agenda council ltp deliberations · my daughter works at makana café outside of school hours. my...

Document number A2067911

CHAMBERS COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS

KAIKOHE

THURSDAY 24 MAY 2018

COMMENCING AT 1.00 PM Council Membership His Worship the Mayor John Carter Deputy Mayor Tania McInnes

Councillors

Ann Court Felicity Foy Dave Hookway Colin Kitchen Sally Macauley Kelly Stratford Mate Radich John Vujcich

AGENDA

COUNCIL

LTP DELIBERATIONS

NameResponsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)

Declaration of Interests Nature of Potential Interest Member's Proposed Management Plan

Hon John Carter QSO

Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme

Carter Family Trust

Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme

I will abstain from any debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District Plan.

I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team.I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner.

Flick Trustee LtdI am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties on Weber Place and Allen Bell Drive.

COUNCIL - MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees.

Director - Northland Planning & Development

Felicity Foy

Document number A2005249 Page 1 of 7




Elbury Holdings Limited

This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.

This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight, Tahuna Road/Allen Bell Drive.

Foy Farms partnership

Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm in three titles on Church Road, Kaingaroa

Foy Farms RentalsOwner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 6 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa

King Family Trust

This trust owns severaltitles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.

These trusts own properties in the Far North.

Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16

I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends

Employed by Justaplumber TaipaFriends with some FNDC employees

Colin Kitchen No form receivedTania McInnes No form received

Mate Radich No form received

Board Member Ngati Hine Health Trust Matters pertaining to property or decisions that mayimpact of their health services

Declare interest and abstain

Board Member Pioneer Village Matters relating to funding and assets Declare interest and abstain

Director Waitukupata Forest Ltd Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets Declare interest and abstain

Director Rural Service Solutions Ltd Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services


Partner Felicity Foy

John Vujcich





Director Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust Potential funder Declare interest and abstain

Partner MJ & EMJ Vujcich Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets


Member Kaikohe Rotary Club Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects Declare interest and abstain

Member New Zealand Institute of Directors Potential provider of training to Council Declare a Conflict of Interest

Member Institute of IT Professionals Unlikley, but possible provider of services to Council Declare a Conflict of Interest

Member Kaikohe Business Association Possible funding provider Declare a Conflict of Interest

Ann Court Consumer New Zealand

Board Member None Apparent Case by case basis

Warren Pattison Limited

shareholder Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer No FNDC Controls

Kerikeri Irrigation Supplies my water No EM intervention in

Top Energy Supplies my power No other interest greater than the publics

Consumer NZ as disclosed as disclosed as disclosedDistrict Licensing N/A N/A N/A

Top Energy Consumer Trust Trustee

crossover in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lighting.

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Ann Court Trust Private Private N/A

Waipapa Rotary Honorary member Potential community funding submitter Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa

Owner Shareholder

Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policychange which may have a direct impact(positive/adverse)

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa

Financial interest

Flowers(I get flowers occasionally) Ratepayer 'Thankyou' Bias/ Pre-determination? Declare to Governance





Coffee and food Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage Bias or pre-determination Case by case

Consider all staff my friends N/A Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!

Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.

Due to the nature of the business and development needs of the District, particularly in Waipapa/Kerikeri, my husband often carries out work and quotes work for Council employees. My daughter works at Makana Café outside of school hours. My son works for Warren Baker.

Warren Pattinson (Husband)

Warren Pattison Limited director Building Company . FNDC is a regulator Remain at arms length

Air NZ shareholder None NoneWarren Pattison Limited

Builder FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer. Apply arms length rules

Kurbside Rod and Custom Club (unlikely)

President NZ Hot Rod AssociationPotential to be linked to a funding applicant and my wife is on the decision making committee.

unlikely to materialise but would absent myself from any process as would Ann.

Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa Owner

any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.

would not submit…. Rest on a case by case basis.

worked with or for Mike Colebrook and Kelvin Goode

Paid employment N/A N/A

Sally Macauley

Chairman Northland Northland District Health Board Matters pertaining to health issues re Fluroide and freshwater as an example.

Declare a percieved conflict.





ChairmanOranga Tamaraki - Ministry of Vulnerable Children- Northland Community Response Forum Matters pertaining to this ministry Declare a percieved conflict.

Judicial Justice of the Peace

Visitations to Ngawha Prison Matters pertaining to Judicial Issues re Ngawha Prison Declare a percieved Interest

The Turner Centre FNDC Representative Observer, acknowledging FNDC financial contribution. Note FNDC partnership

Trustee Kaikohe Education Trust Providing students laptops - possible request for written support to funders

Declare a conflict

Executive member Kaikohe Business Association Matters pertaining to request for written support to funders.

Chairman Bay of Islands Arts Festival Trust Issues pertaining to the application of support funds Declare a conflict of interests

Trustee Bay of Islands Radio Marine Issues pertaining to the application of support funds Declare a conflict of interets

Secretary/Trustee Kerkeri International Piano Competition Issues pertaining to the application of support funds Declare a conflict of interests

Trustee/Director Kaikohe Community and Youth Trust Possible application of support funding Declare a conflict of interests

Commercial Palmer Macauley Offices- Kerikeri and Kaikohe Infrastructural matters with FNDC Declare a conflictPrivate property of which there would not be any conflict.Paihia, Kerikeri, Kaikohe

Peter Macauley (Husband)

Senior Partner Palmer Macauley

Peter Macualey Barristers and Solicitors- Kerikeri, Kaikohe and Mangonui

Legal matters with FNDC

Director/TrusteeSt John NZ Priory Chapter

St John Priory Chapter Legal matters with FNDC Declare a conflict

Senior Partner Peter Macauley- Palmer Macauley Barristers and Solicitors Kaikohe, Kerikeri AND Mangonui

Legal matters with FNDC Declare a conflict





St John NZ Priory Trust Board Writing of policies and legal matters as an example Note Interests

Lions Club of Kaikohe Director Legal matters etc Note Interests

Kaikohe Rugby Club Patron Legal MattersViking Rugby Club, Whangarei

Life Member Legal Matters

Private Property Kerkeri, Paihia - no contents.

Dave Hookway Employed as "Health

Promotion Advisor-Alcohol and other Drugs" for Northern District Health Board.

A professional understanding of issues relating to drugs and alcohol.

have made personal and professional submissions on council policies

consider policies and proposals as presented in a fair and balanced manner.

I own my own property at 188b Waipapa West Rd, Waipapa.

Have 3 dogs and 2 cats (and quite a few chickens) Love my pets.Consider policies and proposals as presented in a fair and balanced manner.

Mike Edmonds No form received

Adele Gardner

N/A - FNDC HonararianThe Far North 20/20 , ICT Trust

Trustee

Te Ahu Charitable Trust

Trustee

ST Johns Kaitaia Branch

Trustee/ Committee Member





I know many FNDC staff members as I was an FNDC staff member from 1994-2008.

Partner of Adele Gardner

N/A as Retired

Terry Greening Greening Family Trust Beneficiary Highly unlikely to interface

with FNDC

Duffus Memorial Trust (Chairman)

Pensioner cottages with council easements over the land Potential of seeking funds

Step aside from anyrequests or decisions regarding requests

Bay of Islands Walking Weekend Trust Potential of seeking funds

Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests

Russell 2000 Trust (Chairman)

Trust is about to wind up.

Russell Centennial Trust (ex-officio trustee)

Manages Russell Museum Seeks funds from councilStep aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests

Residence at 14 Kaha Place, Russell

Nil Nil N/A

Terry Greening (Wife)

Greening Family Trust Beneficiary N/A N/A



FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING – LTP DELIBERATIONS

THURSDAY 24 MAY COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM IN CHAMBERS, COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS, KAIKOHE

A G E N D A Item

1.0 PRAYER

2.0 APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Governance Support (preferably before the meeting).

It is noted that while Members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the Member.

3.0 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

4.0 CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Document number A2067691

5.0 MAWSON AVENUE WATER SUPPLY CONSULTATION AND VESTING Document number A2044718

6.0 SUBMISSION – LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMUNITY WELL-BEINGS) AMENDMENT BILL Document number A2055112

7.0 LTP DELIBERATIONS

7.1 Response to submission on LTP financial errors Document number A2066207

7.2 Long Term Plan 2018-28 Deliberations Document number A2067957

8.0 CLOSE OF MEETING


Item: 4.0

Meeting: Council – 24 May 2018 Name of item: Confirmation of Previous Minutes Author: Melissa Wood - Meetings Administrator

Date of report: 10 May 2018

Document number: A2067691

Purpose of the report The minutes are attached to allow Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.

Recommendation That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held 26 April 2018 as a true and correct record.

1) Background Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28A states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and options The minutes of the meetings are attached.

Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meetings.

