Agenda - Ruapehu District · Late Agenda Item: Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade File A05-0014 Doc 640119 Members considered a Report seeking approval for a late Report, brought

Agenda

Friday 7 October 2016

at 10.00am

RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEETING

A MEETING OF RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL BE HELD IN THE TAUMARUNUI ROOM (COUNCIL CHAMBER), HUIA STREET, TAUMARUNUI

ON FRIDAY 7 OCTOBER 2016 AT 10.00AM

Members

Mayor: Don Cameron Deputy Mayor: Marion Gillard Ohura Ward Councillors: Bruce Broderson Taumarunui Ward Ron Cooke Taumarunui Ward Graeme Cosford Taumarunui Ward Cynthia Dowsett Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Ben Goddard Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Karen Ngatai Taumarunui Ward Rabbit Nottage Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Pita Pehi Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Elaine Wheeler National Park Ward Rhonda Wood Taumarunui Ward

Clive Manley CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Please Note: The Reports attached to this Order Paper set out suggested resolutions only. These suggested resolutions do not represent Council policy until such time as they might be adopted by Council resolution. This Order Paper may be subject to

amendment either by addition or withdrawal of items contained therein.

Ruapehu District Council – Public Business – 7 October 2016

Page 3


ORDER PAPER

A MEETING OF RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL BE HELD IN THE TAUMARUNUI ROOM (COUNCIL CHAMBER), HUIA STREET, TAUMARUNUI

ON FRIDAY 7 OCTOBER 2016 AT 10.00AM

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Page

1 Apologies File A05-0014 2 Declarations of Interest:

Notification from Elected Members of: 2.1 Any interests that may create a conflict with their role as an elected member relating to the items of business for this meeting; and 2.2 Any interests in items in which they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest as provided for in the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

File A05-0014

3 Confirmation of Minutes: 27 September 2016 M80-0001 4 - 13

4 Amendment to 2016/17 Exceptions Annual Plan File A05-0171

Doc 640489 14 - 16

5 National Research Bureau Survey File A53-0150

Doc 632560 17 - 24

6 Level of Service 2015/16 Results File L45-0015

Doc 631447 25 - 37

7 Adoption of 2015/16 Annual Report File A05-0172

Doc 38

PUBLIC EXCLUDED BUSINESS

8 Resolution to Exclude the Public for Consideration of

Council Business File A05-0014

Doc 640802 39

Unconfirmed Unconfirmed

Ruapehu District Council – Public Business – 27 September 2016

Page 1


MINUTES

MEETING HELD IN THE TAUMARUNUI ROOM (COUNCIL CHAMBER), HUIA STREET, TAUMARUNUI ON TUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2016 AT 10.07AM

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Present

Mayor: Don Cameron Deputy Mayor: Marion Gillard Ohura Ward Councillors: Bruce Broderson Taumarunui Ward Ron Cooke Taumarunui Ward Graeme Cosford Taumarunui Ward Cynthia Dowsett Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Ben Goddard Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Karen Ngatai Taumarunui Ward Rabbit Nottage Waimarino Ward Pita Pehi Waimarino-Waiouru Ward Elaine Wheeler National Park Ward Rhonda Wood Taumarunui Ward Staff: Clive Manley Chief Executive Alan Young Financial Controller Warren Furner Land Transport and Economic Development Manager Sarah Doyle Executive Assistant Paul Wheatcroft Communications Manager Chris Impson Deputy Electoral Officer (item 16 only) Jo Tocker Policy Planner (items 18 & 19 only) Kim Treen Manager i-SITEs and Customer Services (item C7 only) Julia Fincham Support Officer – Asset Management (items C9 & C9a only) In attendance: Kim Wheeler, Taumarunui Ward candidate Jacques Windell, Taumarunui Ward candidate Claire McKnight, Visit Ruapehu John Hutchings, Henley Hutchings Bruce Maunsell, Timber Trail Lodge Edwin Ashford, Chair, Ruapehu District Maori Council Wayne Termaat, Contract Manager, Veolia

1 Apologies File A05-0014

No apologies were received.

2 Declarations of Interest File A05-0014

No conflicts of interest were declared.

4



Page 2

Late Agenda Item: Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade File A05-0014 Doc 640119

Members considered a Report seeking approval for a late Report, brought up under urgency, to be discussed in the public excluded agenda of the meeting. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Late Agenda Item: Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade be

received. 2 That the following Report be included in the Public Excluded Agenda for this

meeting and a decision made:

Report No and Title Reason for Urgency

640114 – Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade – Award of Contract

To enable Council to approve the Tenders Group decision to award the Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Contract.

3 Public Forum: Temporary Suspension and Reinstatement of Standing Orders

File A05-0014 Doc 638114

Council temporarily suspended Standing Orders in their entirety to allow Members and the public to address Council.

RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Public Forum: Temporary Suspension and Reinstatement of

Standing Orders be received. 2 That, pursuant to Section 27(4) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002,

Council temporarily suspends Standing Orders in their entirety to allow Members and the public to address Council.

No addresses were received. RESOLVED That, pursuant to Section 27(4) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Council reinstates Standing Orders in their entirety for consideration of the agenda.

4 Confirmation of Minutes: 9 August 2016 File M80-0001

RESOLVED That the Public-Business Minutes of the Council meeting held on 9 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

5 Confirmation of Minutes: 23 August 2016 File M80-0001

5



Page 3

RESOLVED That the Public-Business Minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

6 Receipt of Audit and Risk Committee Minutes: 7 September 2016 File M80-0047

RESOLVED That the Public Business Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee held on 7 September 2016 be received.

7 Mayor’s Report: August 2016 File M35-0003 Doc 639173

Members considered a Report advising of appointments undertaken and fee waivers approved by the Mayor during the month of August 2016. RESOLVED That the Report on Mayor’s Report: August 2016 be received.

8 Chief Executive’s Report: August 2016 File A05-0085 Doc 639174

Members considered a Report presenting an update of activities for discussion. Council’s Chief Executive and relevant staff members spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions.

Councillor Wood left the meeting at 11.18am and re-entered at 11.21am. Councillor Ngatai left the meeting at 11.34am and re-entered at 11.36am.

