has not obtained a final order of discharge or whose order of

discharge has been suspended;

A person who has been convicted of any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment;

and

A person who has been convicted of any offence involving dishonestly.2.7 The mix of skills and experience on the CCTO, CCO or CO board will be taken into account.

Consideration will be given to complementing and reinforcing existing skills of board members and reducing known weaknesses where necessary.

2.8 It is expected that all appointees to a board will undergo, or already have undergone, formal corporate governance training or have requisite experience in this area.

11

http://gateway/comdem/comm/Logos/ADC Logo Long.tif

3. Appointment of directors

3.1 Appointment of new directors 3.1.1 Council has varying rights to appoint directors, depending on the type of organisation and

shareholding. 3.1.2 Council’s right to appoint directors to CCTOs, CCOs or COs is detailed in Appendix 1. 3.1.3 When a vacancy for a new director arises, the Appointments Committee shall be responsible

to make a recommendation to Council on the basis of the process set out in this policy. 3.1.4 In selecting a new director, consideration shall be given to ensure that there is an

appropriate mix of skills and experience on the board. 3.1.5 The shortlisted candidates will be interviewed by the Appointments Committee to check

Curricula Vitae and referees and ensure the candidates meet the criteria specified in 2.4 and 2.5 (if required) and 2.6.

3.1.6 Representative(s) of the Appointments Committee will make a recommendation to Council on the appointment of new directors.

3.1.7 If required, external contractors will be employed to assist with the recruitment process.

3.2 Re-appointing directors 3.2.1 Where a director’s term of appointment has expired and they are offering themselves for

reappointment, a representative of the Appointments Committee will consult on a confidential basis with the Chairperson of the CCTO, CCO or CO on:

Whether the skills of the incumbent add value to the work of the board

Whether there are other skills which the board needs

Succession issues.3.2.2 The Appointments Committee will consider the information obtained and form a view on

the appropriateness of reappointment. 3.2.3 Representative(s) of the Appointments Committee will make a recommendation to Council

when re-appointing directors. 3.2.4 Where the Chairperson offers themselves to be reappointed, a representative of the

Appointments Committee will liaise with other existing directors. 3.2.5 It is the responsibility of the board of each CCTO, CCO or CO to appoint its own Chairperson.

3.3 Term of appointment 3.3.1 Initial appointments may be made for a period of 1 or 2 years at the discretion of the

Appointments Committee. 3.3.2 The term of the appointment is set by the entity’s constitution document or trust deed. This

would not normally exceed three years. 3.3.3 There may be circumstances where a lesser period of appointment is appropriate. These

circumstances will be determined by the Appointments Committee.

3.3.4 Final appointment of directors will be made by resolution of Council.

3.4 Elected members and Council officers 3.4.1 Elected members and Council officers are not eligible to be appointed to CCTOs or CCOs

due to potential conflict of interest situations.

4. Remuneration

4.1 Where applicable, directors will be paid by the CCTO, CCO or CO.

4.2 Where Council is the sole shareholder, Council will set directors’ remuneration either by resolution at the annual general meeting, or will review salaries on an annual basis for

organisations that do not have such a meeting.

12


4.3 In reaching a view on the appropriate level of remuneration for directors of Council organisations, Council will consider the following factors:

The need to attract and retain appropriately qualified people to be directors of theorganisation;

The levels and movement of salaries in compatible organisations;

The objectives and financial situation of the organisation; and

The past performance of the organisation.4.4 In cases where Council cannot exercise direct control, such as an organisation where it is one

shareholder among many, it will conduct its own monitoring of salaries against the above

factors and will take whatever action Council considers appropriate to ensure compliance with the above factors.

5. Conflict of Interest

5.1 Council expects that Council-appointed directors of any CO will avoid situations where their

actions could give rise to a conflict of interest. This includes the acceptance of gifts, discounts,

hospitality, travel and entertainment of a personal nature. 5.2 Council expects directors to follow the principles of the Institute of Directors in New Zealand

(IoD) Conflicts of Interest, and Best Practice for New Zealand Directors Statements to minimise

these situations.

13


Appendix 1 –Council Organisations

Organisation Type Ownership

structure Appointment of directors Remuneration Scope of activity

Rationale and objectives for

Council ownership

Ashburton

Contracting Limited

(ACL)

CCTO Council owns

100% of the

company.

Council

appoints all

Directors.

Directors

are paid by

ACL.

To provide general civil

contracting work, primarily for

New Zealand Transport Agency,

local authorities and private

customers.

ACL has expertise in construction

and maintenance of:

• Roads

• Footpaths

• Water

• Stormwater

• Wastewater

• Concrete production

• Plant equipment hire.

• To enable local

capacity and

capability to

undertake civil works,

particularly focused

on infrastructure.

Ashburton

Community Water

Trust

CCO Council owns

100% of the

shares.

Council has the

right to appoint

all voting

trustees.

Voting trustees

receive no

remuneration.

To carry out research and development

planning and education with respect to

management of water resources.

• To foster a community

approach to water in

Ashburton District.

Ashburton

Stadium Complex

Trust

CCO Registered

Charitable Trust.

Council is the

settlor under the

Deed of Trust.

Council has the

ability to

appoint the

trustees to this

organisation.

Voting trustees

receive no

remuneration.

To ensure community participation in

decision-making regarding the Electricity

Ashburton Networks Centre indoor

aquatic centre and sports facility.

• To enable charitable

funding to be sought for the

project.

14





Council ownership

Canterbury

Economic

Development Co.

Ltd (CEDCo)

CO Council owns 10%

of CEDCo.

The remaining

90% is owned by

the other

territorial

authorities in the

Canterbury region.

n/a n/a To act as a promoter for

transformational economic

development projects that will

benefit Canterbury and to utilise the

Canterbury Regional Economic

Development Strategy (CREDS) to

co-ordinate strategic economic

development initiatives.

Note: CEDCo is currently dormant.

• To act as the regional entity

regarding the Regional

Strategy Fund (RSF) and

Enterprising Partnership

Fund.

• To act as the regional

interface with the Ministry

of Business, Innovation and

Employment and NZ Trade

and Enterprise.

Eastfield Joint

Venture

CO Council is one of five

parties to the

agreement.

Council, and the

other parties to

the agreement,

appoint the

Governance

Committee.

n/a To enable a comprehensive co-ordinated

development of the Eastfields site.

• To oversee the completion of a

long term development on the

Eastfields site.

Electricity

Ashburton (EA)

Shareholders

Committee

CO Electricity Ashburton

Ltd owns and operates

the electricity network

in the Ashburton district

and carries out the

majority of

maintenance and

capital works on the

network. The company

is owned by the power

consumers in the

district.

Council has the

right to appoint

three members

out of seven to

the committee.

Remuneration of

the members of

the Shareholders

Committee is paid

by Electricity

Ashburton.

To appoint the Directors of the company,

receive the annual Statement of Corporate

Intent and to report on a regular basis to

shareholders on the performance of the

company.

• To monitor performance of

the Shareholders

Committee.

15





Council ownership

Experience Mid

Canterbury (EMC)

CCO Council owns

100% of the

company.

Council has the

right to appoint

all voting trustees

(between five to

seven).

Trustees receive

remuneration

from EMC.

To lead, co-ordinate and promote

the Mid Canterbury visitor industry.

• To work with local and non-

local visitor industry

suppliers to market the

district as a visitor

destination, and to be

accountable through an

effective, public

accountability structure.

Rangitata

Diversion Race

(RDR)

Management

Limited

CO Council owns 20%

of the ordinary

shares.

Council has the

right to appoint

one director.

Voting trustees

receive no

remuneration

To deliver water for power

generation and irrigation.

• To monitor the

performance of the RDR.

Transwaste

Canterbury Limited

(TCL)

For the

purposes

of this

policy,

TCL is

excluded

from the

definition

of CCTO.

Council owns 3%

of the company.

Other shareholders

include:

Canterbury Waste

Services Limited

(50%),

Christchurch City

Council, and

Hurunui,

Waimakariri

District Councils.

A Canterbury

Regional Landfill

Joint Committee

(‘the Committee’)

has been

constituted and

has the power to

appoint four

directors (i.e. the

50% that

represent the

interests of the

local authorities).

The Committee

are responsible for

remuneration of

Council directors.

To own and operate a non-

hazardous regional landfill for the

disposal of residual solid waste.

Associated activities include:

• Transport

• Farming

• Forestry

Native forest development

• To provide an

environmentally

sustainable facility for the

disposal of residual solid

waste.

• All residual waste from


waste collection services is

transported to Kate Valley

for disposal.

16


REPORT

Date: 2 February 2017 Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Senior Policy Advisor

Subject: Art Collection Management Policy

5.4 Art Collection Management Policy

5.4.1 Summary

The Council’s Art Collection Policy is due for review. An initial report to the Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee on 18 May 2016 identified that although the policy itself is robust, it has not been

implemented as intended. This is largely due to no associated budget provision and limited in-

house expertise. The report also noted that the last valuation of the collection identified that although the collection is large it consists mostly of low value pieces.

The report made several recommendations to Council, including making a budget of $5000 per annum from the 2017/18 year for maintenance of the collection, moving to an inter-agency

approach with the Ashburton Art Gallery Inc (AAG) for management of the collection, and that the policy itself is reviewed in light of these changes. Council resolved on 30 June 2016 to follow these recommendations.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council with regards to the policy review and management of the civic art collection.


1. That Council adopts the revised 'Art Collection Management Policy' (Option Two)

2. That Council adopts the Memorandum of Understanding with Ashburton Art Gallery Inc.

5.4.3 Background

Although Council has an Art Collection Policy it has not been implemented as intended, mostly due to lack of resourcing and in-house expertise. There are over 200 items in the collection,

however many are not stored or displayed appropriately. The value of the entire collection is also unknown as although the paintings were last appraised in 2005, sculptures and pottery have not

been appraised. “Bismillan” was the last piece of art purchased by Council in 2011 after which Council decided to cease funding further art acquisitions.

In recent discussions around management of its art collection Council has been open to an inter-

agency approach for the management of Council’s art collection. Council officers have discussed

such an opportunity with AAG’s Manager/Curator as its staff have the expertise and ability to

maintain and display Council’s collection.

Initial discussions with AGG’s Manager/Curator have identified the need for the entire collection to be valued and assessed in the first instance. Once AAG and Council have a clear idea of the state of

the collection will undertake further work to prepare a collection management plan which will

likely include prioritising items for restoration, display and possible disposal.

17

As noted in the May 2016 report, this change in the collection’s management should be reflected

in the Art Collection Management Policy by way of minor amendments and a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) between Council and AAG to enable the policy’s implementation. Appendix 1 shows the changes proposed to the policy, while the revised policy is shown in Appendix 2. The draft MoU is provided in Appendix 3.


There are three basic options Council can consider.

Option One: Status Quo - Reject the MoU and the revised Policy

Council could decide to retain the policy with minor amendments to reflect current practices and reject the MoU. This will mean the art collection remains in its current location.

Advantages

No ongoing financial implication

No additional resourcing required

Art work remains at current locations (including the civic offices, library and in storage).

Disadvantages

The status quo approach will mean that a community asset will be at risk as Council’scollection will not be managed appropriately and likely deteriorate or be damaged orbecome lost

The collection is not properly catalogued

The collection is not easily accessible by the community.

Option Two: Adopt the MoU and the revised Policy (RECOMMENDED)

This will mean the AAG will begin an assessment and valuation of the collection by April 2017 after which a collection management plan will be prepared. Depending on the state of the collection

and resourcing at AAG this process could take a year.