3) Financial implications and budgetary provision There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Manager: Kate Barnes - Team Leader Governance Support

Attachment 1: Council Unconfirmed Minutes – 26 April 2018 - Document number A2005786


Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant

decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

Not applicable.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Not applicable.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

Not applicable.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

None.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.

Yes.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.

Chief Financial Officer review. The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

http://intranet.fndc.govt.nz/your-council/councils-policies


UNCONFIRMED


MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE BANQUET ROOM, TE AHU, CNR MATTHEWS AVE AND SOUTH ROAD, KAITAIA ON 26 APRIL 2018 COMMENCING AT 10:00 AM

PRESENT

Chairperson His Worship the Mayor John Carter Councillors Tania McInnes Deputy Mayor Felicity Foy Dave Hookway Colin Kitchen Sally Macauley Mate Radich John Vujcich

APOLOGIES

Ann Court Councillor

IN ATTENDANCE

Mike Edmonds Chairperson Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Terry Greening Chairperson Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Adele Gardner Chairperson Te Hiku Community Board STAFF PRESENT

Shaun Clarke Chief Executive Officer Jaime Dyhrberg Executive Officer Andy Finch General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management Group Samantha Edmonds General Manager Corporate Services Group Dr Dean Myburgh General Manager District Services Group Kathryn Ross General Manager Strategic Policy and Planning Group Richard Edmondson Manager Communications Darren Edwards Manager Compliance Rob Koops Property Services Carine Andries Planner Reserves Kate Barnes Team Leader Governance Support Melissa Wood Meetings Administrator Kim Hammond Meetings Administrator

1.0 PRAYER His Worship the Mayor commenced the meeting with a prayer.

2.0 APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Agenda item 2.0 refers

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Deputy Mayor McInnes

That the apology from Councillor Court be accepted. Carried

Noted, that Councillor Court was away on other Council business.

3.0 DEPUTATION Agenda item 4.0 refers

Tim Brandon and Ted Breach - Draft Dog Bylaw and Policy

Murray Moses - Draft Dog Bylaw and Policy

UNCONFIRMED Council Meeting 26 April 2018


3.1. Additional information tabled at the meeting Agenda item 3.0 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Vujcich

That the tabled papers “Proposal For New Dog Laws for Taupo Bay” and “Presentation from Taupo Bay” be received. Carried

4.0 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Agenda item 4.0 refers

Various announcements were made by His Worship the Mayor:

• Roading Policy Statement announced • PGF Fund - community interest and central Government support • Social issues in Kaikohe - meeting with community leaders • Meeting with Community Board Chairs and community representatives to discuss

how we can work better as a community • LTP submissions – infrastructure and congestion issues in Kerikieri and Kawakawa -

planning ahead • Meeting with Iwi Leaders and Hapu on submissions made to the LTP and working

together • Mayor being appointed to a working group regarding the review of natural disaster

responses • Anzac Day services - good attendance

5.0 CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES Agenda item 5.0, document number A2005251, pages 1 - 9 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Radich

That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meetings held 28 March 2018 as a true and correct record. Carried

6.0 KAIKOHE-HOKIANGA COMMUNITY BOARD 6.1. Public notice of Draft Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan Agenda item 6.1, document number A2017706, pages 11 - 56 refers.

Resolved Macauley/Vujcich

That Council a) gives public notice of the Draft Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, and calls for submissions or objections to the draft plan. b) delegates to the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board the task of hearing and deliberating on submissions and objections received to the Draft Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan. Carried



7.0 BAY OF ISLANDS-WHANGAROA COMMUNITY BOARD 7.1. Lease - Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Agenda item 7.1, document number A1987425, pages 57 - 61 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Deput Mayor McInnes

a) That a public consultation process is commenced for a new lease on the Tauranga Bay Recreation Reserve being Lot 1 DP 69081 and the freehold titles located at 51A and 51B Tauranga Bay Beach Road being Lot 1 DP 54531 and Lot 1 DP 90523. The proposed lease is to the existing lessee; Wupi Investments Ltd and the main terms proposed are: Term: 21 years. Rent: Commercial rate determined by valuation. Right of Renewal: One further term of 21 years. b) That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board is appointed to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation process and to make recommendations to the Council in respect of the granting of the lease. Carried

8.0 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 8.1. Easement for Top Energy over Utility Reserve Agenda item 8.1, document number A2016368, pages 63 - 73 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Vujcich

a) That Pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 and to a delegation from the Minister of Conservation: i) The Far North District Council, as administering body, hereby grants an electricity easement in gross over the area of utility reserve described in the Schedule attached, in accordance with the provisions of the attached draft easement document; and ii) The Far North District Council, as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to the granting of the easement. b) That the Far North District Council authorise the GM (Infrastructure and Asset Management) to execute the instruments granting the easement in gross. Carried

9.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING & POLICY GROUP 9.1. District Plan Update

Agenda item 9.1, document number A2016928, pages 75 - 98 refers

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Macauley

That Council note the report entitled “District Plan Update”, dated 29 March 2018. Carried



10.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.1. Mangonui Hardstand Lease Agenda item 10.1, document number A2018614, pages 99-106 refers.

Resolved Deputy Mayor McInnes/Macauley

a) That the Far North District Council, pursuant to its powers under section 12(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, grants a lease of part of the land legally described as Lot 1 DP 159831 NA 96A/574, to the Mangonui Cruising Club for the purpose of and associated with use as a hardstand for short term boat maintenance, repair and dingy storage racks. b) The terms of the lease shall be: Term 10 years Annual rent $100 plus GST per annum Renewal 10 years Rent review On renewal Carried

10.2. Reserves: Moerua Park lease to Te Hiku Sports Hub Incorporated Agenda item 10.2, document number A2014775, pages 107 - 115 refers.

Resolved Foy/Kitchen

a) That the Far North District Council in its role as administering body of the reserve, and pursuant to its powers under section 54 Reserves Act 1977, grants a lease of the Moerua Park recreation reserve being the land held in NA19A/1151 Pt Lot 27 DP 405, to the Te Hiku Sports Hub Incorporated b) and the key terms shall be: Term: 20 years First Renewal term: 20 years Second renewal term: 10 years Annual Rental: $100 plus GST Carried

11.0 CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP 11.1. Proposed remit to Local Government New Zealand Annual General

Meeting 2018 Agenda item 11.1, document number A2019539, pages 117 - 122 refers.

Resolved Deputy Mayor McInnes/Stratford

That Council a) endorses the draft remit regarding the impact of a “one size fits all” approach to legislation and the unintended consequences on New Zealand’s small, rural communities b) delegates to the Mayor and CEO authority to approve final remit for submission Carried



12.0 DISTRICT SERVICES GROUP 12.1. Appointment of Deputy Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee Agenda item 12.1, document number A2016483, pages 123 - 125 refers.

Resolved Macauley/Foy

That Councillor Kelly Stratford is appointed as the Deputy Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee. Carried

12.2. Opportunities to progress the New Kaitaia Dog Pound Update Agenda item 12.2, document number A2021122, pages 127 - 146 refers.

Moved His Worship The Mayor/Deputy Mayor McInnes

a) That Council confirms its preference for building a new Dog Pound in Kaitaia at _____________________________

b) That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to approve reallocated expenditure of up to $650,000.00 (previously approved) to scope and develop a proposal to build a dog pound on the preferred site

c) That Council enter into negotiations with Shelly Masters and Warren Baker, the land owners, at 597 Kaitaia-Awaroa Rd, Kaitaia to lease suitable land to build a dog pound for a period of no less than 20 years (should Option 1 be the preferred option)

d) That Council enter into negotiations with Shelly Masters and Warren Baker, the land owners, to provide daily management and care of the pound (should Option 1 be the preferred option)

e) That provision is made in future budgets for additional operational expenses associated with all dog pounds.

Amendment moved Hookway/Deputy Mayor McInnes

That the item be left to lie on the table until further information is available.

Carried

The amendment became the substantive motion

Resolved Hookway/Deputy Mayor McInnes

That the item be left to lie on the table until further information is available. Carried

13.0 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13.1. Chief Executive Officer’s Report - Period: 1 March 2018 to 31 March 2018 Agenda item 13.1, document number A2020059, pages 147 - 178 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Deputy Mayor McInnes

That Council notes the Chief Executive Officer’s Report - Period: 1 March – 31 March 2018. Carried

Chairperson Greening provided an update on Kerikeri Domain Pavillion and Kerikeri Reserve Management Plan

Councillor Kitchen provided an update on the Mangonui Boardwalk and barrier.