RESOLVED That the Report on Chief Executive’s Report: August 2016 be received

9 LGNZ Discussion Paper: The 2050 Challenge – Future Proofing our Communities

File A53-0146 Doc 638032

Members considered a Report providing LGNZ’s Discussion Paper “The 2015 Challenge: Future Proofing our Communities”. RESOLVED That the Report on LGNZ Discussion Paper “The 2050 Challenge – Future Proofing our Communities” be received.

6



Page 4

10 Economic Development Funding 2016/17 Financial Year File E01-0012 Doc 639615

Members considered a Report recording outcomes from the Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Growth Study Action Plans workshops held on 7 and 13 September, and seeking resolution from Council for the allocation of Economic Development funds set aside in the 2016/17 financial year to support actions identified during these workshops. Claire McKnight, Visit Ruapehu General Manager, and John Hutchings, Henley Hutchings Ltd, were in attendance. The Mayor, Council’s Chief Executive and Land Transport & Economic Development Manager spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Economic Development Funding 2016/17 financial year be

received. 2 That funding of $286,000 of the $306,000 from the Economic Development Activity

of Council’s Exceptions Annual Plan 2016/17 is released as presented in paragraph 5.11 in this report (639615) to enable Ruapehu District Council and Visit Ruapehu RTO to deliver Regional Growth Study Actions on behalf of Accelerate 25, as follows:

Ref Opportunity Lead RDC Role, secure external funds

Resource internal;

funds $306k allocated

1.1 Tourism Action Plan Administration support

Accelerate 25

Secure financial support from Accelerate 25 to lead. $35,000

3.1 Transport enabler Kiwi Rail RDC/VR Support VR to deliver business case and KR advocacy

25,000

3.4 Digital Enablement Plan delivery RDC Technical expert advice UFB2 & blackspots. (Led by Lauren RDC)

4.1 Extend research to support business case

VR/MBIE Support VR to secure funding from MBIE $35,000

4.2 Define Destination and brand proposition long term

RDC/VR Support VR to secure funding from MBIE and third party $100,000 + $30,000

50,000

4.3.1 Visit Ruapehu 1 Commissionable product

development 2 Third party and joint venture

development 3 Digital content and presence.

RDC/VR Provide increased funding to enable RTO activity (see Appendix 2, RTO Business Plan)

211,000

4.7 Event Support (new activity, not associated with RGS)

RDC Grants to support event managers. Consider in EAP 2017/18.

Contingent fund RDC Provide for unexpected opportunities. 20,000

Subtotal $200,000 External funds Internal Funds

$306,000

Base Adventure highway trade development

RDC/VR Provide core funding to enable RTO activity

Base Funds 50,000

Base Sustain Visit Ruapehu RTO including Trade development Adventure Highway

RDC/VR Provide core funding to enable RTO activity

Base Funds 276,000

Total funds allocated

$200,000

$632,000

A minutes’ silence was held in memory of long serving Elected Member John Compton who passed away on 18 September 2016. The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.15pm. The Mayor acknowledged and thanked retiring Councillors Broderson and Cooke for their service.

7



Page 5

The meeting reconvened at 1.09pm.

11 Taumarunui Cycle Classic Event – Sponsorship File P95-0005 Doc 638587

Members considered a Report seeking a resolution from Council with respect to allocating funding to support the Taumarunui Cycle Classic event and the introduction of an Event Support activity in the context of the Economic Development Activity of Council for the 2017/18 year. Council’s Chief Executive and Land Transport & Economic Development Manager spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Taumarunui Cycle Classic Event - Sponsorship and Grant

Funding be received. 2 That the sum of $5,275 grant funding is approved to the Taumarunui Cycle Classic

Event 2016, making Council’s total financial support of $7,295. This amount is to support marshalls, entry packs, race gantry, timing equipment, venue hire, etc, for the event.

3 That future requests for event funding be considered as part of the broader

Economic Development Strategy.

12 Footpath Safety Improvements, Renewals and Maintenance – 2016/17

File R76-0023 Doc 638713

Members considered a Report providing an update on the District’s footpath safety improvements, renewals and maintenance for the 2016/17 year. Council’s Land Transport & Economic Development Manager spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED That the Report on Footpath Safety Improvements, Renewals and Maintenance – 2016/17 be received.

13 District Wide Playground Funding Priorities File P15-0024 Doc 638940

Members considered a Report requesting approval of funding priorities for the capital funding for playgrounds in Ohakune, Raetihi and Taumarunui. Council’s Chief Executive spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on District Wide Playground Funding Priorities be received. 2 That Council approved the priority for playground funding as follows:

(a) 2016/17: Taumarunui (b) 2018/19: Raetihi (c) 2020/21: Ohakune

8



Page 6

(d) Other playgrounds

14 Capital Expenditure Carry Over (Recreation and Community Facilities, IT and Solid Waste)

File R40-0001 Doc 638629

Members considered a Report seeking approval to carry over to 2016/17 the prior year’s unspent capital budget for Recreation and Community Facilities, IT and Solid Waste totalling $359,895. Council’s Financial Controller spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Capital Expenditure Carry Over (Recreation and Community

Facilities, IT and Solid Waste) be received. 2 That the unspent capital budget for Recreation and Community Facilities, IT and

Solid Waste, totalling $359,895 be approved and carried forward to the 2016/17 capital expenditure budget.

15 Proposed Boundary Adjustment – 23 Miro Street, Ohakune File 12763 079 00 Doc 638123

Members considered a Report seeking approval for the proposed boundary adjustment between 25 and 23 Miro Street, Ohakune. Council’s Chief Executive spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Proposed Boundary Adjustment 23 Miro Street, Ohakune be

received. 2 That Council agrees to the proposal for the subdivision of Section 9 Block XI Town

of Ohakune, 23 Miro Street, Ohakune, subject to negotiation by the Group Manager Community Services of a fair and reasonable price for the parcel of land.