The policy will also need to be revised to reflect the proposed changed to how the collection is managed. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the proposed changes which include a section on definitions, improving the clarity around the role of Council and the AAG, and making the policy more consistent with the current format of council policies. A revised draft policy is provided in

Appendix 2. The draft MoU is provided in Appendix 3.

Advantages

The collection is afforded appropriate care by suitably qualified persons

The collection is displayed and stored appropriately

The community will have better access to the collection

Some pieces could be retained for office furnishings

The policy more accurately describes the management of the collection

Disadvantages

Some pieces may not remain in existing locations

Staff resource will be required to follow processes to adopt the amended policy

5.4.5 Statutory Implications There are no statutory implications or requirements associated in the Council’s art collection or the policy.

18

Council is not required by legislation to have a policy of this nature, however when Council

adopted the policy in 2010, it was agreed that such a policy would provide a consistent approach

in managing the collection and making it available to the community.


The civic art collection is at present, of low significance to the community. If Council were to

implement the recommended option, it will not have an impact on rates or levels of service,

therefore, the recommended option is assessed as having a minimal level of significance and

requires no consultation.

Feedback on changes to the Policy has been sought from the Gallery’s Manager/Curator. The

Gallery’s Manager/Curator has also provided input in to the preparation of the MoU. Council

Officers will attend the AAG meeting on 16 February to provide an update on the policy and MoU.

Wider community consultation is not required as feedback has been obtained from key

stakeholders and the recommended policy changes will have little impact on the wider

community, other than increasing community accessibility to the collection. Consultation on the

associated budget provisions will be undertaken in conjunction with the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.


The Council will need to consider a budget provision of $5000 annually beginning with the 2017/18

year. It is proposed that this be provided from the Arts and Culture activity budget within the

Community Relations budget.

PREPARED BY

MEL RENGANATHAN

Senior Policy Advisor

APPROVED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


19


Table 1 – Proposed Policy Changes


Definitions No definitions included. Include definitions for:

Ashburton Art Gallery Inc

Civic Art Collection

Civic offices

Council

Committee names

updated The Arts and Culture Subcommittee was

disestablished in 2013.

Responsibilities of that subcommittee are now those of the

Finance and Business Support Committee (previously Financeand Community Services Committee).

1. Collection Objectives Criteria to consider items for inclusion in

collection

Amended to provide clarity

2. Collection Ownershipand Management

Includes guidelines around collection

management

Amended to reflect role of Council (as owner of collection) and

AAG (as manager including provision of storage facilities)

3. Display of Works Include guidelines around display of collection

Civic locations for display identified

Amended to reflect role of Council and AAG

Additional civic locations included including AAG space

4. Acquisitions Describes process around purchase of artworks and removal of art from the collection

Describes Council process around acceptanceof gifts

Amended to reflect the nature of the revised policy as a high levelmanagement policy and also to reflect the role of the AAG as

manager of the day to day operational requires of the collection.

5. Loan of Art Works Describes process around loaning of art to and

from Council

Amended to reflect the role of Council and AAG

20



1 Principles Deleted as it is a summary of the policy.

2. Background This information is provided in the report and not needed in the revised policy.

3. Display of work Guidelines around how the collection is to be displayed has not been previously implemented. If as proposed the AAG manages the collection, management will be implemented to AGG standards.

4. Storage of works Clause deleted and a clause included in Policy 2 to identify location of storage.

5. Acquisitions Clauses providing for the purchase and disposal of works have been deleted to better reflect the policy as

a “collection management” policy. As written these clauses are operational in manner and would

therefore be implemented by AAG under the revised policy.

6. Loans of Art Work Operational type clauses have been deleted to better the reflect changes in the policy.

21

Policy

ART COLLECTION MANAGEMENT


RESPONSIBILITY: Community Relations Manager

ADOPTED: Day Month Year

REVIEW: Every three years, or as required

CONSULTATION: None required.

RELATED DOCUMENTS: Copyright Act 1994, Ashburton District Council Art Collection

Register.

Policy Objective

To ensure that Ashburton District Council’s civic art collection is:

a coherent collection of works with recognisable and understandable links to AshburtonDistrict, the Canterbury region and the South Island,

maintained in an appropriate condition, and

displayed and accessible to the community.

Definitions

AAG means the Ashburton Art Gallery Inc.

Civic art collection means Ashburton District Council’s art collection. Civic offices includes the Civic Office building at 5 Baring Square West, Ashburton as well as the

Council Meeting Chambers at 2 Baring Square East, Ashburton. Council means Ashburton District Council. Curator means person or designate who manages or oversees care of the civic art collection.

Policy Statement

1. Collection criteria

1.1. The civic art collection will contain works of art which meet one or more of the following

criteria:

reflect a variety of images which depict Ashburton District, the Canterbury region and

the South Island,

do not over-represent any one artist or duplicate images,

are by contemporary New Zealand artists working in Ashburton District and the

Canterbury region but not necessarily images of the local physical environment,

represent a unique one-off opportunity to acquire a work of art,

are of historic significance due to the reason they are in collection eg marking an

Appendix 2 Draft Art Collection Management Policy

22

occasion in Council’s history,

are works which reflect the diversity and multi-cultural nature of the region,

are works recognising the Treaty of Waitangi which honours Māori as tangatawhenua, and

are works that are able to be appropriately stored, displayed, maintained and insured

by Council within reasonable budget and resourcing levels.

2. Collection Ownership and Management

2.1. Ashburton District Council will retain ownership of all works of art in the civic art collection.

2.2. The curator of the civic art collection is the Council’s Group Manager: Business Support or designate.

2.3. Care of the civic art collection will be managed (including the storage of works) by the

Ashburton Art Gallery Inc (AAG) by way of a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and AAG.

3. Display of Works

3.1. Works will be displayed in the civic offices, the Ashburton Public Library, the AshburtonTrust Event Centre, the Ashburton Art Gallery and in other public spaces at the discretion of Council in discussion with AAG.

4. Acquisitions

4.1. Any new acquisitions will come under this policy and must meet the collection objectivesstated in section 1 of this policy.

4.2. The Council observes a policy of selective acquisition, and is under no obligation to accept works offered to it.

4.3. The Finance and Business Support Committee will have the authority to accept or decline

a gift/bequest upon advice from AAG. 4.4. Policy 4.2 does not apply to corporate gifts given to Council in a professional capacity.

5. Loans of Art Works

5.1 Inward Loans

5.1.1. Generally Council will not seek or accept inwards loans of art work as the conditions of the civic offices are not to gallery standard.

5.1.2. Where Council do receive offers of inwards loans of art work, offers will be referred to

AAG, Ashburton Museum or another appropriate facility.

5.1.3. There may be rare circumstances where loans of art work will be accepted. These circumstances will be determined by AAG or the Ashburton Museum.

5.2 Outgoing Loans

5.2.1. The curator (or designate) in consultation with the Finance and Business Support Committee with advice from AAG will have authority to approve or decline outgoing

23


loan requests. 5.2.2. In making a decision regarding an outgoing loan request the following will be

considered: 5.2.3. Art work from the Council’s collection will not be loaned to private individuals or

private/commercial galleries, except for the purposes of conservation or framing. 5.2.4. A loan will be declined if, in the opinion of the curator in consultation with the Finance

and Business Support Committee and AGG, the condition of the work would be threatened by travel or if the art work is exceptionally rare or unique.

5.2.5. Loans to the Ashburton Art Gallery, or the Ashburton Trust Event Centre may be for an

indefinite period. 5.2.6. Council will able to provide six months notice for the return of any loan at any time. 5.2.7. If a loan is agreed to with any organisation other than the Ashburton Art Gallery or the

Ashburton Trust Event Centre a loan agreement should be completed.

5.2.8. Council ownership of the work will be acknowledged in publications, labels and other written texts, where appropriate.

5.2.9. Copyright permission, in accordance with the Copyright Act 1994, must be sought by

the borrowing institution, where appropriate.

24


Appendix 3 – Draft Memorandum of Understanding

Memorandum of Understanding

Between


And

Ashburton Art Gallery Inc

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) refers to the terms of reference and understanding between the Ashburton District Council (Council) and the Ashburton Art Gallery Inc (AAG) for the loan, care and display of Council’s civic art collection.

This MoU is entered into on DATE MONTH YEAR by

And

Andrew Dalziel CEO Ashburton District Council

Bernard Davidson President Ashburton Art Gallery Inc Committee

25

Definitions

Council means the Ashburton District Council.

AAG means the Ashburton Art Gallery Inc.

The Art Collection means the collection owned by Council as at February 2017 currently housed in several council buildings. The collection includes corporate gifts such as those received from Council’s Sister Cities in Japan and China.

26

Background

Council has acquired over 200 pieces of art from New Zealand artists over a number of years. This collection includes pottery, sculpture and paintings which require specialist expertise in the care, maintenance and displaying of these pieces. Council seeks to work with the Ashburton Art Gallery Inc (AAG) to jointly manage the Council’s art collection by getting an updated valuation and a restoration/management plan for its current collection.

Purpose

The purpose of this MoU is to enable Council to work with AAG to undertake an assessment of its

art collection to enable AAG and Council to display the collection professionally. The Council will support AAG to undertake this work by approving expenditure of up to $5000 per annum. This budget will be identified in the Council’s Annual Plan.

Objectives

Objective 1

The Council will support AAG to commence the assessment of the collection to identify its value by April 2017.

Activities

Valuation - AAG agrees to undertake a complete valuation of the collection. AAG will then prioritise items needing maintenance or restoration based on value of the items and requirement to retain

the items (prioritisation need not be based only on monetary value; it could be based on importance to the district). AAG to recommend a list of items that can be disposed of.

Insurance - AAG will assess the insurance requirements for the collection which Council will obtain

the cover for.

Objective 2

The Council will support AAG in preparing a collection (including its display) management plan by April 2018.

Activities

Collection care - AAG will ensure the collection is appropriately maintained.

Catalogue – AAG will prepare a digital database/catalogue (with appropriate information per item (if possible)). The catalogue will also be documented as a reference booklet (a copy of which will

be made available at the library).

Areas for display - In addition to the spaces at the Civic Offices at 5 Baring Square West, the Ashburton Public Library and the Ashburton Trust Event Centre, the Council will make the Council

Chambers available at 2 Baring Square East for AAG’s use to display items including those in the Council’s collection.

27

Reporting

AAG will include an update on the status of the collection in its annual Service Level Agreement report. The update will also include information with regards to items on, or will be on, display and any maintenance being undertaken.

Funding

The Council will budget $5000 per year for care of the civic art collection.

Review of Agreement

This MoU will be reviewed jointly by June 2018 and then reviewed annually thereafter.

Ownership of collection

The Council remains the owner of the art collection identified in this MoU.

Dispute resolution

Any dispute concerning the subject matter of this document is to be settled by full and frank

discussions and negotiation between the parties.

Relationship Management and Communication

The following nominated persons are to be contacted if matters arise that may of interest to either

party.

It is the responsibility of these contact people to:

Keep both parties fully informed.

Act as a first point of reference between parties and also as liaison person for external contacts.

Communicate between parties on matters that arise which may be of interest to either party.

