Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Tuesday 13 July 2021
NOTICE OF MEETING
Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee
to be held in the Council Chamber,
First Floor, Civic Administration Building,
101 Esk Street, Invercargil on
Tuesday 13 July 2021 at 3.00 pm
Cr D J Ludlow (Chair)
Cr R R Amundsen (Deputy Chair)
His Worship the Mayor, Sir T R Shadbolt
Cr R L Abbott
Cr A J Arnold
Cr W S Clark
Cr A H Crackett
Cr P W Kett
Cr G D Lewis
Cr M Lush
Cr I R Pottinger
Cr N D Skelt
Cr L F Soper
CLARE HADLEY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
A3453626
1
link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 19 link to page 23 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 37 link to page 41 link to page 45 link to page 60 link to page 64 link to page 65
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Agenda
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee -
Public
13 July 2021 03:00 PM
Agenda Topic
Page
1.
Apologies
2.
Public Forum
2.1
Ms Courtney Ellison, Ms Beryl Wilcox and Mr Paul Searancke - Update from South
Alive
2.2
Mr Don Moir - Planning Restrictions within the Operative District Plan Relating to
Residential Subdivision and Development
3.
Declaration of Interest
5
4.
Report From the Invercargill Youth Council (A3465157)
6
5.
Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on 8 June
7
2021 (A3429818)
6.
Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships
15
Committee Held on 30 June 2021 (A3434645)
7.
Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to Environmental Reforms (A3453946)
19
8.
Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
23
8.1
Appendix 1 (A3437928)
26
8.1.1
Appendix 1a (A3437929)
27
9.
Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
28
10.
2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
37
10.1
Appendix 1 - Community Panel Representation Review Report (A3445208)
41
10.2
Appendix 2 - Initial Proposal Information Document (A3457449)
45
11.
Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
60
11.1
Appendix 1 - Correspondence from Sport Southland (A3456455)
64
11.2
Appendix 2 - Correspondence from Sport New Zealand (A3456457)
65
2
link to page 67 link to page 68 link to page 70 link to page 72
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Agenda
11.3
Appendix 1 - Correspondence from Sport Southland (A3456455)
67
11.4
Appendix 2 - Correspondence from Sport New Zealand (A3456457)
68
12.
Saving Grace Project Update (A3449996)
70
13.
Activity Report (A3445430)
72
14.
Public Excluded Session
3
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Public Excluded Reasons
Public Excluded Session
Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings
of this meeting; with the exception of the external appointees, Mr Jeff Grant and Mr
Lindsay McKenzie, namely,
(a) Confirmation of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Performance, Policy
and Partnerships Committee meeting held on 8 June 2021
(b)
Confirmation of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Extraordinary
Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee held on 30 June
2021
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:
General
subject
of
Reason for passing this
Ground(s)
under
each matter to be
resolution in relation to
Section 48(1) for the
considered
each matter
passing
of
this
resolution
(a) Confirmation
of
Section 7(2)(i)
Section 48(1)(a)
Minutes
of
the
Enable any local authority
That the public
Public
Excluded
holding the information to
conduct of this item
Session
of
the
carry on, without prejudice
would be likely to
Performance, Policy
or
disadvantage,
result in the disclosure
and
Partnerships
negotiations
(including
of information for
Committee meeting
commercial and industrial
which good reason for
held on 8 June 2021
negotiations)
withholding would
exist under Section 7
(b) Confirmation
of
Section 7(2)(i)
Section 48(1)(a)
Minutes
of
the
Enable any local authority
That the public
Public
Excluded
holding the information to
conduct of this item
Session
of
the
carry on, without prejudice
would be likely to
Extraordinary
or
disadvantage,
result in the disclosure
Meeting
of
the
negotiations
(including
of information for
Performance,
commercial and industrial
which good reason for
Policy
and
negotiations)
withholding would
Partnerships
exist under Section 7
Committee held on
30 June 2021
A3420633
4
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Declaration of Interest
Declaration of Interest
1.
Members are reminded of the need 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.
2.
Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as
practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.
5
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Report From the Invercargill Youth Council (A3465157)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
GEMMA
CRAWFORD
–
YOUTH
COUNCIL
COORDINATOR
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL
SUMMARY
The Invercargill City Youth Council will have representatives at the meeting. They will give
an update on their Leadership Committee Project.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee receive the report
“Invercargill Youth Council”.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
Yes
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
No
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
No
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
N/A
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No implications.
YOUTH COUNCIL LEADERSHIP HUI
On Saturday 10 July the Youth Council hosted UN Youth to facilitate a Regional Hui where
local and national issues were discussed and deliberated at length. The outcomes of the
working groups will help to inform the Youth Declaration 2022.
A3465157
6
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON TUESDAY 8 JUNE 2021 AT 3.00 PM
PRESENT:
Cr D J Ludlow (Chair)
Cr R R Amundsen (Deputy Chair)
Cr R L Abbott
Cr A J Arnold
Cr W S Clark
Cr A H Crackett (via Zoom)
Cr P W Kett
Cr G D Lewis
Cr M Lush
Cr I R Pottinger
Cr N D Skelt
Cr L F Soper
Mr J Grant – External Appointee
Mr L McKenzie – External Appointee
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mrs G Henderson – Bluff Community Board
Mr N Peterson – Bluff Community Board
Mrs C Hadley – Chief Executive
Mr M Day – Group Manager – Finance and Assurance
Mr S Gibling – Group Manager – Leisure and Recreation
Mrs R Suter – Manager – Strategy and Policy
Ms P Christie – Manager – Financial Services
Mr J Botting – Interim Team Leader Finance
Ms C Horton – Parks and Recreation Planner
Mrs L Goodman – Democracy Advisor
Ms K Davidson – Digital Content Creator
Ms M Sievwright – Governance Officer
1.
APOLOGIES
His Worship the Mayor, Mr T Shadbolt.
Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the apology be
accepted.
2.
PUBLIC FORUM
Nil.
3.
REPORT FROM THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL
A3430295
Libby Haywood and Katiana Simpson were in attendance to speak to this item. At
the end of their presentation, the council waiata was played.
A3429818
7
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Lewis and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Invercargill Youth Council”.
4.
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PERFORMANCE,
POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS COMMITTEE HELD ON 11 MAY 2021
A3406373
Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the minutes of the
Extraordinary meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee
held on 11 May 2021 be confirmed.
5.
MINUTES OF THE PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 11 MAY 2021
A3406973
Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the minutes of the
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee meeting held on 11 May 2021
be confirmed.
6.
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PERFORMANCE,
POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS COMMITTEE HELD ON 18 MAY 2021
A3415346
Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Skelt and
RESOLVED that the minutes of the
Extraordinary meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee
held on 18 May 2021 be confirmed, with the amendment that Cr Abbott was in
attendance.
7.
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY NAME IN RELATION TO THE SUBDIVISION OF
266 BAY ROAD
A3418728
Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Kett and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “
Proposed Right of Way Name in Relation to the
Subdivision of 266 Bay Road”; and
2.
Agree that the proposed Right of Way be named
Maimai Way as it is the
developer’s preferred name and meets Council’s naming convention.
8.
BLUFF MARITIME MUSEUM TRUST STATEMENT OF INTENT 2022
A3410854
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Pottinger and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Bluff Maritime Museum Trust Statement of Intent 2022”.
A3429818
8
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
2.
Requests Bluff Maritime Museum to provide supporting information around
the intended use of current investments.
9.
HEARINGS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES OMNIBUS
PLAN 2021-2031
A3427171
The Chair asked if anyone would like to be nominated for the Hearing Panel for
the Environmental Reserves Omnibus Plan. Cr Clark and Cr Lewis indicated their
interest.
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Hearings for the Environmental Reserves Omnibus
Plan.”
2. Nominate Cr Clark and Cr Lewis, including the Chair of the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee to form a Hearing Panel for the
Environmental Reserves Omnibus Plan.
3.
Note that a date has yet to be confirmed for the Hearings, that this will be
undertaken once the Councillors have nominated.
10.
2021/2022 FEES AND CHARGES
A3406606
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Soper that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “2021/2022 Fees and Charges”.
2.
Note the errors and omissions which are recommended for correction.
3.
Note the submissions received during consultation (A3406609) and that no
changes are recommended as a result.
4.
Adopt the 2021/22 Fees and Charges (A3419973).
In response to a question around the surplus in the Dog Control activity, it was
noted that any money collected from Animal Control would need to be used in
Animal Control, however it could be used for any activity within Animal Control,
such as upgrading the dog pound. A review of the current services for the dog
pound were underway.
The motion now put, was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
11.
ADOPTION OF LIABILITY MANAGEMENT POLICY
A3406611
Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Amundsen that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Adoption of Liability Management Policy”.
A3429818
9
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
2.
Note the submissions received.
3.
Adopt the Liability Management Policy (A3411478).
In response to a question around the AA+ rating, it was noted that this was in
conjunction with the investment and financial policies.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
12.
ADOPTION OF INVESTMENT POLICY
A3406612
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Lewis that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Adoption of Investment Policy”.
2.
Note the submissions received.
3.
Adopt the Investment Policy (A3420180)
It was suggested that Don Street and Awarua Farm should come under
Invercargill City Holdings Limited rather than Council.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Note:
Cr Clark voted against the motion.
13.
ADOPTION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY
A3406610
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Amundsen and
RESOLVED that the
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Adoption of Significance and Engagement Policy”.
2.
Note the submissions and feedback received, as well as recommended
changes to the policy as a result.
3.
Adopt the Significance and Engagement Policy (A3418918), noting the
intention that a final graphically designed version will be created following
adoption.
14.
CONFIRMATION OF REVENUE AND FINANCE POLICY
A3417919
Moved Cr Skelt, seconded Cr Pottinger that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Confirmation of Revenue and Finance Policy”.
2.
Note the submissions and feedback received, as well as recommended
changes to the Policy as a result.
A3429818
10
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
3.
Confirm the Revenue and Finance Policy (Appendix 1 - A3275564) noting
that it is required to be adopted by Council alongside the Long-term Plan on
30 June 2021.
The living wage had been mentioned in the submissions and the question was
asked whether this was being addressed. It was noted that Council had adopted
a point between the Living Wage and the Fair Wage.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
15.
CONFIRMATION OF RATING POLICY
A3417914
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Skelt that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Confirmation of Rating Policy”.
2.
Note the submissions and feedback received, as well as recommended
changes to the policy as a result.
3.
Confirm the Rating Policy (A3427787), noting that it is required to be
adopted alongside the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021.
During the audit process, there would be changes to the cover report. The
comparative amounts were different but did not affect the rates.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
16.
ADOPTION OF THE REMISSION AND POSTPONEMENT OF RATES ON
MĀORI FREEHOLD LAND POLICY
A3417705
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Pottinger that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Adoption of the Remission and Postponement of Rates
on Māori Freehold Land Policy”.
2.
Note the submissions received on the Rating of Maori Freehold Land
Policy.
3.
Note the proposed amended policy, including changes required to be
consistent with section 102(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 2002 and the
Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021, which
applies from 1 July 2021.
4.
Adopt the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land
Policy (A3426618) which will become operational on 1 July 2021.
A legislative change from Central Government would require a change to the
policy however there were no substantial changes to be made.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
A3429818
11
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
17.
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY
A3248626
Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Draft Development Contributions Policy”
2.
Confirm the Draft Development Contributions Policy (A3417789) for
consultation alongside the Long-term Plan in 2021.
18.
CONFIRMATION OF THE FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
STRATEGY
A3420167
Updates had been added to the agenda as a result of feedback from the auditors,
particularly around the assumptions around three waters reform.
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Pottinger and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Confirmation of the Financial Strategy and
Infrastructure Strategy”.
2.
Confirm the following recommended budget change as a result of changes
to the operational environment: To retain ownership of the Don Street
development and to address revisions to NZTA funding allocations as part
of the 2022/23 Annual Plan.
3.
Note the increased funding for Anderson House as a result of deliberations
on 18 May and that in line with the Significance and Engagement Policy
this is not a significant increase in funding and confirm that no further
consultation is required.
4.
Confirm the Financial Strategy (A3352000) and Infrastructure Strategy
(A3009110) noting that they will be required to be adopted alongside the
Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021.
5.
Adopt the updated Assumptions for the 2021 – 2031 Long-term Plan
(A3248620).
In relation to Don Street, it was nett positive at the moment due to current interest
rates and it made sense to hold on to it at the moment.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Note:
Cr Clark voted against the motion.
19.
SUBMISSION TO ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND LONG-TERM PLAN
A3430861
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Abbott that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
A3429818
12
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
1.
Receive the report “Submission to the Environment Southland Long-term
Plan”.
2.
Note the submission made to Environment Southland (A3425171).
Note:
Cr Lush left the meeting at 3.36 pm.
The fees outlined would be around cost recovery. Mrs Hadley would speak to this
submission and would seek clarification.
The motion, now put was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Note:
Cr Lush returned to the meeting at 3.38 pm.
20.
