Dear Ruapehu District Council,

I refer to the Council Public Agenda (20230927) and have the following questions:

1) Item 5.1 Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments for the referred 2019 meetings.

2) Item 5.2 Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments for the referred March 2020 meeting

3) Item 5.3 Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments for the referred 8 April 2020 "Updated Report" and "Urgent Supplementary Report"

4) Item 5.4 "Elected Members authorised the Council’s Chief Executive at the 8 April 2020", please provide a copy of the wording for the authorisation/delegation/resolution
4a) Item 5.4 states "report back on 29 April 2020", please provide the notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments from the referred item

5) Item 5.7 Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments from the "series of workshops with council staff, iwi and council advisers as well as selective site investigations for multiple sites across the district"

6) Item 5.8 "the social and affordable housing project was the only one that had not yet been through the necessary public consultation", please provide a copy of the covering letter referred to and the date of the letter
6a) Please advise what "the necessary public consultation" is/was
6b) Please advise if any public consultation was held following this letter, and if so the dates they were had

7) Item 5.10 refers to multiple work streams, please provide all notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments relating to this item

8) Item 5.12 refers to meeting consultation requirements, at the time the sites that were to be used (in the attachments) were to have housing in multiple locations and spread out. The ATMS was later adopted in November 2020 on the basis of this report and council receiving funds to develop their own land and then sell lots at "fair value" to provide an income to produce more projects and unlock the residual value of Council land holdings. The current S&P agreement signed for in April 2023 does not support this report or the ATMS. Council states it "has council owned land, including vacant land that falls under the portfolio of Community Property". Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments that support the methodology change for gifting or selling "community property" for less than fair value.

9) Item 5.13 was a review of Councils Significance and Engagement policy for the 5 sites being investigated (which did not include Teitei Drive), was this reviewed again once Teitei Drive was selected, if so please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments

10) Item 5.17 refers to statements made on properties that do not cover Teitei Drive, nor the scale and size of the original plan, to the plan that is now in place. Was this ever reviewed after the august 2020 report, if so Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments

11) Item 5.19 refers to Teitei Drive, this was not in the August 2020 report, was Teitei discussed or minuted or present in any notes from August 2020?
11.a) It is noted that "The Ohakune Spatial Plan (May 2022) also identifies the subject land as residential", upon reviewing the spacial plan, it shows the Teitei land as low density; it then states "Any proposed development will need to be assessed against the Council’s Operative District Plan and relevant resource management legislation", please provide any notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments that assessed against Council’s Operative District Plan and relevant resource management legislation

12) Item 5.21, please provide the "shovel ready" application made by RDC to CIP through the multiple applications and amendments, we know all were rejected but would like a copy of these to see the basis of the shovel ready application.
12a) On 21 April 2021 zoom call reviewed, Teitei was openly discussed thus likely not under NDA/Confidentiality, why was it not made public other than if a member of the public watched the zoom call.
- Mayor Don says the critique he's had on the social housing project, was if Kainga Ora is involved, they building ghettos, mayor Don goes on to say he will not allow that to happen and no matter how many houses they build, it will not be a ghetto
- Clive mentions land behind carrot park and ability to fit 200 home there (Fred mentions hotel talked about in the past) Clive says its our jewel
- Clive says we dont want to create a slum, we need to work with others to make it work
- Clive, it was pretty controversial with a 50/50 split whether houses wanted to go up or out and it would be a controversial subject.
- Clive states "we don't want to be creating social problems for the future"
- It is discussed further consultation will be held
For over 15 minutes housing was discussed, carrot park was mentioned a few times and so was Teitei Drive; we have not been able to find any minutes of this meeting discussing this option, this was only discussed with council and a few members of the public. Was it not documented or advertised, the intentions of Teitei Drive because of the controversial nature? Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments made public about Teitei Drive other than the in person and zoom streamed content 21 April 2021.

13) Item 5.22 it is our view that the ATMS was designed to allow council to continue on with the funding application, but further consultation did not happen as discussed on 21st April 2021 LTP and the intention of the ATMS did not suggest the gifting or discounting of land, the questions asked were on topics that no one denies, however it would be councils duty to further consult on the matter. Please provide internal emails, notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments that have the word Teitei, between the dates of August 2020 and 4th April 2023

14) Item 5.24 please provide a copy of the referenced application to CIP

15) Item 5.25 has 6 methods of consultation on the ATMS policy, please provide what methods were used for Teitei drives consultation prior to 4th April 2023 contract being signed.

16) Item 5.27 please provide all negotiation emails internal and external, notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments that relate to the sale of land referred to

17) Item 5.28 refers to "Council was bound by confidentiality", please provide this agreement and the date the agreement was made.