AGG President’s representative:

Shirin Khosraviani

Manager/Curator

[email protected]

CEO’s representative:

Vincie Billante


[email protected]

28

REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: Coat of Arms Policy

5.5 Coat of Arms Policy

5.5.1 Summary The Coat of Arms Policy was last adopted in 2012 and provides standards about the use of

the Ashburton District Coat of Arms. A desktop review of this policy has determined it is no

longer required for Council business. It is not common practice for territorial authorities to

have a policy of this nature.


That the ‘Coat of Arms Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register (Option One).

5.5.3 Background The purpose of the Coat of Arms Policy is ‘to preserve the Ashburton District Council Coat of

Arms and ensure it is used appropriately’.

The Arms of the District of Ashburton were first granted to the Ashburton Borough on 1 August 1966. The Coat of Arms incorporates portions of the arms of the Lord Ashburton, who

was closely associated with the Canterbury Land Settlement Scheme, and portions of the arms of the Turton family, who were the first European settlers in (what was to become) the Ashburton Borough. With the amalgamation of local government in 1989, the Coat of Arms was formally adopted by Ashburton District.

The Coat of Arms is not currently used on any known Council documents. However, it is possible that the Coat of Arms may be used on mayoral stationary in the future. This is the most common use for the symbol across other territorial authorities.

Figure 1 – Ashburton District Coat of Arms

29

5.5.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Roll over the policy This option is the status quo. Council could choose to roll over the Coat of Arms Policy for a further five years.

Advantages This option has no perceived advantages.

Disadvantages Council retains an outdated policy on the policy register.

Option One – Remove the policy from Council’s policy register (RECOMMENDED) This is the recommended option for the following reasons:

Advantages Requests for use of the Coat of Arms can still be processed with consideration of the

information available on the website.

The Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) provides a sufficient penalty for offences.There is a requirement under s234 of the LGA for applications to be made to Council

for use of the Coat of Arms (or sale of any goods containing the Coat of Arms wherepermission of use has not been granted by Council).

Day-to-day business operations will not be affected by the removal of this policy.

Council’s Community Relations Manager supports the recommendation to removethe policy.

It is not common practice for territorial authorities to have a policy of this nature.

The information in this policy is inconsistent with the format of other ADC policies.The content of the policy is more procedural based than policy based.

Disadvantages Removal of the policy could cause confusion for members of the public wanting to

apply to use the Coat of Arms. However, it is proposed the information on thewebsite will be updated to mirror the (removed) policy.

Given the content is more process based, Council do not need to have a specified

policy detailing this information (and it can instead be provided on the website).

5.5.5 Statutory Implications There is no direct legislative requirement to have a Coat of Arms Policy. Section 234 of the

Local Government Act 2002 states:

234 Unauthorised use of coat of arms Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty specified in section 242(2) who, without prior written authority of the relevant local authority,—

(a) for the purposes of sale, applies or permits to be applied to an article the coat of arms of the local authority or an imitation of that coat of arms; or (b) sells or offers the article for sale, or permits it to be sold or offered for sale, knowing that the coat of arms or an imitation of it has been applied to the article.”

30


This matter has been considered in regards to Council’s Significance and Engagement

Policy. The decision to remove the policy is deemed not to be significant, and has only low

level significance. Removal of the policy is unlikely to generate community or media

interest.


If Option Two is the preferred option, there will be no costs associated with the decision to

remove the policy. If Option One is the preferred option, staff resource will be required to

maintain the policy, and review the policy again within five years.

PREPARED BY


APPROVED BY


31

REPORT

Date: 2 February 2017 Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor

Subject: Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy

5.6 Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy

5.6.1 Summary New legislation provides territorial authorities with the opportunity to adopt a policy that enables shops to trade on Easter Sunday. Early engagement with retail businesses has determined there is

minimal need for an Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy (ESTHP) in Ashburton District. This report discusses the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a policy.


That Council determines if it wishes to adopt an Easter Trading Policy for Ashburton District

5.6.3 Background

Territorial authorities have the ability to adopt Easter Sunday Trading Policies under the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016. The policy allows shops to trade within all or parts of their district on Easter Sunday. On 15 December 2016, Council resolved to take a pro-active approach

to policy development. Retail businesses have been contacted by Council officers to determine if there is any demand for a policy.

Enforcement of breaches of shop trading remain with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the level of penalties remain the same as under the Shop Trading Hours

Act 1977. Garden centers have had the choice to trade on Easter Sunday since 2001. The new Act gives employees the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday, which now includes garden center workers.

Early engagement

Retail businesses in Ashburton District were provided the opportunity to provide feedback through an informal online survey. A total of 86 retail businesses were contacted. 6 survey responses were received (a response rate of 0.07%). Additional feedback was received from 2 businesses, both of

which were not in support of an ESTHP (this information is included in Table 1). Of the businesses who support an ESTHP, only 2 are currently open for trade on a Sunday and only 1 business stated

that they may want to be open on Easter Sunday in the future.

Table 1 – Summary of results

Number of responses

Supports an ESTHP 4

Does not see a need for an ESTHP 4

32

5.6.4 Options and Risks ConsideredOption One – Do not adopt an Easter Sunday Trading Policy (status quo)

Council could resolve not to adopt an Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy. Given there is no

demonstrable need, it could be argued it is not necessary to devote resources towards policydevelopment.

Advantages

The survey revealed a lack of demand.

The cost of developing a policy exceeds the level of demand.

Most retail businesses are closed on Sunday’s in Ashburton District.

Developing a policy will require ongoing resources (both staff and budgetary).

An ESTHP must be reviewed every 5 years and must use the Special ConsultativeProcedure (SCP). This will require budget for printing of consultation materials, andholding public hearings.

The ability to adopt a policy can be reassessed if the need arises.

Neighbouring territorial authorities are unlikely to develop ESTHPs.

Disadvantages

Potential loss of economic development opportunities with regards to tourism in thedistrict.

Potential that requests may be received in the future.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the retail climate in Ashburton is largely unpredictable. Thereis a possibility of missed opportunities for retail businesses if no policy is adopted.

Staff time may be used up responding to requests (however, it is unlikely that a highnumber of requests will be received).

The policy will have to be reviewed at least every five years.

Option Two – Adopt an Easter Sunday Trading Policy

Council could choose to adopt an Easter Sunday Trading Hours Policy. The policy would be subjectto a period of community consultation through use of the SCP. If a policy is adopted, employees

will have the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

Advantages

‘Future proofing’ – if the need for a policy arises in the future, the policy will already be inplace.

Provides businesses with the ability to decide whether or not to trade on Easter Sunday.

Supports economic development opportunities with regards to tourism in the district.

Shows support for the importance of the retail sector to Ashburton District.

Disadvantages

There is no demonstrable demand for a policy.

The low survey response rate determines retail businesses are not concerned about an

ESTHP.

Adopting a policy means there will be ongoing costs with policy development andconsultation.

If an employee refuses to work on Easter Sunday this could create workplace tension.

Policy development could be seen as a waste of resources if no businesses open on EasterSunday.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the policy is likely to receive significant opposition from

religious groups.

33

Even if Council adopt a policy, the enforcement of the policy remains with central

government (MBIE).

If Option Two is the preferred option, the proposed timeline is as follows:

Date Task

23 February 2017 Report to Council. Draft policy adopted for consultation


adoption and recommending stakeholders discuss the policy

with employees (if opening on Easter Sunday is desirable)

23 February – 23

March 2017

Consultation period

February - March

2017

Consultation, Hearings and Deliberations

6 April 2017 Council formally adopt policy. Stakeholders advised

5.6.5 Statutory Implications Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 Under the new law, territorial authorities can introduce local polices for shop trading in their entire district or in limited areas on Easter Sunday. Territorial authorities must consult with their communities using the SCP on any local policy to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday. Local

policies cannot control or override shop trading provisions in other legislation, such as defining specific opening hours, liquor licensing provisions or determining what types of shops may open. An ESTHP adopted by a local authority must be reviewed no later than five years after the date on which it was adopted. Section 5C (4) of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 requires the

use of the SCP when undertaking a review and determining whether to amend, revoke, replace or continue the policy.


The proposed policy development process has been assessed with regards to Council’s

Significance and Engagement Policy and is considered to have a moderate level of significance.

The survey received an extremely low response rate and there are very few retail businesses that

currently operate on Sundays.

If Council choose to adopt an ESTHP, a full special consultative procedure will be required as per

section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and in accordance with section 5C of the Shop Trading

Hours Amendment Act 2016. If a policy is adopted, the community will have the opportunity to

provide feedback during the formal consultation process.


If Option One is the preferred option, there will be no financial implications. If Option Two is the

preferred option, there will be associated costs with policy development and consultation. These

costs are yet to be determined.

34

PREPARED BY

RACHEL THOMAS

Policy Advisor

APPROVED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


35

REPORT

Date: 2 February 2017 Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Community Relations Manager

Subject: External Appointments Policy

5.7 External Appointments Policy

5.7.1 Summary

Ashburton District Council receives requests from community groups or other government

organisations to appoint a Council representative onto a board or committee, often an elected

member. To date there has been no policy framework adopted by Council to use when

considering these requests, and they have been handled in an ad-hoc manner with little

consistency. Council also makes appointments to joint committees or CCOs as part of its

determinations of delegations. The Mayor has requested a policy be developed to help Council

make consistent and clear decisions in future when requests come in that align to the Council’s

priorities.


That Council adopts the ‘External Appointments Policy’ (Option Two).

5.7.3 Background

Council receives requests from community groups or government organisations from time to

time and, in the absence of a policy on appointments to external organisations, these have been

dealt with on a case by case basis. Often the decision on whether to make an appointment, what

the basis of the appointment might be, and who might be appointed depends on whether there

is an elected member with an interest in the organisation who is willing to put themselves

forward.

Over the years elected members have made valuable contributions to the governance of

community organisations across a range of activities. Often elected members have in turn

enjoyed the roles they have taken on and relationships between community organisations and

Council have often benefited.

There can be, however, some problems with having elected members appointed to external

organisations or with Council making a commitment to provide appointees. These include the

following:

Having an elected member willing to put themselves forward for appointment to a

particular group does not guarantee there will be a willing appointment in future years.

Elected members without any interest in or empathy with an organisation to which they

are appointed are not likely to provide the skills and enthusiasm the organisation (or

Council) is looking for.

36

The issue of conflict of interest must be considered in making any appointments of this

type. Elected members who are members of the board of an external organisation cannot

take part in discussions or Council voting that in any way impacts on that organisation.

This is not a requirement that has been adhered to as closely as necessary in the past

when elected members have often championed organisations they have an involvement

with around the Council table. This is a clear conflict of interest situation that needs to

be managed appropriately.

Council has over 65 committees, subcommittees, working groups, and joint committees

that form core Council business. This requires a significant amount of time from elected

members to attend these over the course of a term, and the addition of external

appointments impacts on individual elected member’s time and commitments.

Council has recently adopted the Delegations Manual that appoints the elected members

to the 65+ committees and other governance structures, with a view to avoid

appointments to external organisations to streamline the delegations and refocus the

energies onto core business as defined in the LGA02.

Often the elected member is seen as a means to an end for getting financial support from

Council. This relies upon the elected member playing advocate for the particular group

or cause, which again brings up the conflict of interest issue.

The fact that a councillor is appointed onto a board or governing body suggests that

Council would have some role in the governance and decision making for that

organisation, when usually this is not the case. Council does not receive meeting agendas

or minutes for external organisations, and often has no say in the direction or setting of

priorities for that organisation’s activities.