ACTIVITY REPORT
A3417649
The Covid Clinic in the Civic Theatre was expected to last 12 months.
Cr Soper wanted to note her compliments to the Invercargill Public Library as
they were doing great work at the moment.
Moved Cr Soper, seconded Cr Skelt and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receives the report “Activity Report”.
21.
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT – 31 MARCH 2021
A3429331
The overall performance in the nine months to March was performing better than
expected however there were still three months to go in the financial year. There
was the potential to breach some of the limits however the limits had been
changed slightly which would mitigate this.
Moved Cr Clark, seconded Cr Soper and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Quarterly Financial Report – 31 March 2021”.
2.
Notes for the quarter ending 31 March 2021
•
Council has recorded an operating deficit of $0.04 million
•
Capital programme is running below forecast
3.
Notes that the changes to the forecast as outlined in the schedule of
forecast changes section of the report were approved as part of the LTP
deliberations.
22.
COUNCIL REPRESENTATION AT LGNZ AGM
A3404784
Moved Cr Kett, seconded Cr Lewis and
RESOLVED that the Performance, Policy
and Partnerships Committee:
A3429818
13
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee Meeting Held on...
1.
Receive the report titled “Council Representation at LGNZ AGM”; and
2.
Note that Cr Ludlow be registered as Council’s Presiding Delegate and
Councillor Crackett as the Alternate Delegate for the Local Government
New Zealand AGM.
23.
PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Abbott and
RESOLVED that the public be
excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the
exception of the External Advisors, Mr Jeff Grant, Mr Lindsay McKenzie and Mr
Richard Hardie; namely:
(a)
Confirmation of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee meeting held on 11
May 2021
(b)
Confirmation of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the
Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships
Committee held on 18 May 2021
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:
General subject of
Reason for passing
Ground(s)
under
each matter to be
this resolution in
Section 48(1) for the
considered
relation
to
each
passing
of
this
matter
resolution
(a) Confirmation
of
Section 7(2)(i)
Section 48(1)(a)
Minutes of the
Enable any local
That the public
Public
Excluded
authority holding the
conduct of this item
Session
of the
information to carry
would be likely to
Performance,
on, without prejudice
result in the disclosure
Policy
and
or disadvantage,
of information for
Partnerships
negotiations (including
which good reason for
Committee
commercial and
withholding would
meeting held on
industrial negotiations)
exist under Section 7
11 May 2021
(b) Confirmation
of
Section 7(2)(i)
Section 48(1)(a)
Minutes of the
Enable any local
That the public
Public
Excluded
authority holding the
conduct of this item
Session of the
information to carry
would be likely to
Extraordinary
on, without prejudice
result in the disclosure
Meeting of the
or disadvantage,
of information for
Performance,
negotiations (including
which good reason for
Policy
and
commercial and
withholding would
Partnerships
industrial negotiations)
exist under Section 7
Committee
held
on 18 May 2021
There being no further business, the meeting finished at 3.52 pm.
A3429818
14
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnership...
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND
PARTNERSHIPS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR,
CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON TUESDAY
30 JUNE 2021 AT 3.43 PM
PRESENT:
Cr D J Ludlow (Chair)
Cr R R Amundsen (Deputy Chair)
His Worship the Mayor, Sir T R Shadbolt
Cr R L Abbott
Cr A J Arnold
Cr W S Clark
Cr A H Crackett
Cr P W Kett
Cr G D Lewis
Cr M Lush
Cr I R Pottinger
Cr N D Skelt
Cr L F Soper
Mr J Grant – External Appointee
Mr L McKenzie – External Appointee
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mrs G Henderson – Bluff Community Board
Mr N Peterson – Bluff Community Board
Mrs C Hadley – Chief Executive
Mr M Day – Group Manager – Finance and Assurance
Mr S Gibling – Group Manager – Leisure and Recreation
Mr A Cameron – Strategic Advisor / GM - ICHL
Ms R Suter – Manager – Strategy and Policy
Ms A Schuberth – Engagement Coordinator
Ms P Christie – Manager – Financial Services
Ms S McCarthy – Communications Advisor
Mr A Eng – Digital and Communications Advisor
Ms M Cassiere – Executive Governance Officer
1.
APOLOGIES
Nil.
2.
PUBLIC FORUM
Nil.
3.
MAJOR LATE ITEMS
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Lewis and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee receive the two major late items in Public
session and Public Excluded session.
1. Major Late Item in Public session: Southern District Health Board – Dunedin
Hospital Rebuild Local Advisory Group.
A3434645
15
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnership...
2. Major Late Item in Public Excluded session: Rugby Southland Office
Accommodation Support.
4.
ESTABLISH THE GOVERNANCE GROUP FOR REIMAGINING THE
INVERCARGILL MUSEUM.
A3445050
Staff spoke to the report and noted that this was a complex project. A preliminary
report would be provided to Council prior to Christmas.
In response to a query about Councillors not being part of the Governance
Group, it was noted that as Councillors were decision makers, the representation
in the Group could be depoliticised.
In response to a query about the plan by the Governance Group around
community buy – in, the outcome of the process towards adequate
representation of the Arts and Creative aspects, it was noted that the Group
would consist of professionals with a wide range of expertise and that they would
have links with the Arts, Creative and Education sectors.
In response to a query about whether the facility would be named as a museum
to describe the facility, it was noted that since modern museums incorporate an
array of aspects beyond only that of history. The Governance Group would
consider a name to describe the facility and the services it would provide, and
that at this point this was only a working title.
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Soper that the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Establishing the Governance Group for Reimagining
the Invercargill Museum”.
2.
Approve the formal establishment of the governance group for the
Museum.
3.
Establish the Appointments Panel of three, including:
a.
Independent Chair
b.
Chief Executive of ICC (Clare Hadley) as representative of staff as
operators
c.
One representative on behalf of the two local funding organisations
(Invercargill Licensing Trust and Community Trust South)
4.
Delegate the role of appointing the governance group members to the
Appointments Panel.
5.
Invite local runaka to appoint an Iwi representative direct to the
governance group.
6.
Note the purpose, timeframes and reporting approach of the group.
7.
Note estimated, unbudgeted costs of between $110,000 and $175,000 in
advice to support the group.
The motion, now put, was
RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Note:
Cr Kett voted against the motion.
A3434645
16
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnership...
5.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD – DUNEDIN HOSPITAL REBUILD
LOCAL ADVISORY GROUP
A3450975
The Chief Executive provided the reason for the report being a major late item. It
was noted that although the issue in the report originated in Invercargill, it was an
issue for Southland which is why it would have to be referred to the Mayoral
Forum scheduled to meet on 9 July 2021.
Note:
Cr Soper declared her interest and noted there would not be a conflict of interest.
Moved Cr Clark, seconded Cr Skelt and
RESOLVED that the Performance,
Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Southern District Health Board – Dunedin Hospital
Rebuild Local Advisory Group”.
2.
Endorse the Mayoral Forum receiving the report “Southern District Health
Board – Dunedin Hospital Rebuild Local Advisory Group” with the following
recommendations:
a.
Notes there is no representation from Southland on the Local
Advisory Group Established by the Minister of Health as part of the
Dunedin Hospital Project
b.
Notes the Local Advisory Group provides input to the Ministers of
Finance and Health on local matters relevant to the Dunedin Hospital
Project
c.
Notes the Dunedin Hospital Project as the Tertiary Hospital for the
Southern District Health Board will have significant impact on the
provision of health services across the Southland District
d.
Determines that it will make an application to the Minister for
representation on the Local Advisory Group from the Southland
District.
6.
URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
7.
PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Abbott and
RESOLVED that the public be
excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the
exception of the External Advisors, Mr Jeff Grant and Mr Lindsay McKenzie;
namely:
(a) Appointing the Independent Chair to the Governance Group for
Reimagining the Invercargill Museum
(b) Rugby Southland Office Accommodation Support
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:
A3434645
17
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Performance, Policy and Partnership...
General subject of
Reason for passing this
Ground(s)
under
each matter to be
resolution in relation to
Section 48(1) for the
considered
each matter
passing
of
this
resolution
(a) Appointing
the
Section 7(2)(a)
Section 48(1)(a)
Independent Chair to
Protect the privacy of
That the public
the
Governance
natural persons, including
conduct of this item
Group
for
that of deceased natural
would be likely to
Reimagining
the
persons
result in the disclosure
Invercargill Museum
of information for
which good reason for
withholding would
exist under Section 7
(b) Rugby
Southland
Section 7(2)(c)
Section 48(1)(a)
Office
Protect information which
That the public
Accommodation
is subject to an obligation
conduct of this item
Support
of confidence or which
would be likely to
any person has been or
result in the disclosure
could be compelled to
of information for
provide
under
the
which good reason for
authority
of
any
withholding would
enactment, where the
exist under Section 7
making available of the
information–
(i) Would be likely to
prejudice the supply of
similar information, or
information from the
same source, and it is
in the public interest
that such information
should continue to be
supplied; or
(ii) Would
be
likely
otherwise to damage
the public interest
There being no further business, the meeting finished at 4.25 pm.
A3434645
18
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to Environmental Reforms (A34539...
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
LIZ DEVERY – TEAM LEADER PLANNING
AUTHORISED BY:
STEVE GIBLING – ACTING GROUP MANAGER
CUSTOMER AND ENVIRONMENT
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
POTENTIAL SUBMISSIONS ON LEGISLATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL
REFORMS
SUMMARY
Minister for the Environment David Parker has announced that the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA) is going to be repealed and replaced with three new Acts. Additionally,
National Policy Statements are also proposed to be consulted on during the formulation of
the proposed new Acts.
The timeframe to draft, consult and implement the new Acts is ambitious. For example,
public submissions on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper opened
on 1 July 2021 and close on 4 August 2021. Accordingly, there will be insufficient time to get
draft submissions on the proposed legislation to Council for approval prior to submissions
closing.
Staff will compile submissions on new environmental legislation and national policy
statements so that submissions can be lodged within the required timeframes. Copies of
those submissions will be brought to Council for retrospective approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to
Environmental Reforms”.
2.
Endorse the approach that Council officers will prepare and lodge a
submission to meet the consultation timeframes, with the Committee
retrospectively approving their submission.
A3453946
19
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to Environmental Reforms (A34539...
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
No
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
No
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
No
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
The Resource Management Act reforms have potential implications on the
Invercargill City Council District Plan 2021 and the role Council plays in
environmental matters.
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No significant costs are anticipated with this decision. Existing staff capacity will be sufficient
to draft submissions to the proposed legislation.
Once the new Acts are passed into law it is expected that Council will need to give effect to
the legislation which may cause changes to priorities, additional costs and education with our
communities.
BACKGROUND
In June 2020, the Randerson Report was published which stated that the Resource
Management Act 1991 (the RMA) was out dated and it should be replaced with three new
pieces of legislation called:
-
Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA)
-
Strategic Planning Act (SPA)
-
Climate Adaptation Act (CAA)
In February 2021, Minister Parker announced that the RMA would be repealed and these
new Acts as suggested would replace it.
The new Acts are promoted as addressing the need to create a faster and simpler way of
protecting the natural environment enabling development and helping improve housing
supply.
They will seek to provide a more effective role for Māori in the system, to simplify planning
whilst reducing costs and time, to improve our response to the effects of climate change.
The proposed SPA will seek to ensure we have better, more integrated strategic planning for
how a region will grow and change over time and how development will be provided for
within environmental limits.
A3453946
20
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to Environmental Reforms (A34539...
The proposed SPA will look to provide for long-term regional spatial strategies that integrate
land use planning, environmental regulation, infrastructure provision and funding, climate
change responses and natural hazard risk reduction. These strategies will work alongside
the proposed Natural and Built Environments Act and other key legislation covering climate
change, transport and local government.
As the new SPA legislation integrates decision-making across a number of portfolios, the
Government has decided to use a new way of collaborative working – a formal
interdepartmental executive board - made possible under the Public Service Act 2020 to
optimise the quality of input to the development of the SPA.
The new Strategic Planning Reform Board met for the first time on 29 April 2021.
Membership of the Board includes the chief executives of Environment, Transport, Housing
and Urban Development, Internal Affairs, Treasury and Conservation.
The proposed NBA is to be the replacement for the Resource Management Act (1991). The
NBA’s purpose will be to enhance the quality of the built and natural environments for the
wellbeing of current and future generations. The NBA proposes a system of outcomes, limits
and targets set through a national planning framework which will be incorporated into a
combined plan – potentially one per region – prepared by central government, local
government and mana whenua.
The first milestone for the reform package has been the release of the exposure draft of the
most important parts of the NBA legislation (an exposure draft is legislation that has not yet
formally been introduced into parliament and which is shared with the public for initial
feedback and is designed to help speed up the process). The exposure draft is open for
submissions from 1 July 2021, closing 4 August 2021.
Proposed National Policy Statements for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) and Highly
Productive Land (NPS-HPL) are expected to be put out as exposure drafts in June 2021 and
form part of the new legislation package.