14.0 PUBLIC EXCLUSION Agenda item 14.0 refers.

14.1. Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Deputy Mayor Mcinnes

Resolution to exclude the public: a) That the public be excluded from the meeting pursuant to section 48(1)(a) of

the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 on the grounds that the public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists, while the matters listed below are being dealt with for the reason as set out below;

1.0 Confirmation of Previous Minutes 2.1 NTA Road Maintenance Contracts April 2018 (item withdrawn) To carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. b) That Adele Gardner-Chairperson Te Hiku Community Board; Mike Edmonds - Chairperson Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board; and Terry Greening - Chairperson Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of local wards. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because they advocate for and represent local community views. Carried

15.0 CONFIRMATION OF DECISIONS AND INFORMATION IN OPEN MEETING Agenda item 15.0 refers.

Resolved His Worship The Mayor/Macauley

That Council confirms that the information and decisions contained in the part of the meeting held with the public excluded are not to be restated in public meeting Carried

16.0 CLOSE OF MEETING The meeting closed at 12:04 pm

Chairperson

____/____/____


Item: 5.0

Meeting: Council – 24 May 2018 Name of item: Mawson Avenue Water Supply Consultation

and Vesting Authors: Barry Somers - 3 Waters Asset Manager

Melissa Parlane- 3 Waters Planner



Purpose of the report To report on the result of community consultation and obtain a decision on whether or not Council will extend the Kerikeri water reticulation to supply properties currently connected to the private Mawson Avenue/ Waipapa Loop Water Supply which will be disestablished in July 2018.

Executive summary A meeting of Council on 28 March 2018 approved the consultation with Mawson Avenue Water Scheme consumers and the ratepayers in the area of benefit of the existing Kerikeri Water Scheme with a view to connecting the Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customer to the Kerikeri Water Scheme. It also recommended a budget of $500,000 in 2018/2019 to upgrade the existing Mawson Avenue Water Scheme reticulation.

Council consulted with three separate groups associated with the proposed extension of the Kerikeri water supply. The targeted consultation contacted 2,283 affected properties in both the Waipapa and Kerikeri areas.

The consultation determined that the majority of the existing Mawson Avenue Water Supply customers wish to be supplied by the Kerikeri water supply.

There was a mixed response from residential properties currently supplied by water tanks that are immediately adjacent to the Mawson Avenue Water Supply. Results of the consultation saw a two property majority wishing to being included in the Kerikeri water supply.

There was a low level of response from the wider Kerikeri water supply ratepayers with the majority of those submitting being opposed to any rates increases.

Recommendations That Council:

a) Approve the extension of the Kerikeri water supply area of benefit to include the existing Mawson Avenue Water Supply customers in the Mawson Ave and Waipapa Loop Road areas and the 14 residential properties currently with water tanks located at the head of Mawson Avenue.


b) Accept the offer from the Robin Lock Family Trust to vest the Mawson Avenue Water Supply reticulation pipes to Council at no cost from 1 July 2018.

c) Decline the offer from the Robin Lock Family Trust to take over their

scheme, bore supply or any associated land.

d) Confirm a budget of $500,000 loan funded capital for the 2018/19 financial year to upgrade the vested Mawson Avenue Water Supply reticulation assets to meet Council requirements.

1) Background This report details the results of the consultation that was undertaken regarding incorporating the Mawson Avenue and Waipapa Loop Road areas into the Kerikeri water supply.

The Robin Lock Family Trust has operated a small private networked water supply in Waipapa for a number of years, commonly known as the Mawson Avenue Water Supply (MAWS). MAWS supplies water to a portion of Mawson Avenue and the industrial area around Waipapa Loop Road.

Earlier this year the Lock family advised its customers and Council that it intends to cease supplying water as of 1 July 2018. Without an alternative supply being available, there would be a significant health risk and inconvenience to those properties involved.

Within the same residential development as those supplied by the MAWS there are 14 properties that are not connected and have their own water tanks. In resolving the MAWS situation, there is an opportunity to reticulate the whole Mawson Avenue residential area, thus including these properties in the area serviced by the Kerikeri water supply

A report detailing options for continuing this water supply was considered at the Council meeting on 28 March 2018. The outcome of that meeting was that Council was supportive of taking on MAWS’s customers, but needed to consult on the options with affected ratepayers before a formal decision could be made.

2) Discussion and options To enable targeted consultation, letters were prepared and sent to the three differently affected parties:

1. A letter addressed to existing MAWS customers in the Mawson Avenue and Waipapa Loop Road areas informing the party of the proposal to connect them to the Kerikeri water supply and requesting a yes/no response on the understanding that a majority of MAWS customers needed to say “yes” in order for the proposal to be executed.

2. A letter addressed to the 14 properties at the head of Mawson Avenue who currently have their own on-site rainwater supply informing the parties of the available options and costs and asking if they would like to join the Kerikeri water supply should the proposal to extend the area of benefit be accepted by the community. Ratepayers were asked for a yes/no answer.


3. A letter addressed to all ratepayers of the Kerikeri water supply informing them of the proposal to extend the area of benefit for the scheme, explaining the impact on their rates and requesting feedback. The letter detailed that their capital rates would initially increase by $7.84 per year (to fund the necessary capital improvements to the Mawson Avenue Water Supply area /Waipapa Loop water supply areas) but they would eventually benefit from the additional users and increased connection density.

The letters were posted on 10 April and requested feedback by 2 May 4:30pm.

In addition to the letters sent to all affected parties Council also provided:

• A dedicated webpage for further information • A dedicated email address for efficient communication • Facebook posts creating an awareness through social media • A drop-in afternoon at the Baysport facility in Waipapa to enable one to one

conversations and questions.

The results of the consultation are: 1. Existing MAWS customers.

Number properties involved

Yes to connecting Kerikeri water supply

No to connecting to Kerikeri water supply

67 41 (61%) 1 (1%)

[25 Properties did not respond]

Some who submitted made comments which have been summarised below:

Issue Times Issue

Raised

Concerned around unknown costs 1

Request early advise around decision 2

Potable water is essential for commercial operation 1

Insufficient room on property for water tank 1

Concern around location of internal pipework 1

Existing water pipes don’t have easements 1

Prefer existing supply 1

2. Properties adjacent to MAWS on water tanks 29 to 46 Mawson Ave


Yes to connecting Kerikeri water supply

No to connecting to Kerikeri water supply

14 8 (57%) 6 (43%)



Issue Times Issue

Raised

Already have water tanks and don’t wish to change 5

Would like the option of a future connection 1

Supportive of connecting to reticulated water 4

Concerned of extra costs 1

3. Kerikeri water ratepayers


Yes to funding Mawson Avenue

upgrades

Conditionally opposed

Oppose MAWS Avenue

connecting

2,200 10 (0.5%) 13 (0.6%) 4 (0.2%)


Issue Times Issue

Raised

Opposed to any rates increases 17

Request upgrade works be a targeted rate 16

Current Kerikeri water supply is not reliable 3

Adversely affects those on fixed incomes / affordability 2

Extra usage will adversely affect other consumers 1

Will shorten the life of the water treatment plant 1

Requested more clarity around the situation 2

Request reticulated water be supplied to lifestyle properties 1

Reason for the recommendations Based on consultation with the Mawson Avenue Water Supply customers, there is a clear majority and strong desire for those properties to become part of the Kerikeri water supply.


There was a very low response rate from the current Kerikeri water scheme ratepayers. The recommendation will see an immediate increase in the water capital rate for Kerikeri of $7.84 in 2018/19. However, over time the additional customers and increased connection density provided by the vesting of MAWS reticulation assets will result in savings for the Kerikeri ratepayers.

The 14 properties at the most northern end of Mawson Avenue are not existing customers of MAWS or the Kerikeri water supply. Water capital rates are charged according to current rating policies. Most relevant is the policy that any property within 100m of a Council water main that is capable of connecting will be charged the water capital rate (either connected or availability, which are equal in value). The vesting of MAWS reticulation assets to Council will result in a Council water main installed within 100m of all of the residential properties on Mawson Avenue and water capital rates potentially payable by all properties. The options are:

1. Declare that those 14 properties are “not capable of connecting” to Council’s supply. They will not be permitted to connect and will not be charged capital rates.

2. Extend the Kerikeri water supply to service these properties. This would be consistent with the message being developed by District Planning and Infrastructure Planning that urban zoned land can expect reticulated services within the life of the Infrastructure Strategy.

The recommendation to include the 14 properties in the Kerikeri water supply will not force properties to connect. However, the recommendation will make them liable for the capital rate starting at $173.49 p.a. for 2018/2019, and provide them with the right to connect at any time either now or in the future. When they choose to connect they would need to pay for the costs associated with the private connection from the water meter to their property, and thereafter for any water consumed. It is anticipated that having reticulated water available will make their properties more attractive if and when they choose to sell.

Loan capital funding is requested to upgrade the vested reticulation assets to meet Council standards and levels of service.