Given the potential pitfalls of appointments to external organisations, Council should consider a

policy-based approach. This would enable a more structured approach based on sound

principles to this type of decision-making with criteria on the types of appointments Council

would agree to make. This could be based on criteria such as:

the nature of the service being delivered by the organisation – is it aligned with Council’s

priorities and the core services in the LGA02 or is it more aligned to central government?

the existence of Memoranda of Understanding or contractual agreements with the

particular organisation concerned

the level of Council funding the organisation receives and what that funding is for – i.e.

service delivery or general administration

the contribution the organisation makes to helping Council achieve its community

outcomes and/ or strategic objectives

the risks associated with conflict of interest with respect to the particular organisation.

A policy approach to this type of appointments process should include covering appointments

of directors to council organisations (such as Rangitata Diversion Race Management Limited),

council controlled organisations (such as Ashburton Contracting Limited and Experience Mid

Canterbury) and to committees and joint committees (such as reserve boards and river rating

area committees).

37

It is important to note that Council would not consider whatever is stated in any particular

organisation’s trust deed or constitution (unless legislatively mandated, as in reserve boards) as

a basis for making its appointments. Council cannot be held accountable for the expectations of

a particular organisation phrased as a policy statement in that organisation’s internal

documentation. Making decisions on that basis could potentially open the door for any group to

include Council representation on its governance group, regardless of the activities and purpose

of the group, and then placing unreasonable expectations on the Council to meet that

commitment.

One final point is that the lack of a formal appointment onto any external organisation or

community group does not preclude any elected member from taking a role in the governance

based on their own recognisance. However, any elected member who is on an external

governance structure must still adhere to the conflict of interest principles by declaring their

interest and recusing themselves from any discussion or decision making at Council meetings if

that organisation or group is being discussed.


Option One: Council maintains the status quo

Council could decide it will not make any changes to current practice. This means not having any

policy for its appointments and instead continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

This has been the process prior to the current term of Council, and has presented issues around

fairness and equity in Council’s support of community groups or external organisations.

The advantage of this approach is Council will have the flexibility to change its views and choose

its appointments in response to the issues presented by community groups.

The disadvantage of this approach is Council will continue to make inconsistent decisions and

runs the risk of stretching the limited resources of elected members’ time, and place them in a

position of a conflict of interest as has happened in the past.

This option is not recommended.

Option Two: Council adopts the External Appointments Policy RECOMMENDED

Council can adopt the policy to help set clarity and establish a principles-based approach to its

decision making around its appointments. This would mean that all requests would be handled

in the same way and considered against the set criteria to help Council maintain a consistent

approach.

The advantage of this approach is it would help Council’s decision making processes in a fair and

equitable manner with regards to making appointments on external organisations.

The disadvantage is that some elected members might feel they should have the mandate to be

formally appointed by Council to community groups or organisations they have a strong interest

in and this approach might not align with their vision of their role. (Note that any elected member

is free to join any community group or organisation’s board based on their own recognisance.)

38


Local Government Act 2002, s14 – Principles relating to local authorities:

(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

(a) a local authority should—

(i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable

manner; and

(ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and

effective manner


This policy review has minimal interest to the wider community. As such it is not proposed to

subject the policy to a period of public consultation.


Neither option require any financial commitment given consultation will not be required.

Prepared By:

VINCIE BILLANTE


Approved by:

PAUL BRAKE


39

Policy

EXTERNAL APPOINTMENTS POLICY


RESPONSIBILITY: Community Planning Manager

ADOPTED: TBC

REVIEW: Every five years, or as required

RELATED DOCUMENTS: Ashburton District Council Delegations Manual.

Policy Objective

To clarify Council’s position when requested to make Council appointments to external organisations and community groups.

Policy Statement

Council will consider all requests for appointments to external organisations and community groups in a fair and consistent manner, with regard to Council’s current priorities and delegations at the time of the request.

1. Requests for Council appointments

Any community group or external organisation who requests an appointment by Council onto its

board or committee must:

1.1 Hold an open Annual General Meeting (AGM), advertised as widely as practicable to the local community, that includes a process for electing committee members

1.2 Have an active membership of at least 6 people

1.3 Keep accurate and detailed financial accounts

1.4 Meet at least twice per year and keep minutes of those meetings

1.5 Agree to make financial accounts and minutes available to Council

1.6 Be the only group of its kind for a defined geographic area

1.7 Have a written constitution or trust deed

1.8 Agree that the Council appointee will have full participation in the governance and decision

making of the organisation

1.9 Agree that the Council appointee (if an elected member) will declare a conflict of interest at

Council meetings and will not participate in any Council discussions or decisions regarding that particular community group or external organisation, including for funding discussions

1.10 Have goals and objectives that align with Council’s strategic priorities for the district

1.11 Conduct meetings openly, fairly and respectfully, and not behave in an abusive or discourteous manner to the Council appointee or to Council in general

40

2. Council Decision Making Criteria for Making Appointments

Council will consider all requests made for an appointment to an external organisation or community group against the following criteria:

2.1 External organisations or community groups that Council is a shareholder or settlor of the trust will have greater priority than those where Council has no financial investment.

2.2 The kaupapa or philosophy of the organisation or group should align with Council’s strategic priorities, goals and objectives for the district.

2.3 The organisation or group must be working for the greater good of the community, or to

address inequities within the community, and not for any individual’s personal or pecuniary advantage.

2.4 The appointment must not disadvantage any other organisation, group, or individual in any way.

2.5 The organisation or group must not be in an adversarial position to Council or be in any legal

proceedings against, or negotiations with, Council at the time of the appointment.

2.6 If the organisation or group is funded by central government organisations, the Council appointment should be a good strategic fit that encourages cross-sector collaboration.

2.7 The organisation must have a sound financial basis, not be in debt to Council, and not pose a

reputational risk to Council in any way.

2.8 The appointment may be an elected member if the Mayor determines there is capacity within the current term of Council’s delegations.

2.9 Alternatively, private citizens may be appointed to represent Council’s interests if the

organisation or group agrees, provided they are of good character and pose no reputational risk to Council.

2.10 Council officers may be appointed with the permission of the Chief Executive Officer if there is no demonstrable conflict of interest in that appointment.

2.11 The organisation or group, or any individuals representing it as such, must not have behaved

towards Council in an aggressive or negative manner in the media or public forum.

2.12 The organisation or group must have the ability to be self-sustaining for its administrative and financial matters, and not expect the Council appointment to act as an administrator or

financial manager for that organisation or group.

Council retains the right to decline any requests for representation.

3. Conflict of Interest

3.1 Council expects that Council-appointed members to any organisation or community group will avoid situations where their actions could give rise to a conflict of interest. This includes

the acceptance of gifts, discounts, hospitality, travel and entertainment of a personal nature.

3.2 Council expects that all appointees will adhere to best practice standards for good

governance.

41


REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy

5.8 Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and

Channel Replacement Policy

5.8.1 SummaryThe Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy is overdue

for review. This policy is part of a wider review of all Council roading policies. However, it

has been identified that the review of this policy should be prioritised as it is inconsistent

with current Council business practice. The purpose of this report is to seek removal of the

policy from Council’s policy register.


That the ‘Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy’ isremoved from Council’s policy register (Option Two).

5.8.3 BackgroundThe Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy sets out

the requirements of footpath treatment in residential areas following construction work.The policy was last reviewed in 2001 therefore is overdue for review and is outdated in termsof current business practice.

On 3 September 2015, a report to the Service Delivery Committee recommended for the

Footpath Treatment Associated with Kerb and Channel Replacement Policy to beincorporated in the Footpath Renewals Programme. The recommendation stated:

That the Committee gives approval for the Footpath Treatment Policy to be

incorporated in the Footpath Renewals Programme with minor amendment tosubstitute readylawn with a soil and seed option for berm surfacing.

This recommendation was accepted by Council at the 24 September 2015 meeting. At thetime, the policy was not triggered for review because the policy is part of a wider review ofCouncil’s roading policies. However, it has been identified that the policy should be

prioritised for review, as there has been some confusion in the community surrounding theuse of soil and seed over readylawn.

This report does not provide Council with the opportunity to reverse or renegotiate the

recommendation made in September 2015. Instead, this report gives Council theopportunity to ensure clarity for the community by removing a policy which is currentlyvoid.

42

Review of roading policies

When Council’s policy register was created in 2001, many of the procedural roading documents were included. Several of these documents actually related to operational

procedures, but at the time were considered ‘policies’. These legacy policies are still technically on Council’s policy register (which means they are published on the website as public documents). It is proposed that the numerous roading policies will be reviewed this year and where possible, combined into a more sensible order. Those that are technical

guidelines (as the current policy actually is) will be removed from the register and be more appropriately placed in the technical documentation. The intention is to present these policies to the Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee in April and May.

5.8.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Retain the policy in its current form This is the status quo option. The policy would remain on Council’s policy register. It is

unclear what purpose retaining this policy would serve. Retaining the policy would require a change to the Footpath Renewals Programme.

Advantages There are no perceived advantages.

Disadvantages The policy:

is not reflective of current business practice,

is outdated,

is superseded by the decision made in 2015,

contradicts the Footpath Renewals Programme,

sends a confusing message to the community,

contains procedural content as opposed strategic content, and

is inconsistent with the strategic direction of other Council policies.

Option Two – Remove the policy (RECOMMENDED)

Council could choose to remove the policy from the policy register.

Advantages Removal of the policy will not change day-to-day business operations.

The intent of the policy is more appropriately addressed by the Footpath Renewals

Programme.

The information in this policy is inconsistent with the format of ADC policies. Thecontent of the policy is more procedural based than policy based

Council’s Roading Manager is in support of the decision to remove the policy.

Disadvantages There are no perceived disadvantages with this option.

Option Three – Review and update the policy Council could choose to review and update the current policy.

Advantages There are no perceived advantages with this option.

43

Disadvantages It is not common practice for territorial authorities to have a policy of this nature.

The information contained in the policy should not be subject to policy review as itrelates to internal business procedure.

5.8.5 Statutory Implications There is no legislative requirement to have a policy on residential footpath treatment.


This matter has been considered with regards to Council’s Significance and Engagement

Policy and the decision to remove the policy is deemed not to be significant, and has only

low level significance, given the low level of community interest, and minimal change to

business operations.


If Option Two is the preferred option, there will be no costs associated with the decision to

remove the policy. If Option One or Three are the preferred option, staff resource will be

required to develop a policy.

PREPARED BY

RACHEL THOMAS

Policy Advisor

APPROVED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


44

REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Requests

Policy

5.9 Local Government Official Information and

Meetings Act 1987 Requests Policy

5.9.1 Summary Requests for official information are governed by the Local Government Official Information

and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). Any person can make a request for information held by

Council. Territorial authorities have the ability to adopt policies which set out the process

managing LGOIMA requests. The policy is not a legislative requirement but provides clarity

around the process for members of the public. This report discusses the review of the

LGOIMA policy, and proposes only minor grammatical changes to the new policy.


That the draft ‘Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Requests

Policy’ is adopted for consultation (Option Two).

5.9.3 Background LGOIMA aims to make official information held by local authorities more freely available

and gives members of the public the ability to request access to official information from local authorities. The purpose of LGOIMA is to ensure members of the public can:

have a say and an opportunity to influence the actions and decisions of localauthorities,

hold local authority members and their officials to account for any decisions oractions they take, and

understand why decisions were made which will enhance both respect for the law

and promote good local government in New Zealand.

It is not mandatory for territorial authorities to adopt a policy that sets out the process for handling LGOIMA requests. However, LGOIMA policies provide clarity on Council’s approach

to managing requests. If the reply to a request for information is likely to take a significant amount of research, Council is entitled under LGOIMA to impose a charge for the provision of the information.