Issues
The timeframe to pass the three pieces of legislation and Policy Statements into law is very
aggressive. It is anticipated that the three Acts will become law this parliamentary term.
Current timetabling indicates towards the end of 2022 for the NBA and the SPA. The CAA
may be slightly later (early 2023).
Given the aggressive timeframe, engagement with the Local Government sector will be short
and will focus on high level principles as opposed to the detail. It is anticipated that any
consultation will likely span a few weeks and accordingly it is anticipated that there will be
insufficient time to put a draft submission to Council for approval prior to the submission
period closing.
The Otago and Southland Councils are looking to work together to combine their
submissions to get a united voice from the lower South Island. It is considered that
combining with other Councils will give more weight as opposed to ICC having a standalone
voice. Conversations at staff level with the other Otago and Southland local authorities have
already commenced.
Staff will review the information coming out of government and compile a submission either
on behalf of the Invercargill City Council, or jointly with the other territorial authorities where
there is benefit in doing so.
A3453946
21
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Potential Submissions on Legislation Related to Environmental Reforms (A34539...
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
There is no legal responsibility to submit on the environmental reforms. Rather, the
submission period enables Council to highlight potential issues that are likely to impact the
Invercargill City Council and its community.
Community Views
Consultation on the new legislation may be extended to the general public.
Due to the tight timeframes it is anticipated that Council will not have sufficient time to consult
with the community on the content of any submissions.
Reports outlining the content of the submissions can be submitted to the Performance, Policy
and Partnerships Committee after they have been submitted. These reports can be in the
“public” section of the agenda.
Costs and Funding
No significant costs are anticipated with this decision. Existing staff capacity will be sufficient
to draft submissions to the proposed legislation.
Once the new Acts are passed into law it is expected that Council will need to give effect to
the legislation which may cause changes to priorities, additional costs and education with our
communities.
Policy Implications
The environmental reforms will have a significant impact on the future national, and regional
planning framework, including the content and how stringent or permissive future regulations
will be. These reforms will materially impact on the existing Invercargill City District Plan and
our communities. Accordingly, it is considered that submitting on the reforms is a priority for
the organisation so that the Invercargill context can be taken into consideration when the
Government is making decisions.
CONCLUSION
The advantages of enabling staff to make a submission, would have the advantage of being
able to respond within the submission timeframes and in doing so adding the Invercargill
perspective to form part of the Government decision-making on new Acts and National Policy
Statements. This would however, mean that the Council would not get to see or approve the
draft decision before it is submitted. Rather, copies of the submission(s) would be made
available in retrospect.
A3453946
22
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
MICHAEL HARTSTONGE – COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
AUTHORISED BY:
STEVE GIBLING – ACTING GROUP MANAGER
CUSTOMER AND ENVIRONMENT
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
EARTHQUAKE PRONE BUILDINGS UPDATE
SUMMARY
Work on identifying priority earthquake prone buildings in Invercargill and Bluff is continuing.
The issuing of formal earthquake prone building notices is now underway. Councillors and
the community may receive feedback on this from building owners. This report is provided to
brief you on work undertaken to date and explain why these notices are required to be
affixed to buildings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Earthquake prone buildings update.”
2.
Note the current work programme in relation to the priority buildings.
3.
Note the additional work to be done going forward on the non-priority building
areas.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
N/A
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
N/A
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
N/A
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
N/A
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
N/A
A3405564
23
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
BACKGROUND
Following the Canterbury earthquakes in 2011 the Government introduced new earthquake
prone building legislation. The legislation had two main intentions:
1. The first was to identify earthquake prone buildings and to ensure the public were made
aware of the buildings’ status. This is carried out by being recorded on a web based
earthquake prone building register and placement of an earthquake prone building notice
on the building.
2. The second was to set timeframes for identifying and taking action to strengthen or
remove earthquake prone buildings. The Government categorised New Zealand into
three seismic risk areas being low, medium and high with different timeframes for
meeting these requirements depending on the seismic risk area/zone.
Invercargill is in the medium zone meaning priority building owners have 12.5 years from the
notification date of their buildings status as earthquake prone to upgrade or remove. Non
priority building owners have 25 years.
Council has previously identified priority buildings which are potentially earthquake prone and
notified owners seeking engineering assessments be provided within a 12 month period. The
legislation also allows for a further 12 month extension if requested.
Upon receipt of an engineering assessment, it is reviewed and if the building is deemed
earthquake prone, an earthquake prone building notice is issued. If no engineering report is
received within the required timeframe, Council is required to treat the building as if it is
earthquake prone and issue an earthquake prone building notice.
UPDATE
In late 2017 and early 2018, Council went through a public consultation process to identify
those areas of Invercargill and Bluff which had sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to
warrant prioritisation. In addition, the section of Bluff Highway alongside the former Ocean
Beach freezing works site was considered a priority route due to it being the only road into
Bluff.
420 inspections of buildings in the priority areas were completed in 2018 to identify those
constructed of unreinforced masonry. Where these were identified they were categorised as
potentially earthquake prone. In addition, a number of other buildings fell within the priority
building classification. These include the following building types:
∑ Emergency medical services
∑ Emergency shelter
∑ Emergency response
∑ Education buildings occupied by at least 20 people.
Of the 420 buildings, 209 have been declared as not earthquake prone either due to their
construction type or through review of an engineering assessment that has been provided.
The remainder of the priority building owners were notified requesting engineering
assessments of their building be carried out and supplied to Council within 12 months. Some
owners then requested the 12 month extension to allow for the completion of this request.
A3405564
24
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
With the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 this impacted on engineers’ abilities to inspect buildings
and undertake their assessments in the required timeframe. Because of this Council staff
made the decision to grant all priority building owners the allowable 12 month extension. This
was done under delegated authority.
Since January 2021, we have been working through the list of priority buildings reviewing
those engineering assessments supplied and those buildings which are overdue for an
engineering assessment.
We have so far issued 93 earthquake prone building notices, are currently reviewing 21
engineering assessments, sought further information on 5 and have another 92 priority
buildings outstanding which will receive earthquake prone building notices if their engineering
assessments are not provided.
We have received calls from concerned building owners worried about the potential impact
on their business from having to place the notices on their buildings. Unfortunately this is a
legislative requirement and cannot be avoided. In some cases where a building either has
multiple public entrances, or several tenancies, each entrance is required to have an
earthquake prone building notice placed upon it.
In some cases the issuing of an earthquake prone building notice has resulted in building
owners sending in their engineering assessment. Where this occurs this can result in a
revised earthquake prone building notice being issued or the complete removal of the notice
if it is found to be above 34% NBS.
At this stage we have not been actively monitoring the fixing of the notices to building
entrances but have advised in our letters we will be doing so. It is our intention to begin this
once all priority earthquake prone building notices have been issued. This will be done in
accordance with our Enforcement Policy. It is important to note that it is a Criminal Offence to
not display the notice and potentially something that MBIE will check Councils for.
Regarding the other remaining priority buildings being emergency, medical and education
related buildings we are continuing to work with the respective agencies and ministries and
these are progressing well. These have to be identified by 1 July 2022.
Attached in
Appendix 1 and
Appendix 1a are the maps of the priority areas previously
identified by Council. Once work on these areas and the other remaining priority buildings is
complete the next stage is to identify all other potentially earthquake prone buildings in the
remainder of the Invercargill city district area. This is to be completed by 1 July 2027.
Summary table:
Status
Priority area buildings
Earthquake Prone
93
Currently being reviewed
21
Awaiting response
92
Further information requested
5
Not earthquake prone
209
Total
420
A3405564
25
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
APPENDIX 1
A3437928
26
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Earthquake Prone Building Update (A3405564)
APPENDIX 1a
A3437929
27
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
MICHAEL MORRIS – LEGAL COUNSEL
AUTHORISED BY:
PETE THOMPSON – EXECUTIVE MANAGER
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
MANA WHENUA APPOINTED ROLES
SUMMARY
On 11 May 2021 this Committee resolved to seek a report on options for the establishment of
mana whenua appointed roles. This report provides the first steps and legislative background
for the establishment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Mana Whenua Appointed Roles”.
2.
Recommend that Council:
1.
Appoints two roles (one for each Rūnaka) on the Performance, Policy and
Partnerships Committee and Infrastructural Services Committee with full
voting rights.
2.
Offers an advisory role to the Bluff Community Board for Te Rūnanga o
Awarua.
3.
Resolves to consult with Takata Whenua on the persons to be appointed to
the roles and implementation issues.
4.
Resolves to consult with Maata Waka on the creation of mana whenua
appointed roles and the role of all Māori within the Local Government Act
2002 framework.
5.
Resolves to commence the roles from September 2021.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
No
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
A3438025
28
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
Not at this stage however, a further report will be provided setting out the budget
changes following the setting of the Honorarium.
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
Yes - this is a significant change to Council’s governance. This has a high level of
importance to Council as it is a significant change to the governance structure.
There is a high level of community interest, especially from mana whenua but also
wider Māori and the community as a whole. There will also be an increased
financial cost to Council as a result of the change
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
There will be a number of changes needed to documents such as the Governance
Statement and Delegations Register, amongst others, that will be the subject of a
further report
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
We have engaged with mana whenua at an initial level. The report recommends
consultation with Maata Waka and further engagement with mana whenua. The
option of mana whenua roles were discussed as part of the Maori Ward/
Representation Review pre-engagement with the community.
INTRODUCTION
Background
On 1 March 2021, the Local Electoral (Māori wards and Māori constituencies) Amendment Bill
(the Amendment Act) received Royal assent to amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA).
The Amendment Act did two key things; it repealed all provisions that enabled public polls to
be held to overturn Council decisions to create a Māori ward.1 In recent history, every time a
Council resolved to create Māori wards these were overturned by a community poll. This
caused a lot of hostility.
The second thing the Amendment Act did, in the schedule, was to extend the time to consider
whether to establish a Māori ward to 21 May 2021. Many councils took the opportunity to
engage with their community and Māori to discuss this point.2
As part of Council’s pre-engagement on the Representation Review the question of a Māori
ward was discussed at all events as well as being part of the conversation with the community.
Iwi were consulted, firstly as part of the Long Term Plan events at the Murihiku Marae and
then by having a representative on the Community Panel created to help engage with the
community.
Many members of the community felt there needed to be a much greater presence of Māori
at the decision-making levels of Council and were happy either to see a Māori ward or have a
role for mana whenua on Council.
1 Section 19Z enables a council to consider every three years whether to create a Māori ward.
2 35 Councils have resolved to establish Māori wards, all bar two are in the North Island. Only Nelson City and
Marlborough District in the South Island have resolved to create a Māori ward.
A3438025
29
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
Mana whenua were very clear that they did not wish to see a Māori ward created. However,
they made a very clear call for Council to consider appointed roles3 for mana whenua at
Council.
On 11 May 2021, the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee of Council resolved
not to create a Māori ward but to call for a report on the establishment of mana whenua
appointed roles.
Mana whenua
Mana whenua are considered the Waihōpai Rūnaka and Te Rūnanga o Awarua of Ngāi Tahu
(Kāi Tahu) and collectively the Rūnaka.
Waihōpai Rūnaka have mana whenua status for, broadly speaking, the Invercargill city area
and that for Te Rūnanga o Awarua, the Awarua area including Bluff.
Significance and Engagement Policy
As noted above the changes proposed in this report are significant in terms of the Significance
and Engagement Policy.
While this is considered a significant change to the decision making structures of Council,
there is no need to consult the public on this.
There was a significant amount of pre-engagement in the representation review work that also
included much discussion around Maori wards and also the options of mana whenua roles.
As part of the wider Government changes to the LEA by the Amendment Act there has also
been a public discussion on the ways local government can give effect to the changes and the
wider issues around the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi and
governance in New Zealand/Aotearoa.
This report is a natural extension of the Māori ward question as foreshadowed in the final
report to Council.
Legislative Requirements
There are a number of Acts that create obligations for Council to include Māori in decision-
making and to take into account Māori interests and views as well as the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi (Te Titiri o Waitangi).
Some of these include:
-
Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), which recognises the importance
of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Crowns obligation to maintain and improve
opportunities for Māori to contribute to Local Government.
-
Section 14 LGA sets out a number of principles for local authorities in performing our
roles; included in this is for the local authority to provide opportunities for Māori to
contribute to the decision-making process.4
3 This report uses the term Appointed roles, it is often described as “seats” because it involves there being a
“seat” at the Council/Committee table.
4 Section 14(1)(d) LGA
A3438025
30
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
-
Section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides for the importance
of the relationship of Māori to the whenua and the importance of Māori culture and
traditions in relation to their ancestral lands to be considered by those exercising power
under the RMA.5 The RMA also provides for the creation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe
agreements. These arrangements are to provide for means for iwi authorities and local
authorities to discuss, agree and record ways in what Takata whenua may, via the iwi
authority, participate in resource management and the RMA decision making process6.
The LGA requires local authorities not only to have processes in place to consult with Māori
but to actively provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes. The
Act provides scope and flexibility for a local authority to decide how best to provide those
opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes.