16 Extraordinary Vacancies After Triennial Election: National Park and Waimarino-Waiouru Community Boards

File E25-0027 Doc 637750

Members considered a Report advising the process involved in holding an Election to fill the extraordinary vacancies which will occur on the National Park Community Board after the Triennial Election on 8 October 2016, and the Waimarino-Waiouru Community Board following the recent death of John Compton. Council’s Chief Executive and Deputy Electoral Officer spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED That the Report on Extraordinary Vacancies After Triennial Election: National Park and Waimarino-Waiouru Community Boards be received.

9



Page 7

17 End of Triennium i-Pad Return Process File C45-0046 Doc 639025

Members considered a Report advising the process for the return of their i-Pad devices and chargers following the 8 October 2016 Election. Council’s Chief Executive spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED That the Report on End of Triennium iPad Return Process be received.

18 Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform Bill File G40-0003 Doc 634114

Members considered a Report providing an overview of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform Bill. RESOLVED That the Report on Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform Bill be received.

19 Ruapehu District Māori Council – Strategic Plan 2016 File M35-0072 Doc 639668

Members considered a Report presenting the Ruapehu District Māori Council’s Strategic Plan 2016. Edwin Ashford, Chair of Ruapehu District Maori Council gave background to the Strategic Plan, acknowledged Traci Houpapa’s involvement and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED That the Report on Ruapehu District Māori Council – Strategic Plan 2016 be received.

20 Resolution to Exclude the Public for Consideration of Council Business

File A05-0014 Doc 639188

Section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 gives Council the right by resolution to exclude the public from the whole or any part of the proceedings of any meeting only on one or more of the grounds contained within that Section.

RESOLVED

1 That the Report on Resolution to Exclude the Public for Consideration of Council

Business is received. 2 That the public is excluded from the following part of the proceedings of the meeting.

10



Page 8

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

General Subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under S48(1) for passing this resolution

C1: Confirmation of Public Excluded Business Minutes: 9 August 2016 C2: Confirmation of Public Excluded Business Minutes: 23 August 2016 C3: Receipt of Audit & Risk Committee Public Excluded Business Minutes: 7 September 2016

The reason(s) for excluding the public is/are recorded in the Public Business Minutes of the meeting.

48(1)(a)

C4: 638132: Draft 2015/16 Annual Report

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

C5: 638081: Update on Section 17A and Proposed Review Plan

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). Where the withholding of information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. To maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expressions of opinions by, or between, or to members of or officers or employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom Section 2(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies, in the course of their duty. To protect the privacy of natural persons. To maintain legal professional privilege.

C6: 638958: District Swimming Pools Section 17A Delivery Review Decision

C7: 637688: i-SITE at National Army Museum, Waiouru

C8: 639515: Acquisition of Land – Closed Raetihi Landfill

C9: 636039: Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Proposed Capital Assistance Programme Funded Upgrade

C10: 639185: Confidential Highlights from Mayor and Chief Executive Reports

C11: 639601: Chief Executive Salary Review

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982 as the case may require are listed above.

11



Page 9

RESOLUTIONS BROUGHT OUT INTO PUBLIC BUSINESS The following resolutions were brought out into Public Business:

C5 Update on Section 17A and Proposed Review Plan File P50-0048 Doc 638081

Members considered a Report presenting an overview of present governance, funding and delivery arrangements for Council’s key services, and presenting a suggested review plan for these services which complies with Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. Council’s Chief Executive spoke to the Report and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Update on Section 17A and Proposed Review Plans be

received. 2 That the proposed Service Delivery Review Plan be adopted by Council. 3 That this resolution is recorded in the Public Business Minutes of this meeting. 4 That this Report is released as publicly available information.

C6 District Swimming Pool Section 17A Delivery Review Decision File S80-0006 Doc 638958

RESOLVED 1 That the Report on District Swimming Pool Section 17A Delivery Review Decision

be received. 2 That Council approves the District Swimming Pool service delivery model as Option

One, being a shared service with other Whanganui-Manawatu District Council with the activity separated into customer services, aquatic operations and facility asset management functions.

3 That this resolution is recorded in the Public Business Minutes of this meeting. 4 That this Report is not released as publicly available information.

Note: The following item was taken after item C6:

C8 Acquisition of Land – Raetihi Closed Landfill File R25-0010 Doc 639515

RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Acquisition of Land – Raetihi Closed Landfill be received. 2 That Council approve the purchase of that parcel of land being the closed Raetihi

Landfill, 2.0868 hectares more or less being Lot 1 DP 499542 within approved Survey Plan 474142 (title to issue) for the sum of $35,000 plus GST (if any).

12



Page 10

3 That this resolution is recorded in the Public Business Minutes of this meeting. 4 That this Report is not released as publicly available information.

Note: The following item was taken after item C7:

C9 Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Proposed Capital Assistance Programme Funded Upgrade

File C60-1797 Doc 636039

Members considered a Report seeking agreement to building a Ministry of Health Capital Assistance Programme funded conventional water treatment plant for the supply of Raetihi. Wayne Termaat, Contract Manager from Veolia and Council’s Support Officer – Asset Management Team, gave a presentation and answered Members’ questions. RESOLVED 1 That the Report on Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Proposed Capital Assistance

Funded Upgrade be received. 2 That Council agrees to the building of a Conventional Water Treatment Plant for the

supply of Raetihi for the following reasons: (i) its fit for purpose and meets Drinking Water Stands 2005 (revised 2008); (ii) addresses taste and odour aesthetic issues with powder activated carbon

dosing; (iii) does not preclude adding an alternative or additional water source in the

future. (iv) fits within the council land area for the building and future second reservoir; (v) offers better natural organic matter removal efficiency; (vi) has a lower operation and maintenance costs; (vii) is overall a more robust and resilient plant to operate under various

conditions. 3 That this resolution is recorded in the Public Business Minutes of this meeting. 4 That this Report is released as publicly available information.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 4.37pm. Dated at Taumarunui this 7th day of October 2016 Don Cameron JP MAYOR

13

Report to: Council

Meeting Date: 7 October 2016 Subject: Amendment to 2016/17 Exceptions Annual Plan

Document No: 640489 File: A05-0171

Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this Report is to inform Elected Members of a typographical error between the Rates Resolution Report and the Exceptions Annual Plan 2016/17 (EAP), and to provide resolutions to correct this error.