The principle of the LGOIMA legislation is that information should be made available unless there are good reasons for withholding it. Council is entitled to consider not releasing information if it would:

Prejudice the maintenance of the law;

45

Endanger the safety of any person;

Breach the privacy of any person;

Disclose confidential or commercially sensitive information;

Cause offence to tikanga Māori or would disclose the location of waahi tapu;

Breach an obligation of confidence;

Prejudice: public health or safety; the Council’s right to legal professional privilege;the commercial activities of the Council; or negotiations being carried out by theCouncil.

Charging Guidelines Central government has issued Charging Guidelines that specify standard charges of:

$38 per half hour of staff time in excess of one hour; and

$0.20 per page for photocopying in excess of 20 pages.

Territorial authorities may develop their own ‘charging policies’ (or LGOIMA policies) that

specify rates of charging that differ from the guidelines. However, the application of an internal charging policy that is inconsistent with the Charging Guidelines risks an Ombudsman’s finding on review that the charge in question was unreasonable. An example of where this may occur would be where a territorial authority charged a substantially higher rate than recommended by the guidelines.

Ashburton District Council LGOIMA Policy 2013

The current LGOIMA policy was last reviewed in 2013 and is set on a 3 year review cycle. A desktop review and discussion with the Community Relations Manager has determined that the policy in its current form is working well. As such, no major changes are proposed in the new draft policy.

Requests received The number of requests received under LGOIMA has remained steady in recent years.

Charging for LGOIMA requests helps to keep the number received at a manageable level,

and ensures Council officers are not overloaded with requests. The fees are set out in the Ashburton District Council Annual Plan Fees and Charges Schedule and are reviewed annually (as part of the Annual Plan review). Per half hour of additional time is charged at

$39.00 ($1.00 higher than the recommended $38.00 in the Charging Guidelines), and the

photocopy charge is 20 cents per A4 page (the same as the Charging Guidelines).

Table 1 - Number of requests received Year Number

2014 35

2015 56

2016 45

2017 (to date) 1

5.9.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Do not adopt the revised policy This is the status quo option and would see Council retaining the current policy.

Advantages There are no perceived advantages with this option.

46

Disadvantages An outdated policy remains on Council’s policy register.

Option Two – Adopt the revised policy (RECOMMENDED) This option would see Council adopting a revised version of the previous policy. The new

draft policy is attached as Appendix 1. Only minor grammatical changes have been made to the policy, therefore this option can be considered a ‘roll over’ of the existing policy.

Advantages The updated policy is consistent with other Council policies.

An additional clause has been added to set out Council’s approach to unreasonableconduct.

No issues have been identified with the current policy therefore there is no reason

to make any significant changes.

Council has the opportunity to assess the fees during the Annual Plan process (ifdesired).

Provides clear guidance for members of the public wishing to lodge requests.

Adopting the revised policy can be considered as best practice.

Disadvantages Staff resource is required for future reviews of the policy.

It is not a legislative requirement to have a policy of this nature.

Not all territorial authorities have a policy of this nature.

5.9.5 Statutory Implications Requests for official information are governed by the Local Government Official Information

and Meetings Act 1987 and the Privacy Act 1993. These Acts aim to balance public interest and preservation of personal privacy.

5.9.6 Significance and Engagement The proposed amendments to the policy are not deemed significant in terms of Council's

Significance and Engagement Policy. The majority of amendments are minor or technical, and generally codify established good practice.

This policy review has minimal interest to the wider community as only minor changes have been made. As such it is proposed to utilise low level consultation methods.

5.9.7 Financial Implications If Option One is the preferred option, staff resource will be required to develop a new draft

of the policy. If Option Two is the preferred option, there will be no costs associated with the decision to adopt the draft policy. Neither option poses financial implications.

PREPARED BY

RACHEL THOMAS

Policy Advisor

APPROVED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


47

Policy

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION

AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 REQUESTS


RESPONSIBILITY: Community Relations Manager

ADOPTED: TBC

REVIEW: Every 3 years or as required.


RELATED DOCUMENTS: Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Privacy Act 1993, Ashburton District Council

Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Policy Objective

1. To enable Council to respond to requests for official information without incurring undue

financial impacts on the organisation.

2. To provide clear guidance for requesters of information and Council staff regarding whatinformation will be charged for.

Background

The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) aims to make official information held by local authorities more freely available.

LGOIMA looks to promote:

effective participation by the public in actions and decisions of the local authority

the open and public transaction of business of the council

accountability of council members and staff

There are protections from disclosure where non-disclosure is in the public interest or to protect

personal privacy.

If the reply to a request for information is likely to take a significant amount of time to research, collate and copy, the Ashburton District Council is entitled under LGOIMA, to charge for the

provision of the information.

Appendix 1

48

Policy Statement

1. Official Information Response – Non-chargeable

1.1 When fulfilling requests for official information the following will be provided free of charge:

The first one hour of staff time spent on fulfilling an official information request;

The first twenty single side pages of black and white photocopying or printing.

2. Official Information Response - Chargeable

2.1 When fulfilling requests for official information the following will be provided and charged for:

Staff time taken to gather and provide information in excess of one hour.

Photocopying or printing in excess of the first twenty single side pages of black andwhite photocopying or printing.

2.2 This will be charged at a rate set in the Council’s schedule of Fees and Charges contained in

either the Council’s Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

2.3 All other charges incurred shall be fixed at an amount that recovers the actual costs involved. This includes:

producing a document by computer or other like equipment,

colour photocopies,

reproducing a photograph, film, video or audio recording,

arranging for the requestor to hear or view an audio or visual recording, or

providing a copy of any maps, plans or similar documents.

2.4 The rates charged are as outlined in the Ministry of Justice Guidelines and may be amended in Council’s schedule of Fees and Charges to reflect any changes in Ministry Guidelines.

3. Implementation of Charges

3.1 The requester will be advised of the estimated cost of their request (if any) as soon as practicable following Council receiving the request. The requester then has the option of proceeding, withdrawing or refining their request.

3.2 In accordance with section 13(4) of LGOIMA, Council may require that whole or part of any charge be paid in advance. A deposit will only be requested when the decision has been made to release the information.

3.3 Requestors are able to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in regards to the

proposed charge.

3.4 The requester will be invoiced for any charges to be paid (net of any deposit already paid) at

the time the information is provided and is subject to Council’s normal invoicing procedures.

3.5 Charges may be waived in whole or in part at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer. This will generally be in a situation where there is an agreed public interest in the disclosure of the information requested.

49

4. Managing unreasonable conduct

4.1 Council acknowledges that while most LGOIMA requests are reasonable, there are circumstances where unreasonable conduct will occur.

4.2 Unreasonable conduct is considered a behaviour by a current of former LGOIMA requestor which, because of its nature or frequency, raises substantial health, safety, resource or equity issues for the parties to a request.

4.3 Where a Council officer feels that unreasonable conduct has occurred, the matter will be

escalated to the Chief Executive Officer.

50

REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Community Relations Manager Subject: Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy

5.10 Representative Community Group Financial

Assistance Policy

5.10.1 Summary The Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy was adopted in 2013 and

provides criteria about the use of the Ashburton District Representative Community Group

Financial Assistance. A desktop review of this policy has determined it is no longer required

for Council business.


That the 'Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy' is removed

from Council’s policy register (Option One).

5.10.3 Background The purpose of the Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy is ‘to

support representative community groups to advance the interests of their local

community’ by granting $300 for administrative costs. It is presumed that the main targets of this funding were the various citizen’s associations that have been established through the district, although the policy does not specify this.

This policy was adopted in 2013 (due for review in 2018), and listed criteria for those

community groups that would be eligible to apply for the funding, including having a Council-appointed representative on the committee/board. However, it appears that in recent years (from 2014 to present day) no community group has actually applied for this funding which could be attributed to a lack of awareness of the policy. Subsequently, at the

time of the Long Term Plan 2015-25 development, no funds were budgeted to support this

policy in practice.

In 2015 Council adopted a new Community Grant and Funding structure and process. This new process enables any community group to make applications for funding for projects or

programmes that benefit the community, effectively superseding this policy with a robust

and clear set of eligibility criteria. It appears that the main difference between that and the

criteria in this policy is the requirement to have a Council-appointed representative (that is not a requirement for community funding).

The new term of Council has also adopted a new Delegations Register that the Mayor has

emphasised should focus on the 65+ Council committees, subcommittees, working groups, joint committees and advisory groups. The Mayor has also requested a policy on the external appointments to align to the new Delegations Register (see the External

51

Appointments Policy and Report). This policy as it is written would not be legitimate as

Council is no longer making appointments to community groups, thus making the criteria redundant.

To align all the policies and processes relating to community funding and appointments to community organisations, it is proposed to revoke this policy and remove it from the policy register and direct any community group seeking funding to our Community Grants applications.

5.10.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Remove the policy from Council’s policy register (RECOMMENDED)

This is the recommended option for the following reasons:

Requests for financial assistance for projects (including administrative costs) can

still be considered as part of the Community Grants and Funding process for anycommunity groups who make an application.

No community group has applied for funding through this policy for the past threeyears (most likely as they may not be aware of it).

Subsequently, there has not been the budget allocated for this funding in the LongTerm Plan 2015-25.

Day-to-day business operations will not be affected by the removal of this policyand it will not impact community groups from how they are working now (i.e. theywon’t miss what they don’t have).

If Option One is the preferred option, the information on the website will be updated to mirror the (removed) policy and funding for these groups will be made available through the Community Grants and Funding process for the 2017/18 financial year.

Option Two – Amend the policy to change the eligibility criteria and roll over This option is the status quo with modifications. Council could choose to amend the Representative Community and Group Financial Assistance Policy to remove the

requirement for Council-appointed representation and adopt it for a further five years.

Advantages This option would provide a small amount of financial relief to community groups such as citizens’ associations for low-level administrative costs (note, funding cannot be used for

salaries and/or printing community newsletters). It appears these groups are unaware this exists and have not applied for any funding under this policy for the past three years.

Disadvantages Council has not allocated any budget for this policy and could potentially be up for quite a

bit of funding if it is adopted and made public to the wide range of community groups, depending on the eligibility criteria it sets in the amended policy.

If Option Two is the preferred option, it would require a budget in the upcoming Annual

Plan. This funding potentially could be another category in the Community Grants and

Funding application round, and a request for the funding would be made by the Community Grants and Funding Subcommittee to Council.

52

5.10.5 Statutory Implications There is no legislative requirement to have a Representative Community Group Financial Assistance Policy.


This matter has been considered in regards to Council’s Significance and Engagement

Policy and the decision to remove the policy is deemed not to be significant, and has only

low level significance.


If Option One is the preferred option, there will be no costs associated with the decision to

remove the policy. If Option Two is the preferred option, there will need to be a budget

included in the Annual Plan to allow for the funding for this policy.

PREPARED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


APPROVED BY

PAUL BRAKE


53

REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy

5.11 Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy

5.11.1 Summary The Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy sets out conditions for the business use of

footpath areas for alfresco dining. This report discusses the policy options available to

Council, including smokefree outdoor dining. The recommended option is to adopt a

revised policy with minor changes to reflect current business practice. It is recommended

that Council utilise low level consultation methods to obtain community feedback on the

policy.


That the draft ‘Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy’ is adopted for consultation (Option Two).