Section 81 LGA states:
81 Contributions to decision-making processes by Māori
(1)
A local authority must—
(a) establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute
to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
(b) consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to
contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
(c) provide relevant information to Māori for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2)
A local authority, in exercising its responsibility to make judgments about the manner
in which subsection (1) is to be complied with, must have regard to—
(a) the role of the local authority, as set out in section 11; and
(b) such other matters as the local authority considers on reasonable grounds to be
relevant to those judgments.
Additionally Section 10 LGA provides:
10 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 promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of
communities in the present and for the future.
Both of these sections must be given effect to under the LGA. There are a number of ways
that this can be achieved. Appointed roles for mana whenua is one option.
Under Sections 5 and 41(2) of the LGA, membership of Council as the governing body
consists solely of members elected in accordance with the LEA.
The LEA allows a person to be elected onto Council via a Māori ward system, it does not
permit non-elected representatives to be appointed to Council although the appointed people
can attend Council meetings.
5 This provision is likely to be at least maintained and more likely enhanced in the new legislation to replace the
RMA.
6 Section 58M RMA, and Subpart 2, Part 5 RMA. I understand there is not currently such an arrangement in
Invercargill City Council. This subpart and provision is likely to remain in some form in the new RMA.
A3438025
31
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
Clause 31 of Schedule 7 LGA states:
31 Membership of committees and subcommittees
(1)
A local authority may appoint or discharge any member of a committee or a
subcommittee.
(2)
Unless directed otherwise by the local authority, a committee may appoint or discharge
any member of a subcommittee appointed by the committee.
(3)
The members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected
members of the local authority, and a local authority or committee may appoint
to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the local
authority or committee if, in the opinion of the local authority, that person has
the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or
subcommittee.
(4)
Despite subclause (3),—
(a) at least 1 member of a committee must be an elected member of the local
authority; and
(b) an employee of a local authority acting in the course of his or her employment may
not act as a member of any committee unless that committee is a subcommittee.
(5)
If a local authority resolves that a committee, subcommittee, or other decision-making
body is not to be discharged under clause 30(7), the local authority may replace the
members of that committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body
after the next triennial general election of members.
(6)
The minimum number of members—
(a) is 3 for a committee; and
(b) is 2 for a subcommittee.
These sections provide for the ability of mana whenua appointed roles to be created, the
desirability of the appointed roles to be created and also what legislative limits there are in
creating the appointed roles.
Human Rights Commission Report
In October 2010, the Human Rights Commission prepared a report on Māori representation
in local government.7 The report notes that there have been inconsistent approaches to Māori
representation and a general reluctance to address the issue, including from and by Central
Government.8 Key recommendations from the report include:
∑ That iwi should discuss whether they want Māori appointed roles
∑ Discussions should take place between councils and iwi on Māori appointed roles and
a Māori voice in representation reviews
∑ Councils should support that Māori choice
∑ There should be further national discussion on improved provisions for Māori
representation9
∑ The LEA is amended to remove the poll provisions on Māori wards.10
7
Māori Representation in Local Government. The Continuing Challenge, Human Rights Commission, Wellington,
October 2010
8 Ibid, Page 4. See discussion around Auckland Council Māori Appointed roles.
9 Ibid, Page 37
10 Ibid, Page 36.
A3438025
32
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
Other Councils
In 2017, Local Government New Zealand contracted a stocktake11 across the country of
various arrangements councils had for engagement with and work with Māori. This report sets
out examples of how councils and Māori/ Takata whenua have engagements, cooperated and
come to formal arrangements on participation. It provides a useful summary of what other
councils and Māori have decided to work on in their district/Rohe.
A number of councils have mana whenua appointed roles or a version of them.
For example, Wellington City created specific appointed roles for mana whenua on
committees on 29 April 2021.
Dunedin City Council has a Māori Participation Working Party which functions as an advisory
panel to provide advice and opportunities for Māori to contribute to Dunedin City Council
decision-making processes. Dunedin City created roles on two of its Committees12 for both
Runaka within its Rohe on 30 June 2021.
Clutha district has representatives appointed to committees deemed appropriate such as
wastewater and solid waste working parties.
Environment Southland also has roles on committees for mana whenua.
Marlborough District Council have iwi representatives on all standing committees.
Nelson City has iwi representatives on the Council subcommittees only13.
What could mana whenua appointed roles look like?
The current Council structure means that there are options to explore around the three
Committees (Risk and Assurance, Performance, Policy and Partnerships; and Infrastructural
Services), as well as the Hearings Panel (for RMA matters14).
Then there is full Council and the Bluff Community Board.
Committees
This report will focus on the three major Council committees – Risk and Assurance;
Performance, Policy and Partnerships; and Infrastructural Services. That is not to say that it
is not appropriate to have mana whenua appointed roles on subcommittees; rather this will
focus on the major committees and the principles can carry over onto any subcommittees
considered appropriate in due course. There is no recommendation for roles to be appointed
to the Risk and Assurance Committee.
Mana whenua appointed roles on the committees are able to be as full voting members of that
committee. It would be proposed that this is adopted in due course.
11
Council - Māori Participation Arrangements, LGNZ, Wellington June 2017
.
12 The Planning and Environment Committee and Infrastructure Services Committee
13 See for a 2017 list
Council - Māori Participation Arrangements, pages 15-16.
14 This is already provided for in the Long Term Plan - Statement on capacity. The writer is not aware it has been
used in recent times.
A3438025
33
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
A decision would need to be made on what remuneration would be appropriate. It is
recommended that the roles be remunerated. It is noted that this would be unbudgeted at the
current time.
Appointments to the committees, under the LGA, such as this are required to have (in the
opinion of the Council) the skills, attributes or knowledge to assist the work of the committee.
We will need to work with mana whenua on who is nominated (is it one person for all
committees or a different person for each committee?). This needs to be driven by mana
whenua – with the need for recognition of the requirements the LGA places on Council to
ensure the person has the skills needed to meet the LGA test.
There will be two roles created, one for each Rūnaka as noted above.
As part of this, Council will need to update the Governance Statement to reflect the
membership changes to the committees and a change made to the quorum to increase by
one (or two) to reflect the additions.
Full Council
There is no provision for Council to have mana whenua appointed roles on full Council in the
LGA or LEA.
The LEA only provides for such an option under the Māori ward system.
Section 14 LGA sets out a number of principles relating to how local authorities operate at.
Section 14(1) (d) is for the opportunity for Māori to contribute to its decision-making process.
While mana whenua appointed roles cannot lawfully be established on full Council, they can
be appointed with full voting rights to the Committees as being recommended in this report.
The appointed roles could, when a matter is before full Council, in addition to speaking to the
matter, preparing reports on matters that mana whenua are concerned about and leading
discussion about matters of concern to mana whenua and Māori. Council would also ensure
that any Public Excluded resolutions would allow the persons in the appointed roles to remain.
To ensure Māori are able to engage in the decision-making process there would need to be a
discussion with maata waka groups to ensure they have effective means of access to the
mana whenua representatives as well as to Council as a wider organisation.
Community Boards
The LEA at Section 19F sets out the membership of a community board.
This limits who can be on the community board as those people elected and members of the
Council district the community board is in. This means there cannot be voting mana whenua
appointed roles.
However, there can be an advisory role. The role would work in that the advisor will be able to
discuss matters of interest to the Runaka, and advise the community board on matters as they
impact on the Rūnaka and Maori.
Some of this will depend on what delegations are given to the community boards as to whether
there is interest from mana whenua having an advisory role at the community board.
A3438025
34
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
The Bluff Community Board closely links to the Rohe of Te Rūnanga o Awarua.
Mana whenua views
In initial engagement with the Rūnaka the representatives have been positive and supportive
of this approach.
Mana whenua have clearly expressed a view that they would like to see the creation of the
appointed roles. The Rūnaka have indicated15 that they are interested in exploring having two
roles created, being one for each Rūnaka on both committees and on Council. There would
be one advisory role on the Bluff Community Board.
Options
There are two options that present themselves:
o The first is that two roles are created being one each for the two Rūnaka. This means
that there would be two additional people on the committees and full Council. There
would remain one additional role on the Bluff Community Board.
o The second option is that there is a combined single role. This option has two sub-
options. The first sub-option is that there is one person for the roles at Council and
one with the Bluff Community Board. The second sub-option is that there is one role
but it is filled by two or more persons allowing for the Rūnaka to tailor the person to
the Committee and role.16
It is recommended that Council create two roles on the committees being one for each
Rūnaka, with the same process for Council. It is also recommended that one advisory role be
offered for the Bluff Community Board.
It is important to reflect that each Rūnaka are distinct entities and having the two roles will
allow for each Rūnaka to advocate and vote, on matters that are important to them. It also
allows for the Rūnaka to help develop capacity by mentoring younger Kāi Tahu and Rūnaka
members into governance roles.
When to commence the roles?
There are three realistic options for when the roles can be taken up:
i)
September 2021
ii)
January 2022
iii)
Inaugural meeting October/November 2022
Of these three options, Option 1 is recommended as it gives time to conclude the discussions,
amend the documentation17, and allow for training to be completed by the persons taking up
the roles on a ‘train as you go’ approach18. It will also mean that by the end of Council’s term
in October 2022, the roles will be embedded into the Council’s structure.
15 This is an initial view and further consideration by the Rūnaka will take place during the implementation stage.
16 It is expected that with this option that the remuneration would be as for one person, meaning that the Rūnaka
will determine how that remuneration is divided.
17 It also allows for any changes at the Council Chambers in the Civic Administration Building and the Bluff
Community Board meeting room in the Bluff Municipal Chambers.
18 Much like the recent training for Councillor Lush following his election to Council at the February 2021 By-
Election.
A3438025
35
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Mana Whenua Appointed Roles (A3438025)
Option 2 would see the roles starting in January 2022. This start time would allow more time
for training, but delays the roles getting into Council. It also means that the roles will not have
the benefit of being at the committees for a full year before the Council elections in October
2022. For these reasons, this approach is not recommended.
Option 3 provides that the roles will commence following the next elections given that the term
of this Council is approaching the final third of its term. The advantage of these is that the
persons appointed to the roles will be able to train at the same time as the incoming councillors
and there is ample time to change the necessary documents. The downside is that there is
almost an entire year lost to this delay when the roles in Council could be making a difference.
For these reasons, this option is not proposed.
Honorarium
Given that the roles will be like that of a Councillor mana whenua believe these roles should
be remunerated. It is recommended that there be remuneration for these roles.
The level of the honorarium will need to be determined in partnership with mana whenua.
NEXT STEPS
Mana whenua have clearly expressed a desire to progress appointed roles. This report gives
effect to that desire.
It is important to take the time to now to work with mana whenua on the mechanics of these
roles now that the various options have been set out. This includes understanding how mana
whenua would select the people to take up the roles.
It is also imperative to engage with all Māori regarding these roles including maata waka
groups.
It also helps to give effect to the new Significance and Engagement Policy especially around
the time when consultation is required but also in terms of the engagement with Māori.
Consultation needs to take place with maata waka groups. This will ensure that their voices
are heard as is required by the LGA and its requirement for Māori.
There is not a recommendation to consult with the wider public on this matter.
A report back to the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee at the meeting on
14 September 2021 will be presented detailing the changes to the Governance documents,
and an update of engagement with maata waka.
A3438025
36
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
MICHAEL MORRIS – DEPUTY ELECTORAL OFFICER
AUTHORISED BY:
PETE THOMPSON – EXECUTIVE MANAGER
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
2021 REPRESENTATION REVIEW – THE INITIAL PROPOSAL
SUMMARY
This report sets out the work of the Community Panel for the Representation Review and
presents the Initial Proposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal”.
2.
Recommends that Council:
1.
Adopts the Initial Proposal as contained and set out in Appendix 2 of this
Report.
2.
Requests a report from the Chief Executive on options to address the
‘Additional Comments’ of the Community Panel in accordance with her
obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to Local
Elections.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
Yes - the activity is part of the Governance activity
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
No - this is covered in existing budgets
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
Yes - this matter has important implications for Governance at Council and the
representation of the community
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
There are implications depending on the outcome of the submissions and the final
proposal
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
We have engaged in a period of pre-engagement and the Initial Proposal must be
released for public consultation
A3456362
37
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None at this stage. The Review is covered in existing budgets.
BACKGROUND
At the 26 January 2021 meeting of Council the approach to undertaking the Representation
Review was adopted.
A Community Panel was created to gather feedback from the community on the
Representation Review questions during the pre-engagement stage.
At the same time the Panel and Council undertook engagement on the question of whether
to establish Māori ward for the Invercargill city district given the recent law change that
enabled such a discussion. Had a Māori ward been created this would have implications for
the Representation Review.
At the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee meeting held on 9 March 2021 it
was determined not to create a Māori ward but to seek a further report on mana whenua
roles at the committees and full Council.
Pre-engagement occurred during the Long Term Plan Roadmap to renewal consultation
meaning there was less duplication in consultation.