Significance and Engagement

2.1 Significance

This report does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Background

3.1 The EAP was adopted on 28 June 2016. Subsequently Council found that the Funding Impact Statement (FIS) in the EAP (page 35) showed the 2016/17 UAGC as being $489 which did not match the amount in the Rates Resolution Report ($490.64) and the rate invoices. The effect of this is an overcharging of $1.64 per UAGC in the 2016/17 rates strike.

3.2 This was a simple editorial oversight after some final adjustments to the EAP financials,

which was not noticed in the final checking and updating of the various documents. 3.3 Council sought advice from Simpson Grierson and was advised that in their opinion the

error was minor and immaterial but that Council ought to correct the error in the EAP FIS.

Discussion

4.1 In the opinion of the lawyers, the nature of the error is minor and falls below Council's thresholds for materiality. Accordingly, the lawyers set out three options and advised Council to consult with the auditors prior to making a decision on which option to pursue.

4.2 After consultation with the auditors who indicted they were comfortable with whatever

option taken, including “do nothing” (as it is a minor and immaterial error), the option to correct the error in the FIS in the EAP is recommended to Council, as it then becomes transparent and noted in the record.

4.3 The options given by the lawyers were

(a) Do nothing – this is a legitimate option given the minor nature of the error

(b) Undertake the rate resetting procedure in section 119 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (Rating Act) to correct the rates resolution and issue amended assessments so that the amount assessed reflects the correct amount of the rate;

14

Document No 640489 2

This would be both costly and time consuming and, while robust, is not seen as a viable option given the nature and non-materiality of the error.

(c) Correct the error in the EAP (relying on section 13 of the Interpretation Act to

change the funding impact statement). This would result in the rates resolution, funding impact statement and assessments aligning. The minor over-collection in the 2016/17 year could be taken into account when setting the amount of the UAGC in the 2017/18 year.

4.4 Option (c) would ensure that the rate setting documents are ultimately consistent, which is

the requirement of section 23 of the Rating Act. 4.5 It also reflects that the process for making a change to the funding impact statement is

more straightforward than making a change to the rates resolution but also gives transparency to the process.

4.6 While the amount of revenue likely to be collected from the UAGC would be more than

budgeted, the difference is immaterial, and can be taken into account when setting the amount of the UAGC for the next year.

4.7 Section 13 of the Interpretation Act gives the Council the power to do any act to correct an

error which was made in a previous exercise of a power, even though that power can usually only be exercised once. While other corrective options are potentially available (including re-setting the rates), section 13 is appropriate where there is a relatively minor error in respect of a single aspect of the FIS.

4.8 This Standing Order permits the Council to revoke or alter a previous resolution if to do so

is recommended in a report by the Chief Executive or any committee. It requires that at least two clear working days' notice of any meeting be given to members to consider such a proposal to revoke or alter all or part of the resolutions previously passed. Such notice is to also contain details of the proposal to be considered.

4.9 The relevant page of the FIS in the online version of the annual plan will be updated after

the necessary resolutions are made. 4.10 Process Going Forward 4.11 As part of the overall review of the Financial Systems, including the methodology that is

used to set rates, staff will be looking at ensuring the financial sections are populated and checked in a much more robust manner, and all numbers are in columns, not in text.

4.12 There is, and has been a significant body of work undertaken over the past five to six

months to look at underlying processes, procedures, and systems to produce an Annual Report and to look at better and improved systems going forward.

4.13 Finance Staff are identifying these issues as they arise, and will now be looking at options

going forward to ensure that future processes are much more technically straightforward and robust.

Suggested Resolutions

1 That the Report on Amendment to 2016/17 Exceptions Annual Plan be received. 2 That the Ruapehu District Council:

15


(a) Notes that at the Council meeting on 28 June 2016 the Council resolved to adopt the Exceptions Annual Plan 2016/17 as required by section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002 which contained the funding impact statement;

(b) Notes that the amount of the uniform annual general charge provided in the funding

impact statement was noted as $489 instead of the figure of $490.64 as per the Rates Resolution Report.

(c) Resolves in accordance with Standing Order 3.9.18 to alter the part of the resolution

passed on 28 June 2016 in respect of the amount of the uniform annual general charge in the funding impact statement by deleting the figure of $489 and replacing it with the figure of $490.64.

(d) Notes that the online version of the Exceptions Annual Plan 2016/17 will be updated

to record the correct amount of the UAGC and the change will be explained through a note on the annual plan webpage.

Clive Manley CHIEF EXECUTIVE 30 September 2016

16

Report to: Council

Meeting Date: 7 October 2016 Subject: National Research Bureau Survey


Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to Council the results from the National Research Bureau (NRB) Customer Satisfaction Survey 2016.


2.1 SIGNIFICANCE This report does trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy as the survey is relevant to Council’s core services as defined in 2.2 of the policy.

2.2 ENGAGEMENT

This report does trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy at a medium level in accordance with Schedule 4 of the policy.

Background

3.1 Every three years NRB, an external research company, completes a Customer Satisfaction Survey on behalf of Council that offers us the opportunity to compare our performance with other Local Authorities across New Zealand and ourselves.

3.2 Council commissions this survey mainly for the development of the Asset Management

Plans.

Discussion

4.1 Between Friday 29 April 2016 – Sunday 8 March 2016, NRB conducted 300 telephone interviews amongst the residents of Ruapehu District.

4.2 The questions in the survey are generally the same as previous years but Council was

able to add extra questions if we needed to. 4.2.1 Regulation Manager, Steve Costelloe asked if we could add “date” to the reason and

location when seeking feedback on noise and animal control so that we could measure how recent the complaint was. Compliance is following up on these.