5.11.3 Background The Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy was last adopted in 2014 and is currently due for review. The policy establishes conditions that are to be met when a business requests

the use of footpaths for patron usage. The policy aims to balance safety concerns for both pedestrians and motorists, against the ability for businesses to utilise footpath areas.

Business owners wanting to utilise footpath areas for alfresco dining must apply for a ‘licence to occupy the footpath’. This licence is processed by Council’s property team and are generally for a one year term. After one year, a licence may be rolled over.

Ashburton District Council Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy 2014

The Use of Footpath for Alfresco Dining Policy was first adopted by Council on 17 May 2012. The policy was then reviewed and amended in 2014. The policy was not consulted on in

2014 as only minor changes were made. The policy was set on a 3 year review cycle therefore is currently due for a review. A desktop analysis has determined that the policy is generally working well. However, minor changes are proposed to ensure the policy is consistent with

business practice. These changes are detailed in Appendix 1, and the new draft policy is provided as Appendix 2.

5.11.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Do not adopt the revised policy This is the status quo option and would see Council retaining the current policy.

Advantages Council would not be required to consult if the policy is rolled over.

54

If the policy is rolled over, less staff resource would be required.

Disadvantages The policy is inconsistent with other Council policies.

An outdated policy would remain on Council’s policy register.

The policy does not show support for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

Option Two – Adopt the revised policy (RECOMMENDED) Council could choose to adopt the revised policy (Appendix 1).

Advantages Council endorsed the central government initiative ‘Smokefree Aotearoa 2025’. The

new policy can be seen as promoting this endorsement.

The community will have the opportunity to provide feedback through the consultativeprocess.

The updated policy is consistent with other Council policies.

No issues have been identified with the current policy therefore there is no reason tomake any significant changes.

Provides clear guidance for members of the public wishing to lodge requests.

Adopting the revised policy can be considered as best practice.

Disadvantages The new draft policy (Appendix 1) does not contain any major changes therefore there are minimal disadvantages associated with this option. If Council choose to adopt the revised policy it is recommended that low level consultation be carried out. This will require staff resource and budget for printing of consultation materials.

The recommended option is Option Two. This will address the inconsistencies in the

document and show support for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

Policy component – Smokefree outdoor dining Within an amended version of the policy, Council could choose to adopt a policy that states that all areas where a licence to occupy to footpath is required should be smokefree.

Council extended the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy in 2016 to include some additional areas as smokefree. Council also resolved to support Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. Auckland

Council has committed to smokefree outdoor dining by 2018. Palmerston North City Council adopted a policy that prohibits smoking from certain areas in the central business district.

Table One shows that the rate of smoking in Ashburton district is similar to national trends, with 17% of the district considering themselves regular smokers. There are increasing proportions of the population who have never smoked regularly.

Table One - Cigarette smoking behaviour for the census usually resident population count

aged 15 years and over, 2006 and 2013 Censuses

Source: Statistics New Zealand 2006 and 2013 Census

Regular Smoker Ex-Smoker Never Smoked Reg.

2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013

New

Zealand

21%

(597792)

15.1%

(463194)

22.1%

(9637293)

22.9%

(702012)

57.3%

(1653921)

62%

(1900617)

Ashburton

District

21.8%

(4461)

17%

(3831)

23.1%

(4746)

24%

(5418)

55.1%

(11265)

59%

(13374)

55

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=TABLECODE8270&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=TABLECODE8270&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en

Advantages The advantage of including a requirement for smokefree outdoor dining is that Council

would clearly show support for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

Disadvantages Adopting a policy that discouraged smoking in most public places is likely to receive

significant local and national media attention. Council would need to provide strong

leadership to implement such a policy and would need to develop a communications plan.

This would require a considerable amount of staff resource to raise awareness of the policy.

Restricting where people may smoke can be seen as outside of the role of local Government.

Central Government has the principal responsibility for tobacco control. Many health

organisations in Ashburton are already active in the area of tobacco control. It could be

argued that local businesses are responsible for developing their own smokefree policies

(and have already made steps to do so). Such a policy would also be difficult to implement

as it would require a significant amount of resource to develop communications, monitor

and evaluate, and work with stakeholders.

It is therefore recommended that Council include a clause in the policy stating that Council encourage smokefree outdoor dining in Ashburton District but it is the responsibility of individual businesses to adopt such a policy that prohibits smoking from these areas.

5.11.5 Statutory Implications Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

This policy also has connection to the Sale of Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Any approved alfresco dining areas where alcohol is being consumed is required to comply with the legislation and the requirements of the Ashburton District Council Liquor Licensing Policy

(and the future Provisional Local Alcohol Policy).

5.11.6 Significance and EngagementThe original 2012 policy passed through an extended period of development overseen by

the Town Centre Subcommittee that existed at that time. It also was the subject of specificconsultation with local business community, Methven Community Board and RakaiaCommunity Association. In 2014, no consultation was undertaken given the changes madewere considered minor.

While the changes resulting from the current review are minor, it is recommended that

Council utilise ‘low level’ consultation methods. Council could prepare a consultation

document that would be sent to key stakeholders, but would be available for all membersof the public. Submissions would be accepted but no formal hearing process would be

held. The Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee would be required to deliberate on any

submissions received.

The reasons for utilising this type of consultation are as follows:

Consultation will allow the community and local businesses to comment on the draftpolicy.

Changes may be made to the policy as a result of feedback received.

56

Stakeholders in support of smokefree initiatives have anecdotally indicated they are

interested in submitting on this policy.

Consulting with the community can be considered best practice given the previous

review did not include consultation.

If the recommendation to consult is accepted, the proposed timeline will be as follows:

Date Task

23 February 2017 Report to Council

23 February – 23

March 2017

Consultation period


adoption

27 April 2017 Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee deliberate on any submissions

received

18 May 2017 Council formally adopt policy. Stakeholders advised.


If Option One is the preferred option, there will be no financial implications. If Option Two

is the preferred option, there will be associated costs with policy development and

consultation. These costs are expected to be minimal. Only a small number of consultation

documents will be produced and printed in-house. The printing costs will be met by the

Community Relations budget.

PREPARED BY


APPROVED BY


57


Table 1 – Proposed Policy Changes Policy clause Comment Proposed change

Review Previously 3 years. Now extended to 5 years as there is no determined benefit inreviewing the policy after three years and policy reviews require

staff resource.

Definitions No definitions included for ‘Council’

Inconsistent with other Council policies whichinclude definitions.

Impacts on the legal standing of the document

High level of ambiguity.

Include definitions for:

Council.

1. Introduction Replaces ‘general’ section from existing policy.

Reworded to ensure consistency with other Council policies and

corporate policy template.

Inclusion of a statement that Council recognises the benefits of

alfresco dining.

2. Licence to occupy thefootpath

This section was previously section 5 but has

been moved to the front of the document forclarity.

New clause – licence to occupy the footpath is non-transferable

and licence will terminate with sale of business. This is consistentwith the procedure for other Council licences to occupy.

3. Revocation of licenceto occupy the footpath

New section. This section has been split from the licence to occupy section forclarity.

Minimal changes have been made to the content.

4. Minimum site requirements

Content is mainly the same.

New criteria for wind/safety barriers, outdoor

heaters and umbrellas.

New criteria regarding wind/safety barrier to ensure barriers

meet appropriate standards

58



Smoking area The current policy states “the occupied area may incorporate an area for smoking”. It isrecommended that this clause is removed as it is not in line with Council’s endorsement of Smokefree

Aotearoa 2025.

59

Policy

USE OF FOOTPATH FOR ALFRESCO DINING

TEAM: Service Delivery

RESPONSIBILITY: Roading Manager

ADOPTED: TBC

REVIEW: 5 years or as required.


RELATED DOCUMENTS: Building Act 2004, Ashburton District Council District Plan, Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, Ashburton District Council Local Alcohol Policy, Ashburton District Council Public Places Bylaw.

Policy Objective

This policy sets out the conditions that are to be met when a business within the Ashburton District wishes to make use of the footpath area in front of their premises to allow patrons to dine with or without alcohol.

This policy aims to ensure pedestrian and motorist safety, as well as providing a pleasant

environment for businesses and the community.

Definitions

Council: means Ashburton District Council.

Licence to Occupy (the footpath): means a formal approval document that details terms and

conditions under which a business is authorised to occupy an area of the footpath.

Occupied area: means the area approved for alfresco dining and identified on the Licence to Occupy

the footpath.

PS1 Certificate: means a producer statement prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer covering the design of a structure.

Policy Statement

1. Introduction

1.1 Council recognises the benefits of alfresco dining such as increased business opportunities, and

a more vibrant commercial sector. 1.2 Council aims to provide a safe environment for people who move through the community by

Appendix 1

60

providing a clear path free from obstruction.

1.3 This policy applies to the entire Ashburton District.

2. Licence to occupy the footpath

2.1 Businesses owners seeking a licence to occupy the footpath must apply to Council.2.2 The area applied for can only be the area fronting the applicant’s premises.2.3 Additional consents (such as resource consents) may be required, depending on the location of

the footpath. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact Council to determine if additionalconsents are required (note: within the central business area of Ashburton, roads that are zonedfor business allow for commercial activity (e.g. outdoor dining associated with a restaurant andbar) on the footpath as a permitted activity)).

2.4 Applications will not be approved until the applicant has determined that no additionalconsents are required.

2.5 Applications shall include all relevant information on the nature of the proposal, includingintended use, hours of operations, and table layout.

2.6 A licence to occupy the footpath will initially be issued for a one year period. Following this

period, the licence to occupy the footpath may be extended at Council’s discretion.2.7 It is the responsibility of the licence holder to apply for an extension for a licence to occupy the

footpath.2.8 A licence to occupy the footpath is non-transferable between business owners.

2.9 A licence to occupy the footpath will terminate with the sale of a business.2.10 Where the licence to occupy has ended, the holder of the licence shall be solely responsible

for all costs associated with reinstatement of the area to its original form.2.11 Repair of any damage to persons of property (both private and public) arising from the

licence to occupy the footpath shall be the responsibility of the licence holder.

3. Revocation of licence to occupy the footpath

3.1 Council, or an appropriate delegated committee, may revoke the licence to occupy the footpath

at any time. 3.2 In such cases, a notice will be issued to the licence holder. The notice will include the reasons

for revocation and timeframe for vacating the area. 3.3 The licence holder will have the right to request a review of the decision to revoke a licence to

occupy the footpath. Requests must be made within 7 calendar days of the date the revocation notice is issued. The notice will be suspended until the review request is considered by Council, or an appropriate delegated committee.

4. Minimum site requirements

4.1 A clear passage of two metres wide in a generally straight alignment must be available to allow

movement of pedestrians:

From the edge of the existing building to the proposed occupied area, or

From the edge of the proposed occupied area to the kerb, or

Between two occupied areas.4.2 A wind/safety barrier is required where an occupied area is situated adjacent to the carriageway

or kerb. The form and construction must be suitable for functional requirements, including prevailing weather conditions. Barrier design should normally include provision of a PS1

certificate for the design of the structure. Barrier screens:

Must be associated with the use of the footpath for an outdoor eating facility;

61

May only be placed in the alfresco dining zone;

Must be installed by an approved contractor;

Must be approved by Council prior to installation;

Must be transparent and of an appropriate type of material;

Must not obstruct driver or pedestrian visibility of roading systems;

May only be in place during normal trading hours, unless approved by Council;

Must be positioned to allow for pedestrian access;

Should not exceed the width of the alfresco dining zone.4.3 Any outdoor heater used in alfresco dining zones:

May only be placed in the alfresco dining zone

Must comply with all relevant safety standards

May not be placed beneath umbrellas.4.4 Any umbrellas used in alfresco dining areas:

Must be made of high quality material such as canvas

May only be placed in the alfresco dining zone.