Recommendations are based on the feedback received and Council’s strategy of providing services to areas with urban zoning.


Fact Sheet Used With Consultation

Fact sheet for Waipapa water connection

I am a Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customer – how much will it cost me to connect to the Council water supply? The costs of upgrading the mains and connections to the property boundary will be included in a targeted water rate charged to each property in the Kerikeri water scheme area. In the industrial area, the new water mains will need to be moved from within property boundaries to the road reserve, and these property owners will need to re-route their internal connections at their own expense. All properties will have to pay an annual targeted water rate as part of the rates bill. In 2018/19 the rate will be approximately $173 per separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a property. Most properties will only have to pay one SUIP of $173 a year. However, properties where there is a separate residence, such as a granny flat or rented flat, will have to pay two or more charges, depending on the number of SUIPs. Properties connected to the Council water scheme will also have to pay $2.68 in 2018/19 for each cubic metre of water used. The average home uses 200 cubic metres of water a year, so metered water costs for the average household would be about $536 a year. Total annual water costs for the average household would therefore be about $709. Please note, these figures are subject to change each year and include GST. How and when would the Council bill me for this? The targeted water rate will be included in your rates bill. The Council takes water meter readings in February and August and sends bills to water users in March and September. I am a Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customer and I want to connect to the Council’s water scheme. What do I need to do? You will need to tell us your decision by 4.30pm, 2 May. The best way to do this is online at www.fndc.govt.nz/waipapawater. If you do not have internet access, you can fill out the form posted to you and drop it into the Council’s Kerikeri Service Centre in the John Butler Centre (60 Kerikeri Road) or Waipapa Hall on Monday, 30 April from midday to 6pm. I am a Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customer – what will happen if I do nothing? If you don’t agree to connect to the Council’s water scheme and you don’t make other arrangements, such as installing rainwater tanks, you will have no water supply when the Robin Lock Family Trust shuts its water scheme down on 1 July. By law, a property is not considered sanitary if it has no potable water supply. I already have, or plan to install, rainwater tanks and I don’t wish to connect to the Council water scheme. Will I still have to pay for this? Under the Council’s current policy, every property that is in the area of benefit of a water supply has to pay an annual availability charge, even if the property isn’t connected to the supply. The availability charge for Kerikeri in 2018/19 will be about $173 (this charge is payable per property rather than per separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a property). No metered charge is payable if a property isn’t connected to the scheme, because no water is used. The fact that all properties will need to pay this charge is the reason the Council is consulting with everyone connected to the Mawson Avenue Water Scheme and the Council’s decision will be guided by the choice of the majority of these customers. Existing Kerikeri water scheme customers are also invited to comment. My property is not connected to the private water scheme, but I would like to connect to the Council scheme. Is this possible?

http://www.fndc.govt.nz/waipapawater


The Council has written to a small number of property owners in Waipapa whose property is not connected to the private water scheme but can easily be included in the Council water supply, due to the proximity of their property to the area of benefit and their district plan zoning. If you are one of these 14 property owners, you have a choice to connect to the scheme. If the Council decides to connect the Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customers and the majority of your neighbours also agree to connect, we will be able to connect your property. You will have to pay for any costs involved with getting the water from the meter at your boundary to your house or water tank. At this time, we are not in a position to extend the reticulation beyond these properties. What will happen to me if I want to connect to the Council’s water scheme but the majority of my neighbours don’t want to? The Council will make a decision based on the consultation received. If the majority of Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customers do not want to connect to the Kerikeri water scheme, the Council has no obligation to provide water to you or any other property. One alternative is installing a rainwater harvest system. However, you would need to arrange and pay for the necessary tanks, pumps and filtration equipment yourself. Another alternative is for another private operator(s) to take over the scheme from the Robin Lock Family Trust. Please note, the Council is not in a position to assist anyone who is interested in operating the scheme and we advise them to seek legal advice so they understand their statutory responsibilities. Will the Council need to modify the pipe network of the private water scheme? Yes. We will need to install new water meters at properties that connect to our scheme and we will need to lay new larger pipes to allow us to install fire hydrants. We may also need to replace pipes between meters and the main water main in the street and cap pipes where property owners don’t wish to connect to our scheme. The costs of upgrading the water mains and connections to the property boundary will be included the targeted water rate charged to each property in the Kerikeri water scheme area. In the industrial area, the new water mains will need to be moved from within property boundaries to the road reserve, and these property owners will need to re-route their internal connections at their own expense. I am already connected to the Kerikeri water scheme – how will I be impacted? If this proposal goes ahead, up to 80 properties in Waipapa will be added to the Kerikeri water scheme. The cost of upgrading the reticulation in Waipapa will initially add about $7.80 to your targeted water rate in 2018/19. However, this extra amount will decrease over time and in eight years the targeted rate will be less than advised in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document (LTP doc), as there will be more people to help pay the costs of the scheme. The expected impact is shown in this table:

Financial year 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28

Rate with Mawson Ave $ 173.49 193.22 197.64 199.83 210.13 219.94 238.90 239.68 402.68 594.40

Rate in LTP doc $ 165.65 186.17 191.00 193.74 204.80 214.70 234.71 236.05 404.01 601.46

Difference $ 7.84 7.05 6.64 6.09 5.33 5.24 4.19 3.63 -1.33 -7.06

The scheme has the capacity to cope with the additional demand and water pressure will not be affected. However, each additional connection will reduce the life of the existing water treatment plant. This means if the Mawson Avenue Water Scheme customers join the Kerikeri scheme, renewal work will need to be brought forward by one to two years. However, there will be more customers to pay for this work. Where can I get further information? You can have a look at our website www.fndc.govt.nz/waipapawater, email [email protected] call 0800 920 029 or speak face-to-face with Council staff when we hold a drop-in session at BaySport Pavilion on Monday, 30 April from midday to 6pm. Consultation closes 4.30pm, Wednesday, 2 May 2018.

http://www.fndc.govt.nz/waipapawater

mailto:[email protected]


3) Financial implications and budgetary provision

The initial estimate for upgrading the reticulation to Council’s engineering standards is $500,000. Assuming the work is undertaken in 2018/2019, this would be capitalised and the capital water rate for Kerikeri increased by approximately $7.55 from $186.17 to $193 in 2019/2020. Budget allocation of $500,000 in 2018/2019 is required to proceed with this option.

Manager: Andy Finch- General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management











High significance due to potential cost and reputational impact.


• The Local Government Act 2002;

• The Health Act 1956; and

• The Building Act 2004

.


The decision potentially has District wide implications.


None


Mawson Road residents and the existing customers of the Kerikeri AOB


Budget of $500,000 to be included in LTP

Chief Financial Officer review. The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report




Item: 6.0

Meeting: Council - 24 May 2018 Name of item: Submission – Local Government (Community

Well-Beings) Amendment Bill Author: Sheryl Gavin – Manager Corporate Planning & Engagement



Purpose of the report To approve Council’s submission on the Local Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill.

Executive summary • On 11 April, 2018, the first reading of the Local Government (Community

Well-Beings) Amendment Bill was completed.

• The Bill proposes four key changes to the Local Government Act (2002).

• Council’s submission was drafted with regard to and in support of the sector submission from the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) and LGNZ (initial draft).

• The draft submission presented for approval supports the amendment Bill in its entirety.

• Submissions close on 25 May.

Recommendation: a) That Council approves the Far North District Council’s Local

Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill submission. b) That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated to make any amendments

required to the submission as a result of Council discussion.

2) Background The Local Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill proposes four changes to the Local Government Act (2002). These are:

• Restoration of the statutory purpose of local government “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities”. This replaces the current purpose of local government in section 3 which is:

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

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


• Repeals, without substitution, section 11A Core Services which currently reads:

In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities: (a) network infrastructure: (b) public transport services: (c) solid waste collection and disposal: (d) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards: (e) libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and comunity amenities.

• Restores the ability to assess development contributions for all public amenities and to assess reserves contributions from non-residential developments.

• Makes a correction to align an operational policy and the law by allowing local authorities that receive the so-called “advance financial assistance” from NZTA on a piece of infrastructure to assess development contributions.

• The Amendment Bill is attached (attachment 2), as is the Regulatory Impact Statement which explains the intent and content of the Amendment.

If this Bill is passed, this is what it will mean to Council:

• Assessment of Community Outcomes and Council’s policy on Significance and Engagement to ensure compliance and alignment with the revised purpose of local government will be required.

• Council will have the ability to charge development contributions for community infrastructure for public amenities and reserves.

• The Bill will be reported back to Parliament later this year (approximately November), and if passed it will take effect the day after royal assent. SOLGM advise that Long Term Plans, revenue policies and Development Contribution policies will be completed under existing rules, so change to the legislation will not affect this Long Term Plan.