4.2.2 The questionnaire is broken up in to the following sections: (a) Water, Wastewater and Stormwater (b) Satisfaction with Recreational Services (c) Planning and Building Consents (d) Solid Waste (e) Land Transport (f) Other Council services

17


(g) Economic Development (h) Demographics 4.3 Sampling and analysis were based on the four wards and the respondents were spread

throughout the district as follows: (a) Taumarunui -– 123 (b) Waimarinio-Waiouru – 99 (c) Ohura – 38 (d) National Park – 40 4.3.1 The average telephone interview took 17 minutes. 4.4 On Tuesday 28 June 2016 Council received the results of the Customer Satisfaction

Survey 2016 from NRB. 4.4.1 The report and appendices have been drop boxed to all Councillors and hard copies are

available on request. 4.5 The survey focuses on reasons for dissatisfaction and this allows Council to look into

areas where there seems to be multiple concerns. 4.6 The main purpose of this survey is to help inform Asset Management Plans and Strategic

Plans going forward. While there seem to be a large number of negative comments, the levels of satisfaction for the core services remains consistent and are comparable to national averages with some out preforming national averages.

4.7 MAIN FINDINGS 4.7.1 Wastewater

Respondents have consistently rated high satisfaction with wastewater services, with 2016 at 96% satisfaction. This is higher than the national average (93%).

4.7.2 The three unsatisfied respondents cited rates and overflow as issues. Generally speaking, customers are very satisfied with wastewater.

4.7.3 Stormwater

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with stormwater higher each survey, with 2016 at 85% satisfaction. This is the same as the national average (85%).

4.7.4 The unsatisfied respondents cited flooding (5), blocked or poor drains (10) and overflows or open drains (4) as issues. One was dissatisfied with rates.

4.7.5 Water

Respondents satisfaction with water has fallen, with 2016 at 59% satisfaction (down from 82% in 2013). This is lower than the national average (92%).

4.7.6 Interestingly, NZ Māori were much more likely to say they were unsatisfied (62%) and Waimarino/Waiouru have the highest level of dissatisfaction among the wards. It could also reflect the issues with Raetihi water, with 4 negative comments.

4.7.7 The main reason for dissatisfaction was bad taste (24). Poor quality, smell, discoloration

and pressure also causing dissatisfaction. Cost/rates were again an issue. 4.7.8 Community Halls

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with community halls, with 2016 at 85% satisfaction. This is similar to the national average (83%). Reasons for dissatisfaction are

18


the poor conditions (8) and that they are not owned by council or funded by council (3). Urban users are more satisfied than rural.

4.7.9 Library Service

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with library services, higher each survey, with 2016 at 91% satisfaction. This is slightly lower than the national average (98%).

4.7.10 Reasons for dissatisfaction are limited opening hours (4), location (4) and the desire for better books (4). There were some comments about youth and ‘wrong element’ in the libraries.

4.7.11 Playgrounds

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with playground services, higher each survey, with 2016 at 64% satisfaction. This is lower than the national average (88%). There was a high level of ‘don’t knows’ in this group of answers and the older age groups were more likely to ‘not know’.

4.7.12 It may be more useful to look at dissatisfaction levels which is low at 9%. Reasons for dissatisfaction were upgrading (6), more equipment and variety (7) and not enough playgrounds (3).

4.7.13 There was some concern about the type of “users” hanging around playgrounds. This was

a common concern for parks, swimming pools and libraries as well. 4.7.14 Parks and Reserves

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with parks and reserves, higher each survey, with 2016 at 80% satisfaction. This is lower than the national average (93%).

4.7.15 There was a high level of ‘don’t knows’ in this group of answers mainly in the rural and in Ohura. Main reasons for dissatisfaction were poor upkeep (6) and improvements necessary (6).

4.7.16 Swimming Pools

Respondents have rated satisfaction with swimming pools fairly consistently each survey, with 2016 at 52% satisfaction. This is lower than the national average (69%). There is a very high level of ‘don’t knows’.

4.7.17 It may be more useful to look at dissatisfaction levels which is low at 9%. The main reasons for dissatisfaction were that they need upgrading (10) or too cold (6).

4.7.18 Public Toilets

Respondents have rated satisfaction with public toilets higher each survey, with 2016 at 62% satisfaction. This is similar to the national average (66%). There is a very high level of ‘don’t knows’ (21%) which is much higher than the national average. Older people were more likely to ‘not know’, National Park was more likely to be unsatisfied (37%) and non-ratepayers more likely to be satisfied (73%).

4.7.19 Reasons for dissatisfaction were dirty, need cleaning (19) and need upgrading and repairing (29). The Taumarunui public toilets were particularly mentioned.

4.7.20 LIMs

There was a very small base for LIMs (8 people). Only one was dissatisfied, they received a LIM for the property next door. This was an issue with the Property File.

19


4.7.21 Resource Consents There was a very small base for Resource Consents (15 people) but had a high rating of 83% satisfaction. Reasons for dissatisfaction were customers were unclear about why they need Resource Consent’s and the time they take to be processed.

4.7.22 Building Consents

There was a very small base for Building Consents (23 people). 73% were satisfied. Reasons for dissatisfaction are the length of time, that they seem unnecessary and not happy with outcomes.

4.7.23 Solid Waste

Satisfaction with solid waste has fallen in 2016 to 76%. This is lower than the national average (88%). Lower income respondents have a higher rate of dissatisfaction.

4.7.24 The reasons for dissatisfaction are having to pay for rubbish bags and the quality of them (15), and collectors not taking all the rubbish (3). The cost of rubbish bags is not well understood.

4.7.25 Kerbside Recycling

Respondents have rated satisfaction with kerbside recycling higher each survey, with 2016 at 88% satisfaction. This is the same as the national average (88%).

4.7.26 The reasons for dissatisfaction were the need for bigger bins, service could improve and more items should be recycled.

4.7.27 Picking up of green waste/and inorganic collection from the kerbside was also suggested. 4.7.28 Transfer Stations

Respondents have consistently rated satisfaction with transfer stations higher each survey since 2007, with 2016 at 64% satisfaction. This is slightly lower than the national average (66%). There is a high rate of ‘don’t knows’ (18%).

4.7.29 Costs (20) and /limited opening hours (16) are the main reason for dissatisfaction as well as not having kerbside collection (7). Some people feel the Transfer Stations are too far away.