The Community Panel have now reported back and an Initial Proposal prepared based on
the feedback from the community, the Panel’s recommendations and from Councillors
following a workshop to discuss the options.
The Community Panel
The Community Panel was chaired by Cr Rebecca Amundsen and was made up of:
Anna Ford
Adity Raj
David Pottinger
Michael Skerrett
Evelyn Cook
The Panel took the opportunity to join some of the Long Term Plan/Representation Review
events to discuss with the community these options, and also utilised their own networks to
gather information.
The Panel prepared reports that summarised their own work, and then met to draft their final
report.
The report covers all the issues from a Representation Review and also makes a number of
other recommendations that sit outside of the requirements of a Representation Review
under the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA), however all have relevance for Council including
how we engage with and represent our community in our 150th year of Council in Invercargill.
The Community Panel Representation Review report is attached as
Appendix 1.
This report will return to the wider recommendations of the Panel later.
A3456362
38
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
REPRESENTATION REVIEW – INITIAL PROPOSAL
The LEA sets out the formal process for a Representation Review.
Once Council is ready with a proposal it must present an
Initial Proposal that will go out for
consultation with the community. Once the consultation is concluded and submissions
received, there will be Hearings on this issue to determine if there needs to be a change to
the Proposal. After the Hearings and decisions are made the proposal becomes the
Final
Proposal. This is then able to be appealed to the Local Government Commission.
In the 2015 Representation Review there were no appeals received.
The LEA also sets what needs to be considered for a Representation Review. It is a 360°
look at what makes up the elected aspects of Council.
The following are matters to be considered:
1. Elections by wards or at large, or a mix of both.
2. Number of Councillors.
3. Community Boards – to have, retain, create or not.
Issues that relate to the election system (First Past the Post or Single Transferable Vote) are
not part of the Representation Review but are subject to a review during each term of
Council. The next time this question can be asked is 2023.
Wards v At Large v Mixture
In 1989 when Council was created in our current version, it was set up with wards. These
lasted one term and we were one of the first Councils to move to an at large format.
Elections have been at large since 1992. This format is a minority for Councils with most
having wards or a mixture of wards and at large.
The Community panel noted that people were curious about a ward system, often this
approach was favoured by people who thought a ward would lead to stronger voices for a
“community” such as Bluff or South City.
However, once people understood how the system worked and the fact people could stand
for a ward and be elected while not actually living in that ward, most people preferred the at
large approach.
The Community Panel have recommended retaining the at large system.
Number of Councillors
The Community Panel noted that there was varied feedback on this issue. The Panel noted
that much of this was informed by the recent coverage of Council around the Thompson
Review, observers, and the Department of Internal Affairs letter, and a desire to see an
improved performance from Councillors.
Many people were interested to understand that less Councillors would not see a reduced
cost. The cost of Councillors and Mayor is set by the Remuneration Authority centrally and is
based on what they believe is the cost to govern a city the size of Invercargill. It is then up to
the Council to determine how this is divided up (this is only for the Councillors, the Mayoral
salary is not part of this fund). Less Councillors would mean more income for each
Councillor (in theory) and more Councillors would see a reduction.
A3456362
39
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
The Panel noted that many people in the community did favour a reduction of Councillors.
While this made up a chunk of feedback, the Panel felt that retaining the 12 Councillors as
the best approach as it increased the chances for greater diversity on Council.
The Panel have therefore recommended keeping 12 Councillors.
Community Boards
One of the most important features in the LEA for a Representation Review is defining
Communities of Interest in our district and ensuring there was adequate levels of
representation for them.
Bluff is a very obvious Community of Interest in our district. Bluff could be represented at
Council by a Ward Councillor, however where that recommendation is not made (as in this
case) that means the Community of Interest still needs a means to have its interests
represented. In this case it is by a Community Board. There was no indication that the
Community Board should be dissolved. The Panel has recommended the retention of the
Bluff Community Board.
There has been a view expressed that more powers be devolved to the Bluff Community
Board to make it more relevant to its community and to make it more meaningful to the
residents of Bluff.
In 1989 there were three Community Boards established in the city, in addition to Bluff there
was also Otatara and the Bush Community Boards. The latter two were both dissolved in
2004.
During the Community Panels’ work there has been feedback from Otatara residents that the
time was right for a Community Board to be re-established there. The Panel, however, note
that this feedback was mixed and tended against the Community Board when it was
discussed that a targeted rate would be levied to fund the Board.
For these reasons the Panel have recommended against establishing other Community
Boards. However, the Panel have recommended that this question be asked of Otatara
during the submission process of the Initial Proposal, with information provided explaining
the Community Board, the cost and the boundaries and seek submissions on this issue to
inform Council formally before the Hearings and Final Decision are made.
The recommendation is it retain the Bluff Community Board and not to establish any other
Boards.
The Initial Proposal Summary Consultation Document (draft) is attached as
Appendix 2. The
final version will be presented to full Council for adoption. The wording will not substantially
change, however it will be worked up with the graphics.
REPRESENTATION REVIEW – ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF INITIAL PROPOSAL
During the Community Panel’s work they were able to gather a snapshot of where Council is
at in terms of its ability to represent the community and the process around elections.
These comments are set out in the Additional Comments section.
A report can be called for from the Chief Executive on what can be undertaken to help
address the issues highlighted in the Community Panel report. A Chief Executive has an
obligation under Section 42(2)(da) Local Government Act 2002 to facilitate and foster
representative and substantial elector participation in elections held under the LEA.
A3456362
40
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
APPENDIX 1
A3445208
____________________________________________________________________
COMMUNITY PANEL
REPRESENTATION REVIEW REPORT
____________________________________________________________________
Dated: 1 July 2021
A3445208
41
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
Representation Review Report – July 2021
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Community Panel is made up of Evelyn Cook, Anna Ford, Adity Raj, Michael
Skerrett, David Pottinger and Councillor Becs Amundsen. Since April this group has
canvassed the community in a range of ways to understand their views on the issues
required through the representation review. This included attending some of the Long
Term Plan consultation events where representation review issues were discussed.
The panel has already fed back to Council on the issue of the Maori ward and supports
the direction Council is taking.
One thing that is clear for the panel in their discussions with the community on the
representation issues is that there is a lack of understanding and knowledge in the
community about the local body process, what the role of councillor is and involves,
and how the community can engage with Council. The panel raises this here as
something Council should consider for the upcoming 2022 elections and beyond.
Elections - At Large or Wards?
While people were curious about the ward system (often because of a lack of
knowledge but also a desire to improve the current Council), once the system was
explained to them many rejected the option.
Reasons for this were:
∑
Invercargill is a small city with no clear geographical boundaries between
communities
∑
There was a preference for councillors representing the whole city not just parts of
it
∑
Concern that the public would be limited as to who they could speak to on Council
(only their representative)
∑
There was concern about an us and them culture developing
∑
Concern this might reinforce stereotypes such as the south of Tay one
∑
The at large system is thought to attract better quality candidates.
The panel therefore supports the election remaining as at large.
Number of Councillors
There was varied feedback on this issue and a lot of that was informed by recent
issues at Council around the DIA letter and subsequent consequences. In some cases
people said ’get rid of the whole lot of them’.
Many people felt that less councillors would be better because the remuneration pool
stays the same size and would be divided by fewer people. This would mean better
paid councillors and as a consequence better quality. However, the community
acknowledged that this is unlikely to be the consequence for a variety of reasons.
In discussion with the community it seemed that the things which would actually make
a better Council were:
∑
Ensuring there is a better mix of people on Council (more representative of the
community)
∑
Improving how Council interacts with the community
A3445208
Page 2
42
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
Representation Review Report – July 2021
∑
Undoing the diminishing engagement the community has with the democratic
process eg low voter turn out
∑
Improving the community’s understanding of good governance and the skills
required to be an effective councillor and what they should expect from their
councillors
∑
Improving candidate’s understanding of good governance and the skills required
to be an effective councillor
∑
Helping the community understand the services council provides – often seen as
taken for granted by many people and examples of people buying a house and not
knowing what rates are
∑
Understanding that people who are well known are not necessarily going to be
effective councillors.
We would like to ask the Council to consider if there is a role they can play in
addressing some or all of the above areas and would welcome that being included in
your resolutions.
There was also some discussion as part of this question about the voting system
which we understand has already been approved to be First Past the Post. There
seems to be a growing acknowledgement in the community that a different system
such as STV could deliver a more diverse and representative council. The panel would
like to suggest the Council consider this in future discussions on this issue.
The final issue that was raised as part of this discussion was the consequences of the
3 Waters being removed from Council’s control. The panel considers that a smaller
area of responsibility should mean a reduction in councillor numbers.
Overall, while the panel received mixed feedback on this issue, the recommendation is
that the status quo of 12 councillors remain until some of the above areas are
improved.
Community Boards
Overall feedback is that the Bluff Community Board is valued and important to that
community because it is a distinct community of interest, quite different to Invercargill
city. It is also acknowledged that the ward system would not be a suitable means of
representation for the Bluff community because the ward would include a much larger
area than just Bluff because of numbers. There was a desire from the current board to
be able to play a stronger role in advocating for and getting things done for Bluff.
Discussion with the wider community on other areas where a community board might
be desired was limited. There was some feedback from Otatara residents that a
community board for their community was desirable, however this was mixed
especially when it was realised that a community board comes at a cost through a
targeted rate.
However, recent activity such as the Gostelow bequest and rating changes through the
Long Term Plan have left some residents asking if they need a stronger voice at
Council through a community board.
The panel recommends that the Bluff Community Board remains and encourages the
Council to invite submissions from Otatara residents if they would like a community
board there. As part of this we ask information is provided on the costs etc of a
community board so residents can make an informed submission.
A3445208
Page 3
43
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
Representation Review Report – July 2021
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To conclude the panel recommends:
∑
Remaining at an at large election
∑
Remaining at 12 councillors
∑
Maintaining the Bluff Community Board and inviting the residents of Otatara to
make submissions if they feel strongly they would like to have a community board
(with comprehensive information available to submitters so they can make an
informed submission).
3.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Finally, the panel would also make the following recommendations given the feedback
from the community was clear, to have a more representative and diverse council,
more needs to be done.
∑
A possible move to an STV voting system
∑
Council to run workshops (or similar) to encourage more people to participate and
stand as a councillor
∑
Encourage more people to vote through a wider campaign
∑
Council to have a more educative focus to the voting public on what the Council
actually does and has control over
∑
Engagement needs to continue to improve - so many people still have no idea
what the LTP is, let alone what the Representation Review was.
Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this panel and process. This method of
engagement goes a long way to improving the level of engagement
Council has with its community and should be considered in future as an effective
means to gain insight into community views on a range of topics.
A3445208
Page 4
44
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
APPENDIX 2
A3457449
INITIAL PROPOSAL
INFORMATION DOCUMENT
ICC REPRESENTATION REVIEW 2021
45
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
OVERVIEW
In 2021, Invercargill City Council has undertaken a Representation Review. This occurs every
6 years and is required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act).
What is a Representation Review?
This Review looks at all aspects of how the residents of Invercargill City are represented on
Council. This includes Community Boards.
It looks at:
v Number of Councillors (we currently have 12, plus the Mayor, and can have as few as 6,
and as many as 30).
v Should we elect the Councillors at large (status quo), or introduce a ward system, or have
a mix?
v Do we retain the Bluff Community Board? If so, how many members, and/or do we have
more Community Boards?
One of the principles of the Act is to implement ‘fair and effective representation for individuals
and communities’. Our last review was held in 2015 meaning we are now due to look at these
arrangements.
In February 2021 we recruited a community panel to engage with our community and gather
feedback on what the community would like to see in these arrangements. You can find a copy
of their report here.
[insert link for e version] and as attachment for hard copy
This document does not address the voting system that Council uses. That discussion is the
use of a First Past the Post system that we are using, and the Single Transferable Vote system
that many councils now use. This will next be up for discussion in 2023.
A3457449
1
46
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
OUR INITIAL PROPOSAL
This is a formal requirement of the Act. At the Council meeting on 22 July 2021 a review took
place of its representation arrangements for the October 2022 Elections. It resolved the
following proposal:
v
Council will comprise of 12 Councillors and the Mayor
v
All 12 Councillors will be elected ‘at large’ across the city
v
The Bluff Community Board shall be retained, with 5 elected members, one appointed
Councillor and retain the existing boundaries.
Please see below for more information on each of these topics plus information on the option
of a Community Board at Otatara.
Number of Councillors
There is no set number for the number of Councillors on a Council. Each community should
have the number of Councillors it considers necessary to ensure a good job is done.
We currently have 12, plus the Mayor, and the proposal is to retain this.
The Act sets that the minimum number of Councillors is 6 and the maximum is 30. The average
for Councils with populations of between 45,000 and 55,000 people is 11.5 Councillors.
Councils need to have enough Councillors to ensure there is an even workload and that the
business of Council is efficient, too few Councillors can mean burn out and very limited
effective representation, too many Councillors can mean a number of Councillors not involved
and not being seen as contributing.