4.5 The use of car parks directly in front of the applicant’s business, for the use of alfresco dining, will be considered by Council on the location and merit of each proposal.

5. Site operation

5.1 The use of the occupied area shall be on the basis that a clear passage is maintained at all times in accordance with the minimum site requirements specified in policy 4.1-4.3.

5.2 If the occupied area is to be used to consume alcohol, the applicant must comply with the

Ashburton District Council Local Alcohol Policy and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. 5.3 The occupied area will require to be licensed and an application to extend the licensed area

should be made to the Secretary of the Ashburton District Licensing Committee. 5.4 The occupied area is to be used in accordance with the liquor licence for the premises.

5.5 Council encourages smokefree outdoor dining in Ashburton District. However, it is the

responsibility of the business owner to adopt such a policy that prohibits smoking from these areas.

62

REPORT

Date: 2 February 2017 Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor

Subject: Use of Reserve Contributions Policy

5.12 Use of Reserve Contributions Policy

5.12.1 Summary

Council’s Use of Reserve Contributions policy has been reviewed. The review has shown that the policy is no longer useful to Council business and is recommended for removal from Council’s

policy register.


That the ‘Use of Reserve Contributions Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register.

5.12.3 Background

Council’s Use of Reserve Contributions policy was adopted in 2001 and is due for review. The policy, in its entirety, is as follows:

“Use of Reserves Contributions

Although the expenditure of reserve contribution funds is expected to be planned a year ahead with such planning being shown in that year’s annual plan budget, any applications which fall outside of this policy may be considered at any other time by Council through the Finance and Corporate Services Committee.”

Primarily, this policy sets out a delegation to the Finance and Corporate Services (now Finance

and Business Support) Committee to decide upon and authorise any expenditure of reserve contribution funds over and above what is indicated in the current Annual Plan or Long Term Plan

(whichever is relevant). Presumably, its wider aim is to ensure that expenditure from reserve

contributions is appropriate for the purpose collected, and in line with the Resource Management Act 1991 and the District Plan.

In practice, this policy no longer serves a useful purpose to Council because it is not referred to in making the determination to delegate decision-making regarding the use of reserve contributions,

nor does it set any provision or guidance which is not covered through legislation or other governing documents. The relevant legislation and governing documents are discussed in turn below.

Resource Management Act 1991

Section 108(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) enables Council to require a

financial contribution is made as a condition of any resource consent. Section 111 provides for the use of any such cash contribution, in that Council must deal with that money in reasonable accordance with the purposes for which the money was received.

63

The RMA deals with the presumed implicit intent of the policy, in that it requires that reserve

contributions are used for the purposes for which they are collected. As the RMA covers the aspect

of use of financial contributions generally, a separate policy stating this (implicitly or explicitly) is not necessary.

District Plan

The District Plan outlines how Council carries out its functions under the RMA and is required by statute under section 73 of the Act. The District Plan is the appropriate mechanism for setting the framework for financial contributions associated with subdivision.

Through the District Plan (policy 9.3A), Council requires financial contributions toward public recreation areas and open space from residential subdivision developers.

The basis for financial contributions for reserves is the additional (actual or potential) demand anticipated for recreational land and open spaces as a consequence of subdivision and development. Contributions are collected so that the costs of this additional provision of open

spaces (or their upgrading) necessitated by development, is met by the developer.

The use of such contributions is guided by policy 9.3C of the District Plan. Cash contributions received from subdivisions toward the provision of open space may be used for the following purposes:

“to purchase land for neighbourhood parks in areas where there are existing or potential deficiencies in the provision of local parks;

to plan, design and develop neighbourhood and District parks to a level at which they are usable and enjoyable for children’s play, recreation and for visual amenity with trees, shrubs and garden plantings;

to obtain and develop neighbourhood walking and cycling linkages”

The Use of Reserve Contributions policy is not inconsistent with the District Plan, however the District Plan deals with the requirements of financial contributions rather than who can make the decision on how those contributions are spent.

Delegations Manual

Council operates under a range of legislation that provides territorial authorities with specific powers, functions and duties. The Delegations Manual defines and authorises the scope of Council’s delegations to committees, the Chief Executive, and the Chief Executive’s delegations to other members of the leadership team and staff.

The current Use of Reserve Contributions Policy is inconsistent with Council’s Delegations Manual

(last updated February 2016). The Delegations Manual sets out that authorisation of expenditure exceeding that in the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan must be retained as a decision of Council.

Council has chosen to retain this power, rather than it being a legal restriction of what must be retained by Council under Schedule 7, cl.32 of the Local Government Act 2002.

This would apply to additional reserve contributions expenditure and means the decision cannot

be delegated to a Committee of Council, as the current Use of Reserve Contributions policy states. (see Delegations Manual).

Revenue and Financing Policy

Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy sets the way Council funds each of its activities and functions, and provides a rationale for why activities are funded the way they are.

Council charges financial contributions to developers for the acquisition and development of recreation areas and open space under provisions of the District Plan. This funding source may be

64

used in some instances to fund qualifying capital expenditure for the following Open Space

activities of Council:

Town beautification

Rural beautification

Reserve boards (community reserves)

Ashburton Domain

The Use of Reserve Contributions Policy is consistent with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, which provides for financial contributions to be used as part of Council’s overall approach to funding capital expenditure.

It is recommended that Council removes the Use of Reserve Contributions Policy from its policy

register because it is no longer relevant or useful to Council business. While the policy is not inconsistent with the RMA, District Plan and Revenue and Financing Policy, neither does it serve any useful purpose. The policy is now redundant because the matter of who makes any decision on expenditure from reserve contributions account, over and above what is set out in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan, must be made by Council, rather than a Standing Committee, as set out

in Council’s Delegations Manual.


1. Remove the Use of Reserve Contributions Policy (RECOMMENDED)

Council could choose to remove the Use of Reserve Contributions policy from its policyregister. This is the recommended option because:

In essence, the existing policy is a delegation rather than a policy, and isinconsistent with Council’s Delegations Manual and current practice.

2. Retain or amend the Use of Reserve Contributions PolicyThis option is not recommended for the following reasons:

It is unclear what purpose retaining this policy would serve.

Retaining the policy would require a change to the Delegations Manual, and

assessment of whether that change is reasonable (ie: Council delegatesauthorisation of expenditure exceeding that set out in its Long Term Plan orAnnual Plan to its Standing Committees in general).

5.12.5 Statutory Implications There are no statutory implications associated with the removal of this policy.


Removing this policy has a minimal level of significance. No community consultation is required.


There are no costs associated with the decision to remove this policy.

PREPARED BY


APPROVED BY


65

REPORT


Report to: Bylaw and Policy Subcommittee From: Policy Advisor Subject: White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy

5.13 White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy

5.13.1 Summary The White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy was adopted in 2001 to support New

Zealand Transport Association (NZTA) guidelines on the erection of white crosses on road

sides. The policy has been reviewed as scheduled and it is recommended that it is removed

from Council’s policy register because it is no longer relevant. Removal of the policy will not

result in any changes as the policy is not currently utilised by Council officers.


That the ‘White Crosses Erected on Local Roads Policy’ is removed from Council’s policy register (Option One).

5.13.3 Background

A roadside memorial (or a white cross) can be described as an object or image constructed,

erected, planted, painted or placed within the road reserve in honour of family or friends whose lives have been lost on the road or road reserve.

Roadside crosses are unique to New Zealand and are used to symbolise and identify accident sites where fatalities have occurred. The use of white crosses has previously been considered a user-initiated road safety campaign. In 1993, Transit New Zealand formally

acknowledged the use of white crosses. However, concerns were raised that sites were

being turned into shrines and were attracting people to congregate. In response, Transit recommended the crosses be attached to fences.

Process for requests to erect white crosses The process for obtaining consent to display a white cross depends on the specific location

of the white cross. Where white crosses are located on:

State highways - NZTA approval is required

Private property - property owner approval required (NZTA still need to beinformed).

Council officers do not receive a significant amount of requests for white crosses or memorial sites. When requests are received, the site is assessed for safety considerations

by the Roading team. Council officers refer any requests to erect white crosses on state highways to NZTA.

66

White crosses in Ashburton District

There are various white crosses located in Ashburton District. There is no register of these crosses or memorial sites held by Council because NZTA do not inform Council when new

requests are received. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the crosses are located on private property.

White Crosses on Erected Local Roads Policy

Council’s “White Crosses Erected on Local Roads” policy was adopted in 2001. The policy is therefore overdue for review. The review has been delayed as this policy is considered low priority.

The policy is as follows:

White Crosses Erected On Local Roads Council adopt the current “Guideline for the erection, maintenance and removal of white crosses at fatal accident sites on State Highways” to apply as its policy applying to local roads accordingly. Additional conditions being as follows:

(a) Requests may only be considered from an immediate family member of the deceased person or persons.

(b) Council’s only involvement in the erection process shall be in consideration of applicants requests for approval, all other costs and responsibilities lie with the applicant.

Following discussions with the Roading Manager, it is recommended that Council remove the “White Crosses Erected on Local Roads” policy from the policy register because it is no

longer relevant or useful to Council business. The policy is considered redundant because the matter is dealt with more appropriately through New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) ‘State Highway Control Manual’ which states:

3.6.13 White Crosses at Fatal Accident Sites White crosses may be erected at fatal accident sites subject to the proposed design and location being approved by the appropriate State Highway Manager. Note that enforcement of this should be handled delicately.1

As discussed below, there is no identified need for Council to have a specific policy that

endorses this manual.

5.13.4 Options and Risks Considered Option One – Remove the policy from Council’s policy register (RECOMMENDED)

This is the recommended option for the following reasons:

Advantages: Requests for white crosses/memorials can still be processed by Council officers with

consideration of the NZTA guidelines.

Most of the white crosses in Ashburton District are located on private property andare therefore not the responsibility of Council.

It is not common practice for territorial authorities to have a policy of this nature.

1 Source - http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/state-highway-control-manual/docs/sm012-03.pdf

67

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/state-highway-control-manual/docs/sm012-03.pdf

The information in this policy is inconsistent with the format of other Council

policies.

The content of the policy is more procedural based than policy based

Day-to-day business operations will not be affected by the removal of this policy

Council’s Roading Manager supports the recommendation to remove the policy.

Disadvantages Removal of the policy may generate low level media and community interest. This is not perceived as a major risk as there will be changes which impact directly on the community.

Option Two – Develop a revised policy Council could choose to develop a new policy in relation to white crosses on local roads. However, this review has determined that there is no identified need for this type of policy.

If Option Two is the preferred option, further work will be required by the Policy Advisor and Roading Manager. The policy could include the following:

Process for requests for roadside memorials (not located on private property orstate highways)

Memorial requirements – type, size, structure

Responsibility for maintenance of memorials

Roadside memorial removal procedure (where a memorial needs to be removed toallow for road maintenance or roadworks).

This option would not require engagement with the community because the matter is considered of low level significance. However, staff resource will be required to develop a new policy.

5.13.5 Statutory Implications There is no legislative requirement to have a policy in relation to white crosses on local

roads.


This matter has been considered in regard to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

and the decision to remove the policy is deemed not to be significant, and has only low level

significance, given the low level of community interest, and minimal change to business

operations.