4.7.30 Green waste was again an issue, too expensive to dump, and inconsistent charging. 4.7.31 Land Transport - Sealed Roads

Respondents have rated satisfaction with sealed roads in 2016 at 62%. Rural residents are more likely to be unsatisfied than urban who have a higher level of ‘don’t know’. Females are also more likely to be satisfied with sealed roads then men.

4.7.32 Land Transport had the most comments. From the 124 comments extracted for sealed

roads, 87 comments were able to be broken down and a road and issue identified.

4.7.33 General comments:

Rough & bumpy (15)

Potholes (11)

Poorly maintained/needs maintaining (10)

Dropouts not fixed (8)

Needs repair (8)

BP/New World seal issue (6)

Seal extension request/limited sealed roads (4)

20


Duration of works (3) 4.7.34 The majority of comments are in the localities of Taumarunui, Ohakune, Ohura and

Raetihi. Taumarunui areas focused on were Hakiaha Street (SH4) and River Road (SH43)

with the issues being the dropouts on SH43, the BP/New World entrance and potholes before the bridge entering Taumarunui.

Ohakune focused on Goldfinch Street, Clyde Street (SH49) and Mangarewa Road with issues being rough and bumpy, needing repairs and seal breaking.

Ohura areas were Ohura Road, Waitewhena Road and Okahukura Saddle Road with issues being potholes, rough and bumpy and needing more maintenance.

Raetihi areas were Raetihi Ohakune Road and Pipiriki Raetihi Road with issues being potholes and needing to be repaired.

4.7.35 25% of comments have been about the State Highway network.

Action: Raetihi Ohakune Road and Pipiriki Raetihi have been programmed for digout seal repairs. Ohura Road is on the Pavement Renewals programme.

4.7.36 Land Transport - Unsealed Roads Respondents have rated satisfaction with unsealed roads in 2016 at 55%. Urban residents are more likely to be satisfied than rural residents. Men seem to be more satisfied then females regarding unsealed roads.

4.7.37 From the 127 comments for unsealed roads, 108 comments were able to be broken down and a road and issue identified.

4.7.38 General comments:

Grading (28) Potholes (21) Corrugations (10) Vegetation (8) Not maintained/poorly maintained (6) Slips not cleared (4) Seal extension request/dust issue in urban (5)

Rough and bumpy (4) 4.7.39 The majority of comments are in the localities of Ohura, Raurimu and Owhango.

Ohura areas have been on Koiro Road, Mangapapa Road, Waitaanga Road and Waitewhena Road with the issues being potholes, corrugations and grading.

Raurimu areas have been on Poro Street and Top Mjnmill Road with the issues being potholes and grading.

Owhango areas have been on Omatane Road, Owhango Road and Onematua Road with the issues being speed and dust issues, sealing requests and grading.

Action: A proposed seal extension list has been created by GHD in 2015/16 for unsealed roads in urban areas. This list has been prioritised by the Traffic Housing Units of Demand (THUD) calculation. Owhango Roads are currently proposed for Year 2 (2017/18) with Egmont Street, Ohakune being constructed as the seal extension for year 1 (2016/17).

4.7.40 Land Transport - Footpaths Respondents have satisfaction with footpaths in 2016 at 74%. This is similar to the National Average (73%).

4.7.41 From the 64 comments for footpaths, 45 comments were able to be broken down and a road and issue identified. 20 comments have been in Taumarunui and 14 comments in Raetihi.

21


The majority of comments in Taumarunui are located on Taringamotu Road, Manuaute Street and Hakiaha Street.

These issues are footpaths being uneven and cracking. The majority of comments in Raetihi are located on Seddon Street and Raetihi

Ohakune Road. These issues are footpaths being cracked and uneven and needing to be renewed. There has also been general feedback about cracking and uneven footpaths around

the Raetihi township. 4.7.42 Action: GHD undertook a Footpath Condition Rating Inspection of all 69km of footpaths

within the District in 2015/16. This inspection identified that 2.4% of the network is in poor condition. An identified works list has been created from this rating to renew and repair these

poor condition sections. Further inspections are to be undertaken as the 2016/17 & 2017/18 footpath works

are programmed and actual locations and lengths are defined. The 2016/17 programme has been presented to Council in a business paper for the

Ruapehu District Council meeting on Tuesday 27th September 2016. To address some of the issues identified in the customer satisfaction survey, the

inspections for the 2016/17 & 2017/18 footpath programme will look at improving the existing footpaths in those areas and therefore reducing the issues for future customer satisfaction surveys.

4.7.43 Animal control

Respondents have rated satisfaction with animal control in 2016 at 70%. This is consistently improving. This is similar to the National Average (73%). Waimarino has the highest level of dissatisfaction.

4.7.44 There were a large number of comments on animal control (82) ranging from roaming dogs, bad owners, barking dogs, to issues with cats and not enough enforcement.

4.7.45 Council asked a new question here, and that was to try to understand if these were one off issues, new issues or historic issues. Most customers felt these were ongoing and recent issues.

4.7.46 Noise Control

Respondents have rated satisfaction with noise control in 2016 at 78%. This is consistently improving. This is similar to the National Average (73%). Urban residents had the highest level of satisfaction, and rural the highest level of ‘don’t knows’. Older people were the most satisfied.

4.7.47 The main reasons for dissatisfaction were loud parties, the slow service (9) and the perception that nothing is done about noise (4).

4.7.49 Civil Defence

Respondents have rated satisfaction with civil defence in 2016 at 63%. This is consistently similar over the years. This is the same as the National Average (63%). There is a very high level of ‘Don’t Knows’ and very low level of dissatisfaction (2%), and the comments were mainly that people did not know about Civil Defence.

4.7.49 The following set of questions and results shows the large range of opinions on what is and what isn’t councils business. Many people feel that Council could do a lot more and others feel strongly that Council should not be in these functions.

4.7.50 Business Promotion

22


Respondents have rated satisfaction with business promotion in 2016 at 36%. This is fairly consistent over the surveys. This is lower than the national average (48%).

4.7.51 There were a substantial number of comments on Business Promotions (113). The main groups of comments were: Not enough effort by Council (16) More promotion needed (7) Empty shops and dying towns/need tiding up (24) High rents (11) Council red tape (31) Assistance and support (15) Lack of consultation (14).