3) Discussion and options Option 1 - make a submission to the Governance and Administration Committee It is proposed that the submission supports the amendment bill in its entirety, and makes no request for change, mirroring the submission from sector representatives SOLGM and LGNZ.

The reasons for complete support are:

• Staff agree with SOLGM and LGNZ that the previous amendments that this Bill seeks to undo made policy changes that were of limited value to Council and its communities, and did not contribute in any major way to achieving “better local government”. The return to a four well-beings focus is welcomed and recognises that the business of a local authority is not simply the provision of infrastructure.

• Staff agree with the Regulatory Impact Summary (attached) that the removal of the description of core services (section 11A) supports the broad empowering approach that underpins the LGA, and that the description of core services implies that the role of a local authority is that of a service provider, and that it is the function of legislation to define what services local authorities should provide. The current description does not adequately cover the broader role councils have


in fostering liveable communities, including place-making and planning, which FNDC is committed to achieving.

• While Council does not currently charge development contributions, it may decide to do so at some point in the near future given the recognition of growth in some locations in the District and the likely infrastructure pressures as a result of that growth. Staff feel it is important that if/when we re-introduce the charges that legislative provisions do not restrict our ability to collect contributions for community infrastructure such as libraries, aquatic centre, sports facilities, playgrounds, public toilets and community centres (among others).

• The amendment regarding NZTA funding contributions resolves a misalignment of an operational policy set under the Land Transport Act with a power to assess development contributions under the Local Government (i.e. the two Acts did not talk to each other). This change is technical and offers no advantage or disadvantage to Council.

• Rather than request to be heard in support of the FNDC submission specifically, it is recommended that the Mayor (as a member of the National Council of LGNZ) or an alternate may wish to appear with LGNZ to show a united front, if this can be combined with other business in Wellington.

Option 2 – make no submission. Council may choose to make no submission to the Bill. This is not likely to make any difference to the final outcome, as the sector in general sees these changes as positive. However, it is always good form to have Council’s views on record.

Reason for the recommendation To provide Far North District Council feedback on the Local Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill.

4) Financial implications and budgetary provision The submission on the Local Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill carries no financial implications for Council.

Manager: Kath Ross - General Manager Strategic Planning & Policy

Attachment 1: FNDC submission on the Local Government (Community Well-Beings) Amendment Bill (A2055167)

Attachment 2: Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill (A2055121)

Attachment 3: Regulatory Impact Summary: Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill (A2055164)











The proposed legislative changes are minor and not considered to be significant.


The submission on the amendment bill acknowledges that community outcomes may need to be reviewed should the bill be passed.


District-wide relevance. Amendments as a result of the Bill passing may require community consultation. Views of the Community Boards have not been sought.


This decision is not significant and does not relate to land and/or any body of water.


Amendments to community outcomes or policies as a result of the Bill passing may require community consultation.


No financial implications.

Chief Financial Officer Review The CFO has reviewed this report




4 May, 2018 Secretariat Local Government and Environment Committee Select Committee Office Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON 6011

Local Government Act (2002) (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill Please direct any enquiries to John Carter, Mayor Far North District. Phone 09 4015 581 or email [email protected]

The following is the submission of the Far North District Council (FNDC) with respect to the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. FNDC does not wish to be heard in support of this submission.

FNDC agrees with the SOLGM submission (attached), the position of LGNZ, and supports the Bill in its entirety.

In particular, we acknowledge and support the proposal to restore the promotion of social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of communities to the statutory purpose of local councils and acknowledge the impact this would have on other sections and clauses throughout the Act. We share the view of SOLGM that the previous amendment that removed the focus on the four well-beings unintentionally created uncertainty surrounding the role of local government, and this amendment would have a clarifying effect.

FNDC is also pleased to see the proposal to restore territorial authorities’ power to collect development contributions for public amenities including sports grounds, pools and libraries. Although our District is growing in a few locations while remaining static or even declining in many, this proposed change will be of great advantage to our communities where the growth is happening or is expected to happen. Furthermore, we are pleased to see the proposed amendment to the development contributions provisions that eliminates the consideration of funding contributions from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) as being from a third party, essentially enabling Council to collect development contributions on NZTA funded portion of a growth project. We agree with SOLGM that this resolves a misalignment of an operational policy and the law.

mailto:[email protected]

Local Government (Community Well-being) AmendmentBill

Government Bill

Explanatory note

General policy statementThe Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill has the following3 main objectives:• first, it will restore the purpose of local government to be “to promote the

social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities”; and• second, it will restore territorial authorities’ power to collect development con-

tributions for any public amenities needed as a consequence of development.This will assist in the provision of facilities such as sports grounds, swimmingpools, and libraries; and

• finally, the Bill will make a minor modification to the development contribu-tions power so that it is clear that advances of financial assistance from theNew Zealand Transport Agency that are recoverable do not affect the power ofterritorial authorities to collect development contributions for projects financedusing that mechanism.

Departmental disclosure statementThe Department of Internal Affairs is required to prepare a disclosure statement to as-sist with the scrutiny of this Bill. The disclosure statement provides access to infor-mation about the policy development of the Bill and identifies any significant or un-usual legislative features of the Bill.A copy of the statement can be found at http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2018&no=48

48—1


http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2018&no=48

http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2018&no=48

Regulatory impact assessmentThe Department of Internal Affairs produced a regulatory impact assessment on5 March 2018 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government re-lating to the contents of this Bill.A copy of this regulatory impact assessment can be found at—• https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-Regula-

tory-Impact-Statements-Index?OpenDocument• http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ria

Clause by clause analysisClause 1 is the Title clause.Clause 2 is the commencement clause. The Bill will come into force on the day afterthe date on which it receives the Royal assent.Clause 3 provides that the provisions of the Bill amend the Local Government Act2002 (the principal Act).

Part 1Reinstatement of 4 aspects of well-being

Clause 4 amends the purpose section of the principal Act (section 3). It provides thata purpose of the Act is to provide for local authorities to play a broad role in promot-ing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities(the 4 aspects of well-being), taking a sustainable development approach. This rein-states the position that applied before the amendments made by the Local Govern-ment Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 (the 2012 Amendment Act).Clause 5 amends the following definitions in section 5 of the principal Act:• community outcomes—the definition that applied before the enactment of the

2012 Amendment Act, which includes reference to the 4 aspects of well-being,is reinstated:

• good-quality—this definition is relocated from section 10(2) of the principalAct, which is repealed by clause 6(2):

• significance—the definition that applied before the enactment of the 2012Amendment Act, which includes reference to the 4 aspects of well-being, is re-instated.

Clause 6 amends section 10 of the principal Act, which sets out the purpose of localgovernment. Subclause (1) replaces subsection (1)(b) of section 10 to reinstate thereference to the 4 aspects of well-being that existed prior to the enactment of the 2012Amendment Act. Subsection (2) of section 10, which defines the term good-quality, isrepealed and the definition is moved to the main interpretation section (see clause 5).Clause 7 amends section 14 of the principal Act, which sets out principles that a localauthority must act in accordance with when performing its role. The amendment rein-

2Local Government (Community Well-being)

Amendment Bill Explanatory note


https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-Regulatory-Impact-Statements-Index?OpenDocument

https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-Regulatory-Impact-Statements-Index?OpenDocument

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ria

states the principle that a local authority, when making decisions, should take accountof the likely impact of any decision on the 4 aspects of well-being. It also reinstates arequirement to the effect that if any of the 4 aspects of well-being conflict in a par-ticular case, the local authority should resolve the conflict in an open, transparent, anddemocratically accountable manner. Again, this reinstates the position that applied be-fore the enactment of the 2012 Amendment Act.Clause 8 amends section 101(3) of the principal Act, which specifies certain mattersthat a local authority must consider when determining sources of funding to meet itsneeds. The amendment reinstates a reference to the 4 aspects of well-being that wasremoved as a result of amendments made by the 2012 Amendment Act and the LocalGovernment Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014.Clause 9 amends Schedule 10 of the principal Act by reinserting references to the 4aspects of well-being in clauses 2(1)(c) and 23(d) of that schedule.