If Option One is the preferred option, there will be no costs associated with the decision to

remove the policy. If Option Two is the preferred option, there will be staff resource required

to develop a policy.

PREPARED BY

RACHEL THOMAS

Policy Advisor

APPROVED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE


68

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Group Manager Business Support Subject: Councillor Training and Travel Budget update

6.14 Elected Member Training and Travel Budget 6.14.1 Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the budget and actual costs incurred within the Councillor training, conference expenses and travel budget and possible training costs that are likely to be incurred before 30 June 2017.

The report also sets out options for elected member professional development and conference attendance.


1 That Council receives the training and travel budget report.

2 That attendance at and provision of elected member training be subject to the approval of the Mayor and Chief Executive.

3 That the Mayor and Councillors _____________ and ______________ attend the Sister Cities New Zealand Annual Conference in Invercargill on 4-7 May 2017.

6.14.3 Background Each year a budget is prepared and approved for elected member training, conference expenses and travel. The approved budget for the 2016/17 financial year and costs incurred to 31 December 2016 for Councillors are as follows:

Actual to 31/12/16 Full year’s budget Remaining budget

Training $8,025 $24,000 $15,975

Conference Expenses $632 $12,000 $11,368

Travel $6,192 $12,000 $5,808 Total $14,849 $48,000 $33,151

Methven Community Board has a separate budget and those details are as follows:

Actual to 31/12/16 Full year’s budget Remaining budget

Training $0 $1,400 $1,400

Conference Expenses $0 $5,125 $5,125

Travel $94 $0 ($94)

Total $94 $6,525 $6,431


140

Conferences Conferences signalled for the coming months include ---

• Local Government New Zealand Conference. This year’s conference will be held in Auckland from 23-25 July. Council has guidelines on who attends the LGNZ conference; when it is in the North Island the Mayor, CEO and up to two Councillors attend and when held in the South Island up to three Councillors may attend. The CEO costs are funded from a separate budget and the cost for the Mayor and two Councillors to attend this year, including travel and accommodation, is approximately $8,500.

Delegates to the 2017 LGNZ Conference will be appointed at the 6 April Council meeting.

• 2017 Community Boards Conference The biennial Community Boards Conference will be held in Methven on 12/13 May. The Conference will be attended by the five Methven Community Board Members and the two Western Ward Councillors appointed to the Board. The registration fee is approximately $800 per person.

• 2017 Sister City New Zealand Conference The Mayor has been notified that the annual Sister City New Zealand Conference will this year be held in conjunction with the Mayoral Forum, being hosted by Invercargill City Council from 4 to 7 May 2017. Appendix 1

The Mayor intends to participate at the Forum and Conference and has suggested that two Councillors also attend the Sister Cities Conference. The cost of the Conference is likely to be $1,350 per attendee (including accommodation and events).

• 2017 NZ Planning Institute Conference This Conference is primarily for Planning Officers but also offers the opportunity for elected member attendance. The 2017 Conference takes place in Wellington from 4-7 April. Full registration for an elected member is $1,000 and one day registration $650.

The Conference programme includes a workshop for elected members and independent commissioners on 4 April.

Professional Development Local Government New Zealand, through the EquiP professional development programme, offer a range of workshops and webinars for elected members. EquiP’s 2017 workshop dates and locations are still being finalised but a full list of what’s available is shown in Appendix 2. Council has the ability to hold in-house workshops (in a previous term Council hosted the ‘Introduction to the RMA’ workshop) but generally Councillors will attend workshops hosted in other parts of the region and on occasions further afield.

The cost of a full day workshop is around $625 - $680 per person, excl GST. Throughout previous terms of Council the majority of elected members have undertaken training on financial governance and audit and risk. Financial governance in particular is recommended for new Councillors.

Council has an in-house workshop scheduled for 13 March. The workshop will be facilitated by Vern Walsh and Steve McDowell of Meetings and Governance Solutions Ltd at a cost of approximately $6,000. The workshop will guide Councillors through the new set of Standing Orders that have been produced by the Local Government NZ working party who were tasked with a review of the Standing Orders last year.


141

Resource Management Act Training

Since September 2014 persons appointed to RMA hearing panels must be accredited (section 14 RM Amendment Act (No2) 2011). Chairpersons require a separate certification. Commissioners are also required to be certified.

Opus Consultants deliver the ‘‘Making Good Decisions --- Foundation Course’’ on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. The two day course is offered in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch --- the next Christchurch based course is scheduled for 8 and 9 March 2017 at a cost of $2,053 (excluding GST) per person. There would be work to do in addition to the two day’s attendance, with a written pre and post course assessment.

Last term three Councillors were certified to sit on RMA hearing panels. One of the three was also certified as a chairperson. It is worth noting that these three Councillors already had RMA experience, with two involved in all of the District Plan review hearings and the third having been certified in a previous term as a Councillor. In the two and a half years following receipt of their accreditation, they conducted only two hearings. There are two reasons for the low number of hearings. Firstly, very few applications require a hearing, and secondly, Council (and Councillors) frequently have conflicts of interest which make it necessary to appoint an independent Commissioner to make the decision. Some regret was expressed by the Councillors at the lack of opportunity to sit on hearing panels, especially in light of the hours they had put into the training. To achieve accreditation, Councillors and independent Commissioners must attend the two day Making Good Decisions --- Foundation Course.

It is the view of Council Officers that the investment of Councillors’ time in this training is not warranted due to the small number of hearings that Council is likely to be involved in. With the exception of one Councillor (Wilson) who was a member of the District Plan review panel, the majority of Councillors have no RMA experience. Furthermore, anyone seeking certification as a Chairperson requires previous experience. If some Councillors achieved certification to sit on a hearing panel, an independent Commissioner with certification as a panel Chair would have to be appointed as well. The additional costs could not reasonably be passed on to the applicant and would have to be subsidised by rates. (Due to the low number of hearings this cost is unlikely to be significant). A final concern is that proposed changes to the RMA are making it increasingly technical and litigious. Our risk is minimised by using qualified and experienced professionals.

Another option which could be considered is a one day introductory course (An Introduction to Resource Management) which is taught by RMA professionals who actively practice in the industry. The course comprises short teaching sessions accompanied by practical tasks and assessments. Course dates and prices for 2017 are not yet available, however course content can be tailored to suit specific group needs and can be run at any venue in the country. Alternatively, other training providers could be investigated. If there was interest in this option, we could see if any elected members from Selwyn (and possibly other neighbouring Councils) would like to join in.

6.14.4 Options and Risks Considered Elected members will bring a wide range of skills and experience, but inevitably it may take some time to learn all that’s needed to be an effective local government representative, therefore it’s recommended that Councillors keep up to date with current issues, policy and legislation and generally upskill themselves. This can be achieved in a number of ways --- through the EquiP programme, conferences, zone and sector meetings.

Undertaking professional development is recommended but is not obligatory.


142

6.14.5 Statutory Implications Not applicable.

6.14.6 Significance and Engagement This matter is not considered significant, and community consultation is not required.


Costs will be met within the current budget.

Prepared By:


Approved By:


ATTACHMENTS: pg 144-146 Appendix 1 Invercargill City Council --- Mayoral Forum & Sister Cities NZ Conference Appendix 2 EquiP Workshops and Webinars


143

144

145

APPENDIX 2

EquiP list of Workshops and Webinars

Workshops Upcoming Webinars

A Practical Guide to Public Consultation

Applied Governance Essentials for Local Government

Audit & Risk Committees – Roles & Functions

Audit & Risk Forums (NEW)

Chairing Meetings (half day)

Chairing Meetings/Conflicts of Interest/Standing Orders

Community Board – Chairs’ Forum

Conflicts of Interest (half day)

District Licensing Committees

Elected Members Induction

Financial Governance Revision (IHOC only)

Financial Governance 101 (Selwyn DC 14 March)

Financial Governance 201

Getting the Best Out of Your CCOs (half day)

Governance Special Edition (IHOC only)

Infrastructure Management

Introduction to Financial Governance

Mayors Induction

Media Training for Modern Leaders (Selwyn DC 25 May)

Political Decision Making (Dunedin CC on 14 March)

RMA (Resource Management Act) - How it really works

The Engaging Presenter

Understanding Te Ao Māori

[IHOC = in-house own council]

Strategy (cont’d from induction workshops) -$50/person

Social media for elected members - $500/Council

Partnerships with Asia - $500/Council

Managing Tourism Pressures for Councils - $500/Council

146

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/rules-regulations-and-procedures/new-know-how-page-2/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/applied-govnce-essentials-for-lg-2/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/audit-and-risk-committees/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/audit-and-risk-forums-new/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/chairing-meetings/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/chairing-mtgs-conflict-and-orders/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/community-boards-workshop/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/conflicts-of-interest/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/conflicts-of-interest/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/alcohol-in-local-government/dlc-training-workshops/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/events/elected-members-induction-emi/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/ihoc-financial-governance-revision/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/financial-governance-101/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/new-know-how-page-2/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/rules-regulations-and-procedures/getting-the-best-out-of-your-ccos/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/ihoc-governance-special-edition/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/rules-regulations-and-procedures/infrastructure-management/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/finance-workshops/introduction-to-financial-governance/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/events/mayors-induction-mi/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/media-training-for-modern-leaders/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/political-decision-making/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/rules-regulations-and-procedures/rma-how-it-really-works/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/the-engaging-presenter/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/new-know-how-page-4/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/rules-regulations-and-procedures/new-know-how-page-2/

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/equip/professional-development-offerings/governance-workshops/applied-govnce-essentials-for-lg-2/

REPORT Date: 23 February 2017 Report to: Council From: Ashburton Zone Facilitator Subject: Ashburton Water Zone Committee

6.15 Ashburton Water Zone Committee 6.15.1 Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide the Ashburton District Council with an update from the Ashburton Zone Committee.

6.15.2 Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) The Committee support the continuation of the MAR Pilot Project for the next four years (to complete the five year trial). Support for this has been requested from Ashburton District Council (water supply) and Environment Canterbury (monitoring and technical support).

Committee members and the MAR Pilot Working Group met to discuss the establishment of a MAR Governance Group. The Group will be tasked with developing a recommendation for a groundwater replenishment scheme for the Hinds Catchment.

The Group’s establishment and Terms of Reference will be discussed at the February Zone Committee Meeting

6.15.3 Quarterly Report on Actions in the Zone The Committee received an update on practical actions that are underway to help achieve the Zone Committee’s five year outcomes. For example, this summer ECan students are undertaking a water efficiency programme in the zone. This involves the students doing buckets tests on irrigators around the district to try gain an improved understanding of water use efficiency on farm.

6.15.4 N Check The Committee discussed the potential use of N Check in the Ashburton Zone. N Check is a tool that uses Overseer and series of simple questions to determine a nitrogen loss rate for a property, without the need for a full nutrient budget.

The Committee recommended its use in the Ashburton Zone in two circumstances: o For landowners to determine if they need a consent or not. o For use by arable and horticultural farmers in the consent process until 2022.

The Committee’s recommendation will now go to the CEO of Environment Canterbury for consideration.

6.15.5 Membership Refresh Community members are encouraged to apply to be on the Zone Committee. Applications close on 6 March 2017. The selection panel will consider the balance of interests required for Ashburton, geographic spread of members and the ability of the applicants to work in a collaborative, consensus-seeking manner.

6.15.5 Next Meeting The next meeting of the Zone Committee is Tuesday 28 February 2017.

OLIVIA SMITH Facilitator, Ashburton Zone


147