4.7.52 Job Promotion Respondents have rated satisfaction with job promotion in 2016 at 30%. This is fairly consistent over the surveys. This is similar to the National Average (36%).

4.7.53 Job promotion again attracted a number of comments (93), ranging from “not council’s business” to “Council not doing enough”.

4.7.54 Quite a number were about attracting new businesses (26) and the majority of the rest were about unemployment, lack of opportunities and making more training available.

4.7.55 Tourism Promotion

Satisfaction with tourism has risen to 70%. This is fairly consistent over the surveys. This is higher than the national average (66%). Females seem more satisfied then males in the promotion of tourism.

4.7.56 This question again attracted a large number of comments (62), ranging from council not doing enough promoting, advertising, or effort, to again, not Councils business, or Council needs to make the area more attractive to visitors.

4.7.57 Economic Development Satisfaction with economic development is 46% in 2016. This has improved since 2005. This is lower than the national average (66%). There is a high level of ‘Don’t Knows’ (34%). High incomes seem more satisfied in economic development.

4.7.58 The dissatisfaction in this area seems to cover most of the reasons in the previous three, from not encouraging business, creating or promoting of jobs, not promoting tourism and too many regulations and neglected areas in the district.

4.7.59 Council’s overall Performance

Satisfaction with overall performance is 73% in 2016. This is fairly consistent over the surveys but has improved since 2013.

4.7.60 Overall dissatisfaction with Council performance is that rates are seen to be too high (8), water issues (in particular Raetihi) and again the lack of jobs, tourism promotion, growth and business, as well as a perception of poor performance (8).

4.7.61 Community Assistance Satisfaction with community assistance is 62% in 2016. This is fairly consistent over the

surveys. This is higher than the national average (58%). There is a high level of ‘Don’t Knows’ (31%).

4.7.62 There was some support for more community assistance (16) and some dissatisfaction on who gets what.

23


4.8 OVERVIEW Below is a table that shows a breakdown of Ruapehu District Council benchmarked

against similar ‘Peer Group’ Local Authorities, the National Average of Local Authorities and Council’s 2013 results.

4.8.1 This table is based on the ‘Very satisfied/fairly satisfied’ results.

Facility Ruapehu DC Peer Groups National Average

2013

Sewerage System 96% 93% 93% 98%

Stormwater System 85% 87% 85% 82%

Water Supply 59% 83% 92% 82%

Community Halls 85% 86% 83% 90%

Councils Library Service 91% 97% 98% 90%

Council’s Playgrounds 64% 87% 88% 85%

Council’s Parks and Reserves 80% 92% 93% 73%

Council’s Swimming Pools 52% 65% 69% 49%

Public Toilets 62% 74% 66% 70%

Lim Report No comparisons available

Resource Consent No comparisons available

Building Consent No comparisons available

Rubbish Collection Service 76% 89% 88% 81%

Kerbside Recycling Service 88% 90% 88% 85%

Transfer Stations 64% 65% 66% 63%

Recycling Services 72% 83% 85% 68%

Maintenance of sealed roads 62% No comparison available 70%

Maintenance of unsealed roads 55% No comparison available 64%

Footpaths 74% 73% 73% 67%

Dog and Animal Control 70% 71% 73% 68%

Noise Control 78% 72% 77% 72%

Civil Defence 63% 63% 63% 66%

Business Promotion 36% 46% 48% 38%

Job Promotion 30% 37% 36% 31%

Tourism Promotion 70% 66% 66% 68%

Economic Development 46% No comparison available 42%

Council’s Overall Performance 73% No comparison available 66%

Council’s ability to deal with priority issues

48% No comparison available 56%

Community Assistance 62% 62% 58% 65%

Suggested Resolution

That the Report on National Research Bureau Survey be received.

Pauline Welch GROUP MANAGER CUSTOMER SERVICES 30 September 2016

24

Report to: Council

Meeting Date: 7 October 2016 Subject: Level of Service 2015/16 Results

Document No: 631447 File: L45-0013

Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to deliver the results of the Level of Service (LOS) 2015/16 Survey.


2.1 Significance This report does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Background

3.1 Every year Council sends out a LOS Survey to 20% of the rateable database to determine whether Council is meeting its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The questions are not comprehensive over all of Councils activities and are designed to just answer the ‘customer satisfaction’ type questions for the Annual Report.

3.2 Users of Council services also have the opportunity to go to survey monkey all year round

to answer the questions. It is available through Facebook and on the website as well as at counters.

3.3 Other KPIs for the Annual Report are sourced from various measures, including GHD

reports and Council’s Request for Service system. This survey ‘fills’ in the gaps’. 3.4 There were 427 responses to the survey. Not every respondent replied to all the

questions. This was a good response rate of almost 25%.

Discussion

4 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES Generally speaking, respondents were satisfied with Council’s performance (61%), although almost a quarter of the respondents “did not know”. These respondents may not have had any contact with Council over the past year given that the survey went to a random selection of ratepayers and residents. This is slightly lower than the NRB survey results and may indicate the number of ‘out of district’ rate payers responding with ‘N/A’. The NRB survey is a “Within the District” phone survey.

4.1 While over 70% of respondents felt they had adequate information for consultations, just

over one quarter didn’t. This is consistent with previous years and would reflect the fact that a number of people do not engage. This also indicates that Council needs to broaden its approach to consultation.

25

4.2 Opening hours and general satisfaction of the council office buildings was high (79% and 83%) with library opening hours slightly lower at 76%. Council meeting rooms was lower again at 60% but had a 35% of ‘not known’. This may indicate a low level of use by the community of the meeting rooms and that a number of the respondents were from outside the district.

4.2.1 Satisfaction with the Library is lower than the similar question in the NRB survey, again

this would reflect the ‘out of district’ responses. 4.3 The next set of questions is related to satisfaction with cemeteries (73%), Community

Halls (51%), and Parks and Reserves (79%). Parks and Reserves scored considerably higher with this survey than the NRB, which may be an indication of the ‘outside rate payers’ use of them. There was a high level of N/A for Community Halls, indicating that many respondents did not use them.