Councillors’ pay is set independently of Council; an amount is determined by the
Remuneration Authority based on what they consider is appropriate to govern a city the size
of Invercargill. This is then split up between the Councillors so there would be a pay rise for
Councillors if there were less and a pay decrease if there were more Councillors (at its most
basic). The Mayoral salary is not included in these figures, this is separate again.
The Community Panel has recommended the retention of 12 Councillors at this time to help
provide for the greater opportunity of diversity on Council, ensuring that Council is
representative of our community.
Elections by Wards or At Large?
Elections to Invercargill City Council are currently done on an “at large” basis and this is
proposed to remain the system we use.
This means that all 12 Councillors are elected from all over and they do not represent any one
area. This means that all 12 can be approached about any issue in any area.
A ward is where a Councillor is nominated to stand and represent a certain area. Where this
happens the city is divided up into a number of “wards” and each ward will have a certain
number of Councillors to represent it.
You can have a mix of both, for example, (based on current Councillor numbers) you could
have 6 elected by ward and 6 at large.
A3457449
2
47
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
There are a number of rules that we must follow, this includes that each ward needs to have
plus or minus 10 percent of the population in other wards, and this includes a requirement for
the ration of persons per member in each ward to be within plus or minus 10 percent of the
ratio for the city as a whole.
The proposal is to remain at large. The maps included in
Addendum 1 show potential wards
and a mix of wards and at large based on the 12 Councillors it is proposed to retain.
What do you think?
Community Boards
A Community Board is a subset of Council. It is elected to ensure there is adequate
governance for a specific area.
Invercargill only has one Community Board – Bluff and it is proposed that the Bluff Community
Board be retained. Bluff is a community of interest within the Invercargill city district. It has its
own unique character, commercial, economic, social, historical and geographical factors that
help create this community. A Community Board is a way that Councils allow for communities
of interest, like Bluff, to have a voice and be represented at a governance level. Bluff was also
a standalone Borough until the Council reorganisations of 1989.
Addendum 2 is a map
showing the Bluff Community Board boundary.
In the past we had two other Community Boards – Otatara and Bush.
These two Boards were created in 1989 following the Council reorganisation. However, over
the following years both were disestablished in 2004.
Over the past two years there has been a change in the Otatara community and there have
been some calls for a Community Board to be re-established there. This proposal is not
recommending this as there has been a lack of support indicated to the Community Panel and
our Council.
However, we are asking you this question – Otatara, would you like to see a Community Board
re-established in Otatara? If so, please submit and tell us.
Here is some information about the possible Otatara Community Board that might help you:
Name
The Otatara Community Board
Boundaries
There are two options for this that can be explored.
Option 1 – is to use the Otatara zone boundary of the Invercargill City District Plan. This is
shown in the red boundary in the Map in
Addendum 3.
Option 2 – is to use what was the 1989 Otatara Ward boundary which covers a much greater
area and is much of Western Invercargill from the Airport to Oreti Beach (shown in green in
the map in
Addendum 3).
A3457449
3
48
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
Number of Members
There would be 5 elected members (including a Chair) and one Councillor nominated by the
Council, this accords with what is proposed for Bluff.
Costs
The costs of a Community Board are met by those who live within the boundary of the Board.
This is charged by way of a targeted rate. As an example, the Bluff Community Board has
direct costs of $95,450.00. This is collected by a targeted rate.
This would be divided amongst all household/rating units within whichever Board boundary is
chosen. This will increase rates in Otatara. The table below for the 2021/2022 years shows
how it is divided up for Bluff. Note all figures include GST.
It is likely that a similar measure would be put in place for Otatara. The figures do not currently
include indirect costs such as administration and staff support. These additional costs will
need to be considered by Council on top of this direct cost.
Powers
A Community Board is given the matters it can exercise by Council. There is no one formula
on what matters, the Community Board can have a say over or be involved in. Community
Boards also have powers that are given to them by sections 52 and 53 Local Government Act
2002 and any other matters Council choses to delegate to the Board.
Council has currently delegated the following to the Bluff Community Board:
v
Development and understanding of the events sector and the benefits of involvement for
the city
v
Consider applications, determine and approve grant funding allocations from Invercargill
City Council Events Fund
v
Develop and use an Event Evaluation and Assessment Framework to assess funding
applications
v
Progress action on recommendations from the Southland Events Strategy
v
Liaise and communicate with event stakeholders in Southland
v
Consider options to progress developing and implementing a regional approach to event
delivery in Invercargill and South
v
Evaluate economic and community benefits of the event sector for the city and the region
delegations
v
To determine allocations the Invercargill City Council Iconic Events Fund
v
To determine allocations for the Invercargill City Council Events Development Fund.
A3457449
4
49
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
What do you think Otatara? Tell us:
A3457449
5
50
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
TIME FRAMES – WHAT IS NEXT?
The following table sets out the timetable for the rest of the Representation Review from here:
Task description
Date
Council Committee meeting to revise options and recommend Initial Proposal 13 July
Council meeting to formally resolve Initial Proposal
27 July
Public Notice of the Initial Proposal and Submissions open!
10 August
Close of submissions
17 September
Within 6 weeks of close of submissions*:
- Hearings
4-6 October
- Deliberations and recommendation to Council
TBC
- Council meeting to determine Final Proposal
TBC October
- Advertisement – Public Notice* (6 weeks)
TBC October
Appeals and objections – at least 1 month
3 December
Forward appeals and objections to Local Government Commission
By 15 January 2022
This timetable can change, if there are no submissions on the Initial Proposal then it will
become the Final Proposal and Public Notice of this is given, which then is open to appeals.
Depending on how many submissions are received there is room to hold deliberations closer
to the Hearing. We will advertise any changes to this timetable.
A3457449
5
51
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
SO – HOW CAN WE REPRESENT
YOU?
How we represent you on Council is a question that affects everyone who lives in our city.
What do you think? Are you happy with what we have proposed here? Then let us know.
If you do not like this Proposal then we need to know, tell us and tell us why you do not like it
and what you would prefer to see.
Would you like to see a Community Board in Otatara? Then tell us, now is the chance. The
next review will take place in 2027!
We are also interested in your views on our voting system – First Past the Post or Single
Transferable Vote. Tell us what you would like to use and why?
Council’s “Initial Proposal” is open for submissions until
5.00 pm on Friday, 17 September
2021.
Submissions must:
1. Clearly show the submitters name, address and contact phone number.
2. Be addressed to Michael Morris – Deputy Electoral Officer, and be clearly labelled
‘SUBMISSION – REPRESENTATION REVIEW’.
3. Indicate whether you wish to be heard by Council in support of his / her/ their submission.
Submissions can be:
Completed online: Complete an onli
ne submission https://icc.govt.nz/public-
documents/consultation/
Emailed to:
[email address] now.
Delivered to:
Civic Administration Building
101 Esk Street Invercargill
Posted to:
Submission – Representation Review
Invercargill City Council
Private Bag 90104
Invercargill 9840
A3457449
6
52
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL
VOICE YOUR CHOICE – REPRESENTATION REVIEW ‘INITIAL PROPOSAL’
SUBMISSION FORM
SUBMITTER DETAILS
Please note in making a submission your name and address will be publicly available as part of your
submission.
First Name:
Surname:
Postal Address:
Phone:
Postcode:
Email:
Signature:
Date:
RETURNING YOUR SUBMISSION
PRESENTATION OF SUBMISSION
Return by 5.00 pm, Friday 17 September
Please tick as appropriate. If neither of the
boxes are ticked, it will be considered that you
Submit online
do not wish to be heard.
https://icc.govt.nz/public-
documents/consultation/
Deliver to:
Post to:
Civic Administration
Submission
Building
Representation
Review
101 Esk Street
Invercargill City
I wish to speak to the Mayor and
Council
Councillors about my submission.
INVERCARGILL 9810
Private Bag 90104
INVERCARGILL 9840
I do NOT wish to speak to the Mayor and
Email to:
Councillors about my submission.
[email address]
1. Do you agree that Invercargill District should elect its Councillors at large (no use of Wards)?
Yes
No
2. Do you agree with 12 Councillors for the Invercargill District?
Yes
No
A3457449
7
53
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
3. Do you agree with retaining the Bluff Community Board (five elected board members and one
appointed Council Representative, with no change to Board Boundaries)?
Yes
No
4. Should there be any other Community Boards?
Yes
No
4. Any other comments
A3457449
8
54
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
Addendum 1- At Large vs Wards vs A Mix
A3457449
1
55
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
A3457449
2
56
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
A3457449
3
57
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
Addendum 2 - Bluff Community Board Boundary
A3457449
4
58
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - 2021 Representation Review - The Initial Proposal (A3456362)
ICC Representation Review 2021-The Initial Proposal supporting Information
Addendum 3 - Otatara Boundary options
A3457449
5
59
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
RHIANNON SUTER, MANAGER – STRATEGY AND
POLICY
AUTHORISED BY:
PETE THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE MANAGER – OFFICE
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
MEETING DATE:
13 JULY 2021
ACTIVE COMMUNITIES FUNDING
SUMMARY
In 2020 as part of the review of Council funding, the Committee asked officers to work with
Sport Southland/Active Southland to consider the future of the Active Communities Fund with
a view to achieving enhanced outcomes for the community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee
1.
Receive the report “Active Communities Funding”.
2.
Note the correspondence from Sport Southland (A3456455) and Sport New
Zealand (A3456457) in relation to this matter.
3.
Confirm the withdrawal of Creative Communities funding from the Invercargill
Community and Recreation Sports Trust; pass the funding related to Active
Communities to Active Southland (previously Sport Southland) and wrap up the
Trust (Option 1).
4.
Provide the Trustees with feedback on any conditions which should be attached
to the passing of funding to Active Southland.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
N/A
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
No
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
No
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
Opportunity to align the distribution of funding with the Southland Spaces and
Places Strategy
A3455447
60
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
This matter does not require consultation – it relates only to the administration of
funding.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are some small efficiencies for Council in relation to Option 1 although it is likely to
have improved outcomes for the fund utilisation. Option 2 will result in similar resource
requirements as the current arrangement. Option 3 will require a small increase in staff time.
BACKGROUND
The funds of both the Active Communities Fund and the Creative Communities Fund are
held by the Invercargill Community Recreation and Sports Trust and administered by
Council.
The Trust was established to hold funding provided from the Hillary Commission. In 2002
Sport New Zealand (then SPARC) withdrew from involvement in administration of the funds
and advised councils that they could retain the funding remaining to be used for the purposes
then outlined. (Note that Sport New Zealand advise that at that time the funds were not
called the Active Communities Funding).
Since that time the primary use of the fund was to distribute the interest each year for
applications made primarily for sports clubs for equipment and coach training etc.
The principal of the fund stands at $977,480 as at 1 July 2021 and approximately $34,000
has been available each year for distribution, although in many years less than this was
allocated. The table below provides a summary of the interest and grants distributed over the
last four years.
Financial year
Interest earned on
Grants allocated
principal
2020/2021
Estimate $17,500
$44,088
2019/2020
$32,470
$15,145
2018/2019
$36,562
$17,003
2017/2018
$30,811
$23,425
Table of spending – Active Communities – 2017-2021
It is the understanding of the staff and councillors involved that other councils have over the
years spent the principal, and although Sport New Zealand do not have the information to be
able to confirm this, they expressed surprise that the fund was still operating and at the
quantum of the principal.
Cr Lesley Soper is the current Chair of the Active Communities Committee which has
Councillors, Youth Council members, community representatives and Active Southland staff
as members.
In 2020 Council reviewed all the funding it administered to enable a more strategic approach
to community funding. At that time the decision was made to retain Creative Communities
but explore with Sport Southland/Active Southland whether they were able and interested to
administer the fund. They confirmed that they were interested upon approval from their
A3455447
61
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
board and sent a proposal for how this could work which is attached. (It should be noted that
Sport Southland have just changed their name to Active Southland).
Cr Soper wrote to Sport New Zealand to receive their advice which is attached.
They advise the potential benefits of a review of how the fund is administered with the goal of
achieving greater strategic impact, which is line with the views of Active Southland, and is
also the advice of officers. Over time the fund is no longer as well aligned with the needs of
the community or the strategic goals of Active Southland and other stakeholders which now
focus on active recreation and play alongside traditional sports. There is the opportunity for
the fund to be reviewed to align better with the Spaces and Places Strategy.
OPTIONS
Option 1: Transfer of Active Community funds to Active Southland and wrap up of the
Trust
The Trust has only two functions – the first of these, administration of Creative Communities,
can be brought into Council, which is how most councils operate this funding. This is an
annual fund which is provided by Creative New Zealand.
The principal of the fund must be distributed in line with the purposes set out by the Hillary
Commission. Sport New Zealand’s advice outlines how those purposes are in fact wider than
the practice of how the fund has been administered. The funds could be transferred to
Active Southland to be utilised on this basis and any strategic review of how the fund is
administered, carried out by them. The Trust could also consider adding provisos to the use
of the fund, such as that it would be allocated for activities taking place within the Invercargill
District and run by groups operating wholly or partially within the Invercargill District. Active
Southland would be responsible for managing the administration of the fund from within the
funding available.