18) Item 5.29 refers to confidentiality again, I bring up the 21st April 2021 meeting where Teitei was discussed but never documented, please provide any emails, communications, notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments that refer to the confidentiality of the project

19) Section 6.2.1 refers to policies used in forming its decision on Teitei Drive, however all the reports provided have been prior to the conception of Teitei Drive. Please provide the reports that relate specifically to Teitei Drive and those policies.

20) Page 34 refers to attachments, specifically item 7 Council's Questions and Answers, this item follows "Kāinga Ora Frequently Asked Questions". I cannot find these additional questions and answers from Council, please provide these or point to the page number.

21The report starting on page 43, dated 5th August 2020 2.2(a) sought to borrow up to $1.4million, was this approved and was it for Moore Street pilot?
21a) What were the 4 study sites referred to in 2.2(b)
21b) Item 2.3 in the report mentions a "Tenders Group", please provide the names of those in the Tenders Group and provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments
21c) The report item 3.1.2(a) quote "this is not significant overall", what values or statistics were used to provide this statement and was this revisited when Teitei Drive was decided on?
21d) The report item 3.1.2(b) please provide the values or statistics were used to provide this statement
21e) The report item 3.1.3 What consultation took place other than the ATMS?
21f) the report item 3.1.4 states "rates positive" over time rather than "rates neutral" and 'the sale of the house and land will be at ‘fair value’, providing a positive net cash inflow to Council"; this at the time was if Council was to sell the land lots, something Kainga Ora will now be doing and taking the revenue. Was this item ever revisited by council; Please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments.
21g) Because land and house is no longer being sold at a "fair value", rather land is being sold at a discount, will rates revenue be based on the discount rate?
21h) Item 3.2.1 notes "As the overall programme is significant the Council will need to go through the decision- making steps pursuant to section 76-82 of the Local Government Act 2002 and undertake public consultation", it is also noted that consultation is likely to include "involvement" and "collaboration". Other than with iwi or the ATMS, what consultation was had with the community and rate-payers?
21i) Item 4.3 of the report states "the application highlighted that the proposal was to facilitate a rolling, multi-year housing programme of regeneration and stock expansion across the District", however this is not the case in the new form of the agreement as council is not selling land or houses, thus there is no rolling, regeneration as no revenue is being made from land sale. Did council revisit this item, please provide notes, minutes, documents or reports and attachments.
21j) The report item 4.15 refers to a support in writing by Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, please provide a copy of this.
21k) In the report, there were a list of 8 Suggested Resolutions, please advise which of these were adopted and please provide the confirmation of wording for each and the date they were resolved.

Yours faithfully,

Ohakune Ratepayers and Residents' Society Inc

Dear Info,

Thanks for your response.

I ask that this information be reconsidered for the following reasons.
1./ Councillor Kahukura Hadley-Chase had registered a conflict of interest with regards to Ngāti Hāua

2./ A relationship agreement with Ngāti Hāua and Council was to be established, which could be considered a partnership or incentivised as we have considered to be the case with Ngati Rangi.

3./ The report created by Ree Anderson 8 MARCH 2023 and also dated February 2023 in the document states partnerships with, quote "Council established a Housing Project Steering Group comprising Uenuku Charitable Trust, Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Rangi. This group collectively undertook a stocktake of Council owned vacant land that may be able to be used for housing. This process identified 13 parcels of land (some parcels include more than 1 site)"

The group clearly has had consultation opportunities and has or may have provided RDC with views that the general public, residents or rate-payers were not given the same opportunity. We wish to build a timeline of Ngāti Hāuas engagement.

4./ Supporting documentation provided to councillors and in applications to receiving funding relied partly on the statement that Ngāti Hāua was in support.

5./ Emails already released under OIA show letters from Ngati Rangi and also refer to Ngāti Hāua as early as 24th December 2020; so we dont believe a letter in support of a housing project for Ruapehu, used for the gaining of funding, should be disallowed.

If you feel this is still the case, we will be requesting a review by the Ombudsman on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Ohakune Ratepayers and Residents' Society Inc

Dear Info,

### Q1: Please confirm no further tests were conducted on council policies or the LGA with regards to Teitei Drive after 2020, and that the supporting background provided to Councillors to vote for the continuance on 27th September 2023 were not specific to Teitei Drive.

### Q2: For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm each of the following; that council did not specifically test Teitei Drive against
2.1. the LGA
2.2. the Policy of Significance
2.3. the ATMS to be rates neutral or rates positive
2.3. the ATMS to facilitate a rolling, multi-year housing programme
2.4. that councillors were not notified of the change in direction in 2021/2022 from a revenue generating (sale of lots) to a gift or sale (at cost) project. If they were, please provide evidence

Yours sincerely,

Ohakune Ratepayers and Residents' Society Inc