Part 2Other amendments

Clause 10 repeals section 11A of the principal Act, which requires a local authority,when performing its role, to have particular regard to the contribution that specifiedservices make to its communities.Clause 11 amends section 197 of the principal Act by replacing the definition of com-munity infrastructure. A territorial authority may require development contributionsin respect of capital expenditure to provide for community infrastructure (see section199(1)(c) of the principal Act). The amendment reinstates the broad definition ofcommunity infrastructure that applied before a narrower definition was inserted bythe Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014.Clause 12 repeals section 198A of the principal Act, which imposes restrictions on aterritorial authority’s power to require contributions for reserves.Clause 13 amends section 200 of the principal Act, which imposes limits on a territor-ial authority’s ability to require development contributions. Section 200(1)(c) pro-vides that a development contribution cannot be required for network infrastructure(which includes the provision of roads and transport) if a third party has funded thesame infrastructure.The amendments will facilitate territorial authorities’ entry into funding agreementswith the New Zealand Transport Agency that provide for the territorial authority toreceive funding from the national land transport fund that is higher than the amount offunding (if any) that would otherwise be provided, on the basis that the additionalfunding will be offset by reduced funding for other projects or programmes.The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the prohibition on imposing develop-ment contributions for third-party-funded infrastructure—

Explanatory noteLocal Government (Community Well-being)

Amendment Bill 3


• does not apply to any amount of additional funding that is provided under sucha funding agreement (because that additional funding will in effect be repaid bythe territorial authority); and

• applies, in the case of any reduced amount of funding for another project, as ifthe amount of funding provided were the amount that would otherwise havebeen provided, not the reduced amount.

4Local Government (Community Well-being)

Amendment Bill Explanatory note


Hon Nanaia Mahuta

Local Government (Community Well-being) AmendmentBill

Government Bill

ContentsPage

1 Title 22 Commencement 23 Principal Act 2

Part 1Reinstatement of 4 aspects of community well-being

4 Section 3 amended (Purpose) 25 Section 5 amended (Interpretation) 26 Section 10 amended (Purpose of local government) 27 Section 14 amended (Principles relating to local authorities) 38 Section 101 amended (Financial management) 39 Schedule 10 amended 3

Part 2Other amendments

10 Section 11A repealed (Core services to be considered inperforming role)

3

11 Section 197 amended (Interpretation) 312 Section 198A repealed (Restrictions on power to require

contributions for reserves)4

13 Section 200 amended (Limitations applying to requirement fordevelopment contribution)

4

48—1 1


The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

1 TitleThis Act is the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act2018.

2 Commencement 5This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives theRoyal assent.

3 Principal ActThis Act amends the Local Government Act 2002 (the principal Act).

Part 1 10Reinstatement of 4 aspects of community well-being

4 Section 3 amended (Purpose)Replace section 3(d) with:(d) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the

social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their com- 15munities, taking a sustainable development approach.

5 Section 5 amended (Interpretation)(1) In section 5(1), replace the definition of community outcomes with:

community outcomes means the outcomes that a local authority aims toachieve in order to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural 20well-being of its district or region in the present and for the future

(2) In section 5(1), replace the definition of good-quality with:good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and per-formance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and perform-ance that are— 25(a) efficient; and(b) effective; and(c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances

(3) In section 5(1), definition of significance, replace paragraph (a) with:(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well- 30

being of the district or region:

6 Section 10 amended (Purpose of local government)(1) Replace section 10(1)(b) with:

cl 1Local Government (Community Well-being)

Amendment Bill

2


(b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-beingof communities in the present and for the future.

(2) Repeal section 10(2).

7 Section 14 amended (Principles relating to local authorities)(1) Replace section 14(1)(c)(iii) with: 5

(iii) the likely impact of any decision on each aspect of well-being re-ferred to in section 10:

(2) In section 14(1)(h)(i), replace “interests” with “well-being”.(3) In section 14(2), after “principles”, insert “, or any aspects of well-being re-

ferred to in section 10, are in”. 10

8 Section 101 amended (Financial management)Replace section 101(3)(b) with:(b) the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the

current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community. 15

9 Schedule 10 amended(1) In Schedule 10, replace clause 2(1)(c) with:

(c) outline any significant negative effects that any activity within the groupof activities may have on the social, economic, environmental, or cultur-al well-being of the local community: 20

(2) In Schedule 10, replace clause 23(d) with:(d) describe any identified effects that any activity within the group of activ-

ities has had on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the community.

Part 2 25Other amendments

10 Section 11A repealed (Core services to be considered in performing role)Repeal section 11A.

11 Section 197 amended (Interpretation)In section 197(2), replace the definition of community infrastructure with: 30community infrastructure—(a) means land, or development assets on land, owned or controlled by the

territorial authority for the purpose of providing public amenities; and(b) includes land that the territorial authority will acquire for that purpose

Local Government (Community Well-being)Amendment Bill Part 2 cl 11

3


12 Section 198A repealed (Restrictions on power to require contributions forreserves)Repeal section 198A.

13 Section 200 amended (Limitations applying to requirement fordevelopment contribution) 5After section 200(4), insert:

(5) Subsection (6) applies if a territorial authority has entered a funding agree-ment with the New Zealand Transport Agency under which—(a) a specified amount of additional financial assistance is to be provided

from the national land transport fund to the territorial authority to fund a 10specified network infrastructure project; and

(b) that specified amount of additional financial assistance is to be offset byreduced funding for 1 or more other projects or programmes.

(6) If this subsection applies, the specified amount of additional financial assist-ance must not be treated as third-party funding for the purposes of subsection 15(1)(c).

(7) Subsection (8) applies if a funding agreement referred to in subsection(5)—(a) provides for some or all of the specified amount of additional financial

assistance to be offset by the provision of a reduced amount of financial 20assistance for 1 or more other network infrastructure projects; and

(b) specifies the amount of financial assistance for each other network infra-structure project that would otherwise have been provided.

(8) If this subsection applies, to the extent that a network infrastructure project re-ceives a reduced amount of financial assistance, subsection (1)(c) applies as if 25the amount of financial assistance provided for that project were the amountthat would otherwise have been provided, and not the reduced amount.

(9) In this section, additional financial assistance means an amount of financialassistance for a network infrastructure project that is greater than the amount (ifany) that would otherwise be provided from the national land transport fund in 30respect of that project.

(10) Subsections (5) to (9) prevail over subsection (1)(c).

Wellington, New Zealand:

Published under the authority of the New Zealand Government—2018

Part 2 cl 12Local Government (Community Well-being)

Amendment Bill

4



Regulatory Impact Summary: Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill Agency disclosure statement The Department of Internal Affairs (the Department) is solely responsible for the analysis and advice set out in this Regulatory Impact Summary (RIS), except as otherwise explicitly indicated. This analysis and advice has been produced for the purpose of informing:

• key (or in-principle) policy decisions to be taken by Cabinet; and • final decisions to proceed with a policy change to be taken by Cabinet.

Key limitations or constraints on analysis

The need for the proposed amendments has been identified as an urgent Ministerial priority. It will provide clarity to local authorities as to the Government’s intended direction in relation to the local government portfolio. The provisions proposed in the Bill relate to the purpose of local government, core services and development contributions which are contained in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02). Legislative change is necessary to implement the policy objectives. Accordingly, non-legislative solutions have not been considered as part of this analysis.

Time constraints

The Minister instructed the Department on 26 February 2018 to develop a Bill to implement these changes. The Bill has a tight focus on four discrete components and largely proposes to reinstate wording previously in the LGA02. Given the tight focus of the Bill, and the previous traversal of the issues, the Department does not consider the short timeframe to raise any significant issues.

The Department has not consulted

Due to the time constraints outlined above, the Department has not undertaken consultation on the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments are consistent with previous representations made by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).

Taking into account the assumptions and effect of time constraints outlined, the Department considers that decision-makers can rely on the analysis in this RIS.

Karen Hope-Cross Acting General Manger, Policy / / 2018


Contents Regulatory Impact Summary: Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill .................................................................................................................1

Agency disclosure statement .............................................................................................1

Contents ............................................................................................................................2

Problem definition and objectives ......................................................................................3

Background .......................................................................................................................3

Policy Problem ...................................................................................................................3

Confidence in evidence and assumptions ...........................................................................6

Affected parties .................................................................................................................6

Constraints on the scope for decision making .....................................................................7

Options identification ........................................................................................................9

Option one: remove the independence requirement, through inclusion in the Bill ..............9

Option two: maintain the status quo................................................................................ 11

Proposed approach .......................................................................................................... 12

Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 14

Other potential impacts ................................................................................................... 15

Potential risks .................................................................................................................. 15

Stakeholder views ........................................................................................................... 16

Implementation and operation ........................................................................................ 16

Monitoring, evaluation, and review ................................................................................. 16


Problem definition and objectives

Background 1. The framework of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02) is that local authorities are

responsible to their communities for the services they provide and the activities they undertake under a framework of suitable accountability mechanisms. The LGA02 anticipates that central government will not direct local authorities as to what services to provide or activities to undertake, other than regulatory responsibilities that need statutory backing, but will set the legislative framework within which local authorities operate.

Purpose of local government and description of core services

2. The stated purpose of the LGA02 is to provide for “democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities”1, including stating the purpose of local government and providing a framework and powers for local authorities to decide which activities they undertake and the manner in which they will undertake them.