The Trust would then be wound up.
The benefits of this approach would be that it would enable Active Southland to review the
use of the fund within its wider strategy, operate it in line with the other funds it administers
and ensure that the widest possible range of organisations are aware of the fund and able to
benefit from it. It would remove an administration load from Council in an area which is short
of resource and not best placed to serve the sports and recreation community.
The disadvantages include that Council would no longer retain decision making control over
the funding and that the ability to advise applicants to the Community Wellbeing Fund to
instead apply to Active Communities may be reduced. However, it is likely this is a small
disadvantage as Active Southland is better placed to make these decisions and officers will
be able to work with them to advise applicants of the best fund to apply to. Active Southland
have indicated their intention to continue to take an active partnership approach.
This is the option recommended by officers and the current Chair of the fund.
Option 2: Council retains administration of the Trust and passes administration of the
Active Communities Fund to Active Southland
Under this option the Trust would continue to operate, with administration and accounting
provided by Council. Decision making on allocations for the fund would pass to Active
Southland who have advised that they would want to review the terms of the fund and would
need administrative fees from Year 2.
A3455447
62
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
The benefit of this approach is that one or more councillors could continue to be involved in
the decision making process and as such Council would retain a closer interest in its
operation. As this is not considered a core area of interest for Council this is seen as only a
minimal benefit.
Any efficiency savings to Council would be very small as a result of increased administration
in the accounting area as a result of the fund being managed externally. This approach is
not advised for this reason.
Option 3: Retain the current approach to administration, with a review of the strategic
priorities of the Fund
The third option is for the Trust to continue to operate and Council to retain administration of
the fund. A review would be required of the way the fund operates to ensure it is meeting the
needs of the community. While this would be possible for the Strategy and Policy team to
administer, the team is under-resourced and not as well placed to engage with sport and
recreation groups as Active Southland. It is likely a small increase in resource to administer
the fund going forward would then be required.
CONCLUSION
The options for future administration of the Active Communities Fund are presented. All three
are feasible, however on balance it is recommended that Active Southland is best placed to
achieve enhanced outcomes for the community in this area and that the most efficient means
to proceed is through a permanent transfer of funding to them from the Trust.
A3455447
63
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
Proposal – Administration of Active Communities Fund
Background
Sport Southland is an independent charitable trust which has a purpose of enriching lives and building
thriving communities through lifelong participation in sport and active recreation.
As a fund administrator we have successfully distributed between $180-$200k per year since 2010 as
part of the KiwiSport initiative and in 2020/21 we will distribute $326k. Also, during the last 12 months,
we have successfully delivered the Community Resilience Fund on behalf of Sport NZ on two separate
occasions distributing almost $1 million and over 200 applications.
As an organisation we have used the Active communities fund to help fund particular projects and we
have had a representative on the panel of the fund for the last few years. Over this time we have
recognised that fund is often undersubscribed and a number of organisations we work with have
described the fund as difficult to access funding. We also believe that the current criteria for the fund
should be reviewed again to better reflect the current needs of the community, particularly given the
current pandemic.
Proposal
Sport Southland proposes that we administer the fund on behalf of Invercargill City Council moving
forward. Given the fund is about getting the Invercargill community more active, Sport Southland
believes it is best positioned to get impact from the funding available to be distributed.
Sport Southland has a history of being well respected, approachable and credible within the “active”
space and has established a large number of relationships with many organisations that provide physical
activity opportunities to Invercargill residents.
With a number of other funds existing, such as Tu Manawa, Class 4 funding, Community Trusts etc we
also believe there is an opportunity to better understand the current gaps and community need and see
how the Active Communities Fund can help support this.
We would propose that in the first 12 months that funding criteria, assessment and process remain the
same to enable consistency whilst providing time for Sport Southland to bed down this new role. Sport
Southland are happy to cover costs of administering the fund, including wages for the first 2 years but
ask that there is an opportunity to review this after that time.
Benefits of Sport Southland administering the fund
-
To further support and evidence, a partnership approach between ICC and Sport Southland
-
Sport Southland already has established and ongoing relationships with organisations providing
physical activity opportunities so will find it easier to promote.
-
Sport Southland is already administering the Tu Manawa fund, aimed at 5-18 year olds, so has
established systems and processes in place.
-
To better support the fund being well utilised to support a more active Invercargill community.
-
Sport Southland is well connected in the community with other funders and opportunities.
-
Sport Southland is fully committed to a vision of “Everyone Active Every Day” so administering
this investment to enable this to happen fits with this kaupapa.
64
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
A3456457
14 June 2021
Lesley Soper
Councillor and Chair
Invercargill City Council
Private Bag 90104
Invercargill 9840
Management of the Active Communities Fund – Southland
Kia ora Lesley
My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter (31 March). We wanted to ensure that our
response was aligned to the initial intent of the
Active Communities Fund or, if in fact, the funds
origin was actually the
Community Sport Fund. We suspect that the fund may well have been the
latter (Community Sport Fund) which originated around 2002 when the Hillary Commission
stopped and became SPARC. Note: The Active Communities Fund was project-based and we
have a pretty good idea of where that investment went, and each of the projects were completed
and reported against.
The Community Sport Fund was funded by the Hillary Commission based on a sum per capita,
with subsidies and adjustments for smaller communities, distributed to local authorities for them to
manage a grants process. Councils appointed Assessment Committees, comprising Council and
community representatives. These committees allocated the funds according to the Hillary
Commission guidelines and their own criteria based on perceived needs of their community.
The initial focus of the Community Sport Fund was junior sport with priorities set as training
coaching and volunteers, and second level priorities around attracting, retaining member and
provision of equipment essential to the sport/activity. In the later stages of the fund these criteria
were overlaid with some additional areas for allocation, especially Club Development and identified
areas such as formation of multi-sports clubs, club amalgamation, club development, and
improving the services a regional sports organisation provides to a sport. Councils were asked to
set aside up to 50% of the Community Sport Fund allocation for these types of projects.
With that context, the content of your letter and the evolving strategy of Sport New Zealand Ihi
Aotearoa, alongside the different investment streams we currently make available to Sport
Southland i.e. Tū Manawa and Healthy Active Learning, I think we can provide some direction to
the questions you have posed:
• We are supportive of the Council’s thinking regarding utilising Sport Southland to administer
the fund on behalf of the Invercargill Community Recreation and Sports Charitable Trust
(the Trust).
P +64 4 472 8058 Level 1, Harbour City Centre, 29 Brandon Street, Wellington 6011
PO Box 2251 Wellington 6140, New Zealand
sportnz.org.nz
65
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
2
• We are supportive, and encourage the Trust and Sport Southland take a holistic view of all
the different funding available to the Southland community and develop a strategic funding
plan that is relevant to today’s environment. e.g. Sport Southland is receiving appx $325k
per annum from Tū Manawa. Tū Manawa has specific purpose and criteria that could
overlap with the Trusts purpose. It might be the Trusts funds could focus more on other
critical parts of the system e.g. Club Development.
Increasingly we are seeing across Aoteraoa the need to make system changes where funding is
less accessible. These relate to growing capability and capacity in areas like inclusivity (increased
accessibility for those missing out) and bi-culture. The recently completed work on the ‘Future of
Physical Activity in Aotearoa’ has identified critical areas for change. Hopefully as the Trust, Sport
Southland and other funders in the Southland play, active recreation, and sport system consider
how to invest to receive the ‘best’ return on investment you wil consider the system change
required and perhaps the Trust funds could be better utlised to compliment funds such as Tū
Manawa. Sport NZ would be supportive of realigning historical funds to better reflect todays needs
and funding availability. Some of these system level changes are more expensive but will realise a
long-term benefit. If the discussion goes down this path it might be the Trust makes a decision to
allocate more of the funding to large projects that will result in generational benefit.
Should you require any more from Sport NZ please advise.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Barry
General Manager, Community Activation
cc: Brendon McDermott (Sport Southland)
66
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
Proposal – Administration of Active Communities Fund
Background
Sport Southland is an independent charitable trust which has a purpose of enriching lives and building
thriving communities through lifelong participation in sport and active recreation.
As a fund administrator we have successfully distributed between $180-$200k per year since 2010 as
part of the KiwiSport initiative and in 2020/21 we will distribute $326k. Also, during the last 12 months,
we have successfully delivered the Community Resilience Fund on behalf of Sport NZ on two separate
occasions distributing almost $1 million and over 200 applications.
As an organisation we have used the Active communities fund to help fund particular projects and we
have had a representative on the panel of the fund for the last few years. Over this time we have
recognised that fund is often undersubscribed and a number of organisations we work with have
described the fund as difficult to access funding. We also believe that the current criteria for the fund
should be reviewed again to better reflect the current needs of the community, particularly given the
current pandemic.
Proposal
Sport Southland proposes that we administer the fund on behalf of Invercargill City Council moving
forward. Given the fund is about getting the Invercargill community more active, Sport Southland
believes it is best positioned to get impact from the funding available to be distributed.
Sport Southland has a history of being well respected, approachable and credible within the “active”
space and has established a large number of relationships with many organisations that provide physical
activity opportunities to Invercargill residents.
With a number of other funds existing, such as Tu Manawa, Class 4 funding, Community Trusts etc we
also believe there is an opportunity to better understand the current gaps and community need and see
how the Active Communities Fund can help support this.
We would propose that in the first 12 months that funding criteria, assessment and process remain the
same to enable consistency whilst providing time for Sport Southland to bed down this new role. Sport
Southland are happy to cover costs of administering the fund, including wages for the first 2 years but
ask that there is an opportunity to review this after that time.
Benefits of Sport Southland administering the fund
-
To further support and evidence, a partnership approach between ICC and Sport Southland
-
Sport Southland already has established and ongoing relationships with organisations providing
physical activity opportunities so will find it easier to promote.
-
Sport Southland is already administering the Tu Manawa fund, aimed at 5-18 year olds, so has
established systems and processes in place.
-
To better support the fund being well utilised to support a more active Invercargill community.
-
Sport Southland is well connected in the community with other funders and opportunities.
-
Sport Southland is fully committed to a vision of “Everyone Active Every Day” so administering
this investment to enable this to happen fits with this kaupapa.
67
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
A3456457
14 June 2021
Lesley Soper
Councillor and Chair
Invercargill City Council
Private Bag 90104
Invercargill 9840
Management of the Active Communities Fund – Southland
Kia ora Lesley
My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter (31 March). We wanted to ensure that our
response was aligned to the initial intent of the
Active Communities Fund or, if in fact, the funds
origin was actually the
Community Sport Fund. We suspect that the fund may well have been the
latter (Community Sport Fund) which originated around 2002 when the Hillary Commission
stopped and became SPARC. Note: The Active Communities Fund was project-based and we
have a pretty good idea of where that investment went, and each of the projects were completed
and reported against.
The Community Sport Fund was funded by the Hillary Commission based on a sum per capita,
with subsidies and adjustments for smaller communities, distributed to local authorities for them to
manage a grants process. Councils appointed Assessment Committees, comprising Council and
community representatives. These committees allocated the funds according to the Hillary
Commission guidelines and their own criteria based on perceived needs of their community.
The initial focus of the Community Sport Fund was junior sport with priorities set as training
coaching and volunteers, and second level priorities around attracting, retaining member and
provision of equipment essential to the sport/activity. In the later stages of the fund these criteria
were overlaid with some additional areas for allocation, especially Club Development and identified
areas such as formation of multi-sports clubs, club amalgamation, club development, and
improving the services a regional sports organisation provides to a sport. Councils were asked to
set aside up to 50% of the Community Sport Fund allocation for these types of projects.
With that context, the content of your letter and the evolving strategy of Sport New Zealand Ihi
Aotearoa, alongside the different investment streams we currently make available to Sport
Southland i.e. Tū Manawa and Healthy Active Learning, I think we can provide some direction to
the questions you have posed:
• We are supportive of the Council’s thinking regarding utilising Sport Southland to administer
the fund on behalf of the Invercargill Community Recreation and Sports Charitable Trust
(the Trust).
P +64 4 472 8058 Level 1, Harbour City Centre, 29 Brandon Street, Wellington 6011
PO Box 2251 Wellington 6140, New Zealand
sportnz.org.nz
68
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Active Communities Funding (A3455447)
2
• We are supportive, and encourage the Trust and Sport Southland take a holistic view of all
the different funding available to the Southland community and develop a strategic funding
plan that is relevant to today’s environment. e.g. Sport Southland is receiving appx $325k
per annum from Tū Manawa. Tū Manawa has specific purpose and criteria that could
overlap with the Trusts purpose. It might be the Trusts funds could focus more on other
critical parts of the system e.g. Club Development.