4.4 Infrastructure: Roading was reasonably high with 71% satisfaction and Stormwater at

69%. Both show a higher percentage of dissatisfaction at just over a quarter. The roading question is much more general than the NRB questions and has a higher level of satisfaction, which may be a result of the more general nature and perhaps reflects the use of the main arteries and state highways rather than rural roads.

4.4.1 Stormwater has a lower level of satisfaction than the NRB survey results. 4.5 Rubbish, Recycling and transfer stations: 65% of respondents agree that Council provides

adequate opportunities for recycling, less are happy with the opportunity for rubbish collection and Transfer Stations (both at 59%). All of these are lower than the NRB survey and this may have been influenced by the ‘out of district ratepayers’ as it is perceived to be more difficult for weekend visitors to access these service.

4.6 Finally, we asked what radio station people listen to. This helps target advertising. Over

half of the respondents listen to either Cruise or Peak FM. Again there was a high level of ‘other’ and this would reflect that the survey went to outside ratepayers as well.

Suggested Resolution

That the report on Level of Service 2015/16 Results be received.

Pauline Welch GROUP MANAGER CUSTOMER SERVICES 30 September 2016 Attachment: Breakdown of the Level of Service survey results

26

3.62% 15

57.25% 237

14.49% 60

24.64% 102

Q1 How satisfied are you with Council'soverall leadership and performance?

Answered: 414 Skipped: 13

Total 414

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

N/A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

N/A

1 / 11

Ruapehu District Council Level of Service Survey 2015/16 SurveyMonkeyAttachment Attachment27

70.78% 281

29.22% 116

Q2 RDC consults with the public whenmaking decisions, for example the 2015 -

2025 Long Term Plan was open forconsultation between 11 March - 17 April

2015, do you feel you are adequatelyinformed on consultation matters?


Total 397

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

2 / 11


Q3 How satisfied are you with:Answered: 419 Skipped: 8

Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied N/A

Counciloffices in o...

Libraries inour District?

Meeting venuesin our...

Opening hoursof RDC offic...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied N/A Total

3 / 11


21.71%89

61.46%252

8.05%33

8.78%36

410

24.33%100

52.07%214

9.25%38

14.36%59

411

14.80%58

45.92%180

4.59%18

34.69%136

392

17.87%72

62.03%250

9.68%39

10.42%42

403

Council offices in our Districts?

Libraries in our District?

Meeting venues in our administration buildings?

Opening hours of RDC offices and libraries?

4 / 11



22.03%89

51.49%208

5.20%21

21.29%86

404

7.28%27

43.94%163

15.09%56

33.69%125

371

16.58%65

62.24%244

11.99%47

9.18%36

392


Thepresentation...

Theavailability...

The safety andquality of o...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


The presentation of cemeteries in our District?

The availability and standard of facility of your community hall? (Where applicable.)

The safety and quality of our Parks and Reserves?

5 / 11



9.23%37

61.85%248

28.18%113

0.75%3

401

8.19%29

60.45%214

24.86%88

6.50%23

354


The District'sroads...

Stormwater andflood...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


The District's roads (excluding State Highways)?

Stormwater and flood protection?

6 / 11


65.12% 267

25.12% 103

6.34% 26

3.41% 14

Q6 Do you feel RDC provides you withadequate opportunity to recycle?


Total 410

Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

7 / 11


58.52% 237

20.99% 85

6.67% 27

13.83% 56

Q7 Are you satisfied with rubbish collectionservices in our District?


Total 405

Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

8 / 11


58.91% 238

17.33% 70

10.64% 43

13.12% 53

Q8 Are you satisfied with transfer stationsin our District?Answered: 404 Skipped: 23

Total 404

Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

Undecided

N/A

9 / 11


23.39% 91

27.51% 107

19.79% 77

7.71% 30

37.79% 147

23.65% 92

Q9 What Ruapehu Radio station do youlisten to?


Total Respondents: 389

Cruise FM

Peak FM

Ski FM

Tuwharetoa FM

None of theabove

Other (pleasespecify)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Cruise FM

Peak FM

Ski FM

Tuwharetoa FM

None of the above

Other (please specify)

10 / 11


93.50% 187

6.00% 12

9.00% 18

20.00% 40

Q10 What social media platform(s) do youuse?


Total Respondents: 200

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Pinterest

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Pinterest

11 / 11


Report to: Council

Meeting Date: 7 October 2016 Subject: Adoption of 2015/16 Annual Report


Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this Report is to adopt the 2015/16 Annual Report.


2.1 This report does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Background

3.1 The draft 2015/16 Annual Report (version 1) was presented to Council on 27 September 2016.

Discussion

4.1 The final 2015/16 Annual Report, the Summary Annual Report and schedule of changes will be circulated separately.


1 That the Report on Adoption of 2015/16 Annual Report be received. 2 That the Annual Report for the Ruapehu District Council for the year ended 30 June 2016

be adopted.

Alan Young FINANCIAL CONTROLLER 4 October 2016

38

Report to: Council

Meeting Date: 7 October 2016 Subject: Resolution to Exclude the Public for Consideration of

Council Business Document No: 640802 File: A05-0014

Purpose of Report

1.1 Section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 gives Council the right by resolution to exclude the public from the whole or any part of the proceedings of any meeting only on one or more of the grounds contained within that Section.


2.1 There is nothing in this Report that triggers the Significance and Engagement Policy.


1 That the Report on Resolution to Exclude the Public for Consideration of Council Business be received.

2 That the public is excluded from the following part of the proceedings of the meeting. 3 That the general subject of each matter to be discussed while the public is excluded, the

reason for passing the resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General Subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under S48(1) for passing this resolution

C1: Confirmation of Public Excluded Business Minutes: 27 September 2016

The reason(s) for excluding the public is/are recorded in the Public Business Minutes of the meeting.

48(1)(a)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982 as the case may require are listed above.

Sarah Doyle EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 4 October 2016

39

Agenda - Ruapehu District · Late Agenda Item: Raetihi Water Treatment Plant Upgrade File A05-0014 Doc 640119 Members considered a Report seeking approval for a late Report, brought

Documents