3. The purpose of local government is currently stated in section 10 of the LGA02 to be:

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

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

4. This section was amended in 2012 to insert s 10(1)(b) in place of the original provision that a purpose of local government is “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future” (the four aspects of well-being).

5. Section 11A, which was inserted into the LGA02 in 2010, states that: “In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities.” The core services listed are: network infrastructure; public transport services; solid waste collection and disposal; the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and community amenities.

Use of development contributions for community infrastructure

6. Development contributions are charges local authorities may levy on developments to recover the costs of providing reserves, network infrastructure and community infrastructure necessary to service growth over the long term.

1 Section 3, LGA02.


7. In 2014 the previous government made changes which restricted the power of local authorities to charge development contributions for community infrastructure and reserves. These are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Purposes for which development contributions could be charged

Original 2002 provisions Current provisions

Network infrastructure – roads, transport, water, stormwater, and wastewater.

Unchanged.

Reserves Development contributions for reserves may not be applied to any non-residential development or non-residential part of a development.

Community infrastructure was defined broadly as the provision of public amenities, so long as they were owned or controlled by the territorial authority.

Now limited to: • neighbourhood community centres or halls; • play equipment if located on a

neighbourhood reserve; and • public toilets.

Housing Infrastructure Fund issue

8. The Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) is a $1 billion fund created by the previous Government to lend money, interest free, to local authorities to accelerate the provision of infrastructure to enable new housing developments to occur. Local authorities have lodged expressions of interest and negotiations are underway to make the first approvals under the HIF.

9. Funding through the HIF will be available for three waters projects (water supply, wastewater and stormwater) and transport projects.

Policy Problem

Purpose of local government

10. The policy for this Bill is to restore reference to promoting the four aspects of well-being to the purpose of local government. This reflects a broad empowering approach to local government and enables local authorities to shift their focus to “should we do this?” from “are we allowed to do this?”

11. Local authorities consider that the current purpose of local government lacks coherency, clarity and consistency. This can lead to uncertainty about what services local authorities can and should provide. The typical consequence is not that local authorities change the services they provide, but that a more complex compliance exercise is undertaken to identify how a particular service that is undertaken or proposed fits the legislative purpose.


12. One key example in which local authorities’ activities have been constrained by the purpose statement in the LGA02 is the issue of the living wage. A number of local authorities that have considered paying their staff the living wage have faced challenges based on the purpose contained in s 10(1)(b). SOLGM note in its submission to the Minister of Local Government2 that Wellington City Council withdrew a decision that its contractors should be required to pay a living wage in the face of legal action asserting that local authorities paying the living wage would contradict the ‘most cost-effective’ element of s 10(1)(b).

13. Another consequence could be that “buy local” policies whereby local authorities give some preference to local businesses could be challenged on similar grounds.

Description of core services

14. The policy of the Bill is to remove the description in s 11A of core services that must be considered by a local authority in performing its role.

15. Removal of the description of core services supports the broad empowering approach that underpins the LGA02. The description of core services implies that the role of a local authority is that of a service provider, and that it is the function of legislation to define what services local authorities should provide.

16. Local authorities have a broader role in fostering liveable communities, including place-making, planning, and regulatory services which the current provision does not take account of. These significant local authority activities (and other activities such as the management of natural resources) are not included in the description of core services. It is unnecessary for a legislative provision to detail a restricted list of services given that it is the role of a local authority to provide the services that meet the needs and aspirations of their communities.


17. The restriction on development contributions for community infrastructure is especially important, as it removes a key source of funding for significant community facilities such as sportsgrounds, libraries and swimming pools, from local authorities.

18. The likely consequences are that either higher rates increases are necessary to fund community infrastructure, maintenance of existing facilities is deferred or the capacity demands on existing community infrastructure increases. Morrison Low’s recent report found that “a number of councils have indicated that they are deferring investment in these assets due to affordability constraints. This has a negative impact on level of service received by existing and new ratepayers.”3

19. LGNZ has made a submission to the Minister of Local Government on legislative change it supports, including the proposal to restore the full range of community infrastructure funding to development contributions.

2 “Tuning up the engine – potential changes to local government law”, SOLGM, December 2017. 3 Morrison Low, “Net Costs of Growth to New Zealand Local Authorities”, June 2017 (para 59).


Technical issue with the Housing Infrastructure Fund

20. The HIF has two mechanisms for advancing funds. For three waters projects, a simple loan is proposed. For transport projects, the proposal is to advance financial assistance from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). This will be recovered by providing reduced rates of financial assistance for future projects or activities.

21. The advance financial assistance mechanism is a particularly helpful financing tool as it does not create a liability for local authorities. Although recovery by the NZTA is near certain (since local authorities will need to maintain transport infrastructure), no legal obligation is created for repayment. As there is no liability on local authority books it allows local authorities debt headroom to borrow for other needed infrastructure.

22. The LGA02 has a provision to prohibit local authorities from requiring development contributions for projects that are funded from other sources, to prevent ‘double-dipping’. Local authorities have received advice that advanced financial assistance would trigger the double-dipping provisions in the LGA02. This would create a significant road block to the HIF funding proceeding.

23. Section 200(3) of the LGA02 provides that using income from various sources to meet a proportion of the capital cost of a project does not trigger the double-dipping provision. A technical amendment to s 200(3) is necessary to ensure that the advance financial assistance mechanism will not trigger the double-dipping provision.

Confidence in evidence and assumptions 24. Notwithstanding the constraints identified, officials consider that decision-makers can

have confidence in the evidence and assumptions described in this document.

Affected parties

Purpose of local government and description of core services

25. The changes primarily affect local authorities. In principle, all people in New Zealand are affected by the changes given that all people in New Zealand interact with local authorities. However, there are no specific direct impacts that are capable of identification. The nature and extent of the impact of the changes depends on the way that local authorities interpret and apply the provisions. In practice, based on past experience, we do not anticipate significant direct effects to result from the change.

26. The changes are likely to have a positive impact in reducing the compliance burden on local authorities when deciding to undertake services that meet the requirements of the LGA02. The current lack of clarity about the role of local government and the perceived increased risk of legal challenge based on the purpose statement will be removed.



27. Developers will potentially be affected by the additional availability to local authorities of the option of using development contributions to contribute towards funding community infrastructure. However, this power can only be used subsequent to a consulted change in each local authority’s development contributions policy, and is limited to expenditure on community infrastructure necessitated by growth.

28. Any effect on purchasers in terms of the extra amount of development contributions being passed on through house prices is likely to be minimal. The cost of buying a house, and whether or not this is affordable, is a feature of market supply and demand and the impact of an increase in development contributions on house purchasers is likely to be relatively insignificant.

29. Conversely, restoring the ability to fund the full range of community infrastructure through development contributions is likely to remove a barrier to growth, help councils to support growth and may ultimately contribute to increasing housing supply and thereby help to alleviate affordability issues.

30. There is a significant work programme underway across Government seeking to address the issue of housing affordability (including KiwiBuild, the proposed Urban Development Authority and the Urban Growth Agenda). Ensuring an appropriate allocation of the costs of growth to development contributions complements the broader work programme.

Technical fix to Housing Infrastructure Fund

31. The technical amendment to s 200(3) of the LGA02 will affect local authorities’ opportunity to access HIF funding. The ability to access HIF funding to provide the infrastructure necessary to support housing growth will benefit communities more broadly and may well contribute to an increase in housing supply.

Constraints on the scope for decision making 32. The Minister of Local Government has instructed the Department to progress the

changes proposed in the Bill to restore the promotion of the four aspects of well-being to the purpose of local government, repeal the description of core services in s 11A and restore the full range of funding of community infrastructure through development contributions. Accordingly, alternative approaches to these issues have not been considered in the course of this analysis. The technical fix to remove the barrier to local authorities accessing the HIF has been identified by officials.

33. Officials note that alternative approaches to the purpose of local government typically focus on outputs, not outcomes. It is not suggested that promoting the four aspects of well-being are inappropriate outcomes. Instead, the argument is about whether central government should specify the outputs that local government should produce, rather than the outcomes it tries to achieve.


34. The principle underlying the LGA02 is that outputs should be determined by local authorities to meet the needs and aspirations of their communities. In practice, evidence shows that the scope of activities and services provided by local government has not been significantly impacted by changes to the legislative purpose of local government. For example, the Local Government Rates Inquiry 2007 found that the broad empowerment to promote well-being had not been a significant driver of increased local authority expenditure4. However, the narrow wording of the current purpose statement has generated confusion and concerns about the mandate of local authorities to factor social, cultural, environmental and economic outcomes into their decision-making.

4 “Funding Local Government: Report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry” 2007, full report, p78.


Options identification

Option one: changes proposed by the Bill


35. The proposal is to restore reference to the promotion of the four aspects of well-being to the purpose of local government in s 11 of the LGA02.