Increasingly we are seeing across Aoteraoa the need to make system changes where funding is
less accessible. These relate to growing capability and capacity in areas like inclusivity (increased
accessibility for those missing out) and bi-culture. The recently completed work on the ‘Future of
Physical Activity in Aotearoa’ has identified critical areas for change. Hopefully as the Trust, Sport
Southland and other funders in the Southland play, active recreation, and sport system consider
how to invest to receive the ‘best’ return on investment you wil consider the system change
required and perhaps the Trust funds could be better utlised to compliment funds such as Tū
Manawa. Sport NZ would be supportive of realigning historical funds to better reflect todays needs
and funding availability. Some of these system level changes are more expensive but will realise a
long-term benefit. If the discussion goes down this path it might be the Trust makes a decision to
allocate more of the funding to large projects that will result in generational benefit.
Should you require any more from Sport NZ please advise.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Barry
General Manager, Community Activation
cc: Brendon McDermott (Sport Southland)
69
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Saving Grace Project Update (A3449996)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
RHIANNON SUTER, MANAGER – STRATEGY AND
POLICY
AUTHORISED BY:
PETE THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE MANAGER – OFFICE
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
MEETING DATE:
13 JULY 2021
SAVING GRACE PROJECT UPDATE
SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the Saving Grace project following allocation of funding as
part of the 2021 – 2031 Long-term Plan deliberations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee:
1.
Receive the report “Saving Grace Project Update”.
2.
Note that a report with recommendations on the conditions for the funding
allocation made as part of the Long-term Plan process will be brought to the
August Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee meeting.
IMPLICATIONS
1.
Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan?
Yes – this relates to an allocation made within the 2021–2031 Long-term Plan
2.
Is a budget amendment required?
No
3.
Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance?
No
4.
Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy?
Aligns with the Long-term Plan
5.
Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further
public consultation required?
Project was a matter of submission as part of the Long-term Plan. The project team
are planning a public meeting (note this is not a Council project or consultation)
A3449996
70
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Saving Grace Project Update (A3449996)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$100,000 has been allocated as part of the Long-term Plan to be allocated to youth
programmes rather than purchase of a building. The conditions of that funding allocation are
to be determined.
BACKGROUND
Project Saving Grace is a proposed community centre, serving a range of community needs,
in South City. The project team, the IC2 Trust, engaged with Council through the Long-term
Plan process. Following Hearings, the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee
determined to allocate $100,000 in funding to the project. The full text of the resolution is
below:
That Council allocate $100,000 for officers to work alongside IC2 Trust to shape a grant
for delivery of youth and community services; and request a report back to PPP at its
July meeting around appropriate conditions on that funding.
UPDATE
Officers have met with the IC2 Trust to discuss the project. The IC2 Trust are waiting for a
number of key pieces of information which will be available in July, as follows:
∑ The initial Vodafone Foundation report on youth exclusion within South Invercargill
which will provide a more complete picture on community need;
∑ Outcomes of two funding applications:
o Provision for Quantity Surveying and Design work to complete the detailed
design and full costings for the project. This work is essential to enable an
accurate project cost and funding applications to major funders to proceed
($14,000)
o Project management support. Following some initial resource from the
Venture Southland Investigations and Impetus Fund, the project has been
developed by volunteers. This is a complex project which requires some
additional resource to enable coordination to continue ($21,000)
∑ Outcomes of discussions to bring additional Trustees on board.
With the above information, officers will be in a better position to provide an update and
recommendations for conditions for the funding back to the Committee in August. Councillor
Amundsen as Deputy Chair of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee has
agreed to work alongside officers and IC2 Trust as this report is prepared.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations will be brought to the August Performance, Policy and Partnerships
Committee following receipt of additional information from the IC2 Trust.
A3449996
71
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
TO:
PERFORMANCE, POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS
COMMITTEE
FROM:
GROUP MANAGERS
AUTHORISED BY:
CLARE HADLEY – CHIEF EXECUTIVE
MEETING DATE:
TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
ACTIVITY REPORT
SUMMARY
This report provides an update on a wide range of activities across the Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee receives the report
“Activity Report”.
LEISURE AND RECREATION
Invercargill Library (May 2021)
Percentage
May-20
May-21
difference
Issues
35,209
55,723
58%
Visitors
30,647
38155
24%
The increase in May 2021 reflects the Covid-19 lockdown with the Library
reopening to the public on 14 May 2020.
Coming soon is the new self-check out machine for the Bluff Library. This
is an amazing new addition which will enable the library to be open in the
mornings as well as the afternoons. The Bluff community will be able to
issue and return items in the morning independently and for those who
would still like to see Astrid or Amanda, the afternoon service will remain
the same.
Programmes
Sign language week (10-16 May 2021) at the library was a great success. Two introductory
sessions were conducted for the public and these were well attended. A group of 10 library
staff also attended a 6-week course in sign language to improve interactions with the hearing
impaired in our community.
May Music Month was recognised with the community taking the opportunity to book times to
use the library piano. The library also hosted a Beatles Tribute night on 2 May 2021 with
A3445430
72
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
between 60 and 70 people attending. A local band played some of their music, Beatles
memorabilia was on display and the community gathered after the normal closing time.
Collections
Watch out for an exciting new collection of high-interest and high-demand titles handily
located on the Ground Floor. Also, we are excited to announce that the $1 fee for DVDs will
be removed from 1 July, making a huge range of films and TV shows free for anyone to
borrow for 7 days. This contributes to our goal of making Library services as accessible and
barrier-free as possible for our community.
The New Zealand Library Partnership Programme-funded positions in the Library have
provided us with much-needed capacity, focusing on local content creation, and are
beginning to show results. The extra hours dedicated to the Southland Oral History Project
are paying off, with new interviews being conducted, historical material being added to the
collection, more records being made accessible through Archives Space (online catalogue
http://archives.ilibrary.co.nz/), and pilot outreach sessions with school classes making oral
history come alive for our future generations. Our Digital Resources Librarian has been
doing excellent work exploring options to make our current and future digital collections
accessible to the wider community.
Venues and Events Services (May 2021)
The Civic Theatre and Scottish Hall continue with strong numbers post Covid-19 recovery.
Even when excluding the vaccination clinic participation, the Scottish Hall and Civic Theatre
numbers are higher than for the same period in 2019.
Advance bookings for both these venues support this recovery trend. Ticket booking habits
remain late as has been the trend post lockdowns with many seeming to leave booking to the
last moment.
The Civic foyer is being activated by an increasing number of the community for casual visits
not associated with the vaccination clinic or Civic events. This includes the playing of the
foyer grand piano, social meets, respite from bad weather and domestic tourist visits.
Stakeholder engagement continues with Rugby Southland. A long list of stakeholders and
potential long term users of the site is being developed to inform the engagement strategy to
shape the capital programme of improvements (both funded and future aspirational) to widen
use of the venue.
Anderson House Trust continues to engage in workshops on potential future use for the site.
Participation and visitation numbers (May 2021)
Venue
No of Hire Half Days
Participants
Civic Theatre Auditorium
13
4,200
Civic Theatre Drawing Room
10
250
Civic Theatre Victoria Rooms* (Vaccination Clinic)
42
6,300
Rugby Park
0
0
Scottish Hall Main
10
1,007
Scottish Hall Community Room
8
240
Totals
83
11,997
A3445430
73
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
* The numbers associated with the Victoria Rooms are unusual for the nature of the facility and are
for a limited timeframe - this data may be excluded from year on year target calculations so as not
to skew reporting in future years.
Civic Theatre Foyer Silent Disco
Show Quest youths warm up
June at the Civic Theatre had two major community hires, being the Rotary Book Sale and
the pack-in for Invercargill Musical Theatre’s production of Les Miserables, as well as
commercial shows such as Chopper, It’s a Kind of Magic (Queen Tribute), Chamber Music
NZ, Operatunity, and the youth event Rockquest.
Looking forward
The Anderson House Trust - Future Use working group will conclude the Council led series
of workshops on future use and activation of the site in early June with reporting expected in
July 2021. The Trust will then present their proposal back to Council for consideration. The
proposal to Council will be accompanied by a staff report.
He Waka Tuia
Visitor Numbers
Month
Total Visitors
Total Open Hours
November 2020
772
148
December 2020
893
136
January 2021
1,068
144
February 2021
613
144
March 2021
980
158
April 2021
1,030
156
May 2021*
1,288
183.5
* plus 308 off-site children
Between 18-30 May a series of public programmes hosted in schools in Invercargill and
throughout the region by artist Janet de Wagt engaged with 308 children. This programme
has continued into June as part of
You, Me and the Sea. The success of this programme
has highlighted the demand from our schools to have a closer working relationship with the
He Waka Tuia Museum to provide learning experiences outside the classroom. The Long
Term Plan deliberations also highlighted this and was positively supported by Council.
A3445430
74
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
Exhibitions and Public Programmes
You, Me and the Sea / Coastal Murihiku (28 May – 18 July)
Since 18 May
, You, Me and the Sea has begun to fill the exhibition space with numerous
underwater creatures made from recycled plastic containers by both children and adults.
Workshops initially ran onsite, and at the end of May, Janet began to work individually with
schools throughout the community. The creations made by the schools were then installed
as part of the exhibition. There has been a noticeable increase in patronage, especially with
young people bringing family and friends in to see their installed work.
The second part of the exhibition,
Coastal Murihiku, opened on 28 May with over 100
attendees travelling from Nelson to Stewart Island to attend the event, which was opened by
Southland Conservancy Board Member, Alison Broad.
Windows
The He Waka Tuia windows on Kelvin Street are now under the direction of Visitor Host,
Emma Coppin, and the current installation reflects both
You, Me and the Sea and
Coastal
Murihiku. A window is also being dedicated specifically to local schools for installations,
which Emma will work with the schools to complete.
Minerva
Minerva is acknowledged as the oldest public sculpture in Invercargill. Originally purchased
for the Athenaeum in 1874 at a cost of £251 18s 8d ($34,686.16 in 2021), it was shipped on
the Bolden from London on 10 November 1875, arrived in Bluff via Nelson in May 1876, and
was unveiled at 1.00 pm on 1 July 1876.
In September 1876, Angus Kerr recommended that Minerva be painted white. In 1940,
following a series of earthquakes in the North Island, Minerva had been removed from the
top of the Athenaeum and was lying in the Invercargill Borough Council yard. Members of
the Museum Committee sought permission from Council to have Minerva transferred to the
new museum site, which was granted in December 1940. Minerva stood guard outside the
Museum while the building was used by Invercargill City Council for the duration of the
Second World War.
In 2020, the statue of Minerva was assessed by Liz Yuda of Artefacts Conservation Limited.
With the support of Invercargill City Council and the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board,
Minerva was removed and went to Pneumatic Contractors Limited where the old paint and
active corrosion were removed. She was then relocated to Gilkison Engineering, where
holes were repaired and a new support bracket was constructed for the base. Returning to
Pneumatic Contractors, where she was re-blasted and a protective coating of paint was
applied. Minerva has now returned to the Southland Museum and Art Gallery (SMAG) for
storage, pending reinstatement.
The project came in significantly under budget. Project costs were only $14,398.56, against
an original budget of $23,954.89. A grant of $15,970 was received from the New Zealand
Lottery Grants Board. Expenditure from the grant was project specific and limited to 2/3 of
the total budget. SMAG is required to return $6,473.76 to NZ Lottery Grants Board.
The conservation work was fortunate that three local firms were able to support the project -
Freight Haulage Limited, Pneumatic Contractors Limited and Gilkison Engineering. During
the time the work was undertaken, 22 social media posts were made by the Museum which
kept the community informed of the project.
A3445430
75
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
CUSTOMER AND ENVIRONMENT
Planning and Building
Customer & Environment - Performance 1 Jan 21 - 31 May 21
Planning & Building
100
100 100
100 100
100
100
99
99
98
98
98
96
96
95
94
92
92
92
90
89
88
86
84
82
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
Resource Consents Building Consents > 20 Days % CCC > 20 Days
Building Consents > 20 Days %
CCC > 20 Days
∑ May figures are maintaining high compliance across Planning and Building which is
pleasing.
Environmental Health
A3445430
76
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
Customer & Environment - Performance 1Jan 21 - 31 May 21
Compliance
140
129
120
103
100
95
91
80
73
60
40
19
20
23
20
7
8
6
5
8
3
4
7
3
4
2
2
0
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
Noise
Litter
Overgrown-Untidy sections
Animal-Poultry
A3445430
77
Performance, Policy and Partnerships Committee - Public - Activity Report (A3445430)
Customer Services
∑ Total customer interactions for the CS team in May were 11,200 through phone calls,
emails and visitors to the CAB. 33% of this activity was in the 5 days leading up to the
rates payment due date.
∑ Bluff Service Centre had 4,700 visitors during May. They average 950 people a week; on
22 May the Oyster Festival brought 600 people through their door.
∑ The focus of the CS team is on providing exceptional customer service, staff training and
developing written process.
Property
∑ No major changes to report on except for Electronic Property File Requests, which are up
from last month.
A3445430
78
Document Outline