36. Our analysis is that the actual impact of change to the purpose of local government on local government decision-making, services and activities is likely to be low, based on past evidence. There is likely to be some beneficial reduction in the compliance burden on local authorities.

37. Evidence does not suggest that local government increased its range of activities following enactment of the LGA02. The Local Authority Funding Issues: 2006 Report of the Joint Central Government/Local Authority Funding Project team found that:

“no evidence to date has been produced to suggest that local government as a whole is undertaking a wider group of functions that it had prior to 2003. In cases where councils have taken on additional responsibilities these have proved to be quite small in scale and operational in nature.”5

38. Local authorities face cost pressures due to the need to maintain financially prudent borrowing, the need to keep rates increases to an acceptable level, and other demands on local authority funds. These mechanisms are as effective in ensuring local authorities provide cost-effective services as the legislative purpose statement.

39. However, the purpose statement originally in the LGA02 enabled local authorities to be innovative in different ways to meet the needs of their communities. For example, Hurunui District Council levies a rate for the provision of medical services to ensure that rural communities have access to appropriate health care. The Department notes that Hurunui District Council continues to support rural health services despite the constraints of the legislative purpose of local government. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the narrowly focused purpose section of the LGA02 may restrict local authorities from providing new, innovative services that meet the needs of their communities.

40. Changing the purpose of local government to restore the four aspects of well-being is supported by LGNZ and SOLGM and consistent with their submissions to the Minister of Local Government.

41. Changing the purpose of local government in the LGA02 is therefore not anticipated to have a negative impact. While in practice, any change in the activities of local government may be minor, the change would improve the coherence of the legislation, achieve some reduction in the compliance burden on local authorities, and help to define the future direction of the relationship between central and local government.

5 “Local Government Funding Issues: An Update” Second Report of the Local Authority Funding Project Team,

p19.


Core services to be considered by local authority in performing role

42. The Bill proposes removing the description of core services that must be considered by a local authority in performing its role set out in s 11A of the LGA02.

43. It is not necessary to repeal s 11A alongside changes to the purpose of local government in s 10 of the LGA02. However, it would be desirable to do so to maintain the coherence of the legislation. Section 11A provides a further outputs-based constraint on the activities and services of local government.

44. The restrictive list of core services does not take account of the broader role of local authorities, or the full range of services provided by local authorities.


45. Changes are proposed to restore development contribution powers to the full range of community facilities. These changes would assist high growth local authorities to fund growth.

46. A recent report from Morrison Low found that while in theory growth will pay for itself over a period of time, in practice this proposition comes with a significant amount of risk for local authorities and the financial gain rarely eventuates. The report notes, “When costs that are not able to be recovered through development contributions are also incorporated into the model, it is unlikely growth will ever pay for itself.”6 The report identifies the cost of developing community facilities as one of those costs.

47. There is some evidence to show the impact the restriction introduced in 2014 had on local authority budgets, shown below in Table 2. The figures represent the difference in anticipated income from development contributions for community facilities between the 2012 long-term plans, when the full range of community infrastructure could be included, and the 2015 long-term plans, which were prepared following the legislative restriction. Because long-term plans cover a period of ten years, and are made every three years, there is a comparable period of seven years.

Table 2: Budgeted reductions in income from development contributions for community facilities and reserves between the 2012 and 2015 long-term plans (selected local authorities)

$000’s FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Total

Auckland 21,876 22,664 21,831 15,071 6,603 4,811 1,074 93,930

Tauranga 422 605 564 472 595 311 509 3,478

Kāpiti Coast 131 172 469 819 1,218 1,283 1,280 5,372

Queenstown-Lakes 1,170 1,411 1,531 54 77 164 452 4,859

Source: Department of Internal Affairs

6 Morrison Low, “Net Costs of Growth to New Zealand Local Authorities”, June 2017 (para 11).


48. The scale of the financial impact on local authority income will not be large in an overall sense. However, it could have one of two effects (or a combination thereof). It could reduce the use of other local authority funds (mainly borrowing) for these facilities, thereby providing a small amount of capital for other network infrastructure investment. Alternatively, it could enable local authorities to reinstate reserve and community infrastructure projects that had been scaled back or removed from budgets because of funding constraints.

49. Developers would be likely to face higher development contributions for any particular proposed development. This may affect the viability of certain developments. Conversely, restoring the use of development contributions for community infrastructure may remove a barrier that currently inhibits local authorities’ support for developments. Under the status quo, a local authority faces an unfunded burden of providing the necessary community infrastructure to support any development.

50. Specific additional costs for developers would be dependent on local authorities’ decisions as to how to use the restored power. Some local authorities may decide to ‘under-charge’ development contributions in an effort to encourage development.

Technical fix to the Housing Infrastructure Fund issue

51. The intention of the HIF is to make available to local authorities funding for infrastructure that would otherwise not be available, to facilitate growth.

52. The LGA02 has a provision to prohibit local authorities from requiring development contributions for projects that are funded from other sources, to prevent ‘double-dipping’. Local authorities have received advice that advanced financial assistance would trigger the double-dipping provisions in the LGA02.

53. Section 200(3) of the LGA02 provides that using income from various sources to meet a proportion of the capital cost of a project does not trigger the double-dipping provision. One of those sources is borrowing. Advance financial assistance has characteristics similar to borrowing. We consider this issue would be resolved by amending s 200(3) to add advances of financial assistance from the NZTA that are to be recovered in future years as another source of income that does not trigger the double-dipping provisions.

Option two: maintain the status quo


54. If no change is made to the purpose statement, the perception of inconsistency and incoherence about the role of local authorities and the framework of the LGA02 is likely to persist.

55. The status quo places a constraint on local authorities due to the perception of an increased risk of judicial review. Although this is unlikely to inhibit local authorities from continuing to provide existing services, it may place a constraint on local authorities in developing new services or in the manner in which they provide existing services.


Description of core services

56. Making no change to the description of core services in s 11A is unlikely to have significant consequences. It would have a minor impact on the coherence of the LGA02 given that the restrictive list of core services would sit uneasily with the broadly empowering scheme of the Act.

Restoring the use of development contributions for the full range of community infrastructure

57. The status quo in relation to the wider planning and land use system is not providing the level of development required at the necessary pace in those areas of New Zealand experiencing high growth. The development contributions scheme is one element of the wider system that is not responding to the needs of New Zealanders. Morrison Low’s recent report found that “if the cost of growth infrastructure that is unable to be collected from development contributions is included…then growth will rarely pay for itself over any period of time.”7

58. There are likely to be flow-on consequences of not implementing the change to development contributions. These include continued pressure on rates to fund the increased community infrastructure required, pressure on the capacity of existing community infrastructure and unintended adverse effects (for example increased traffic, if households in a new development are obliged to travel further to access community facilities).

Facilitating use of the Housing Infrastructure Fund

59. Local authorities will be constrained in making use of the HIF for the intended purposes if the proposed amendment to s 200(3) of the LGA02 is not made. The effect of this would be to miss opportunities to fund infrastructure necessary to support growth.

Proposed approach 60. Based on the analysis above, the Department recommends option one.

61. No areas of incompatibility between the proposed approach and the Government’s “Expectations for the design of regulatory systems” have been identified.


62. The Department recommends that the proposed change to the legislative purpose of local government be made. Making this change will enhance the coherence of the legislation and help to define the future direction of the relationship between central and local government. The change is not anticipated to have any negative impact and any change in the activities of local government is likely to be minor.

7 Morrison Low, “Net Cost of Growth to New Zealand Local Authorities”, June 2017 (para 111).


63. If no change is made to the legislative purpose, the current uncertainty about the role of local government will continue. This includes the inhibiting factor of the perceived greater risk of challenge by judicial review based on the narrowly defined purpose.

Core services

64. It is desirable to repeal the description of core services in s 11A in addition to changing the purpose of local government. The description of core services is restrictive. It sends a message that local authorities’ role should only be to provide services. The provision does not take account of local authorities’ broader role including regulatory services and plan-making.

65. The Department does not foresee any negative impact of repealing s 11A. Local authorities will continue to provide the core services that communities need.

Extended use of development contributions for community infrastructure

66. Changes to restore development contribution powers to the full range of community facilities are likely to contribute to facilitating growth. The status quo is not providing the level of development necessary to meet the current and future needs of New Zealand communities.

67. The likelihood is that the enhanced availability for local authorities to use development contributions to fund community infrastructure will lead to an increased amount of development contributions payable for any particular development. However, the Department considers that any negative impact on the viability of any particular development proposal will be sufficiently offset by the benefits of the change. The issue of how to fund the necessary community infrastructure can be an inhibiting factor to local authorities’ support for development proposals. The inability of local authorities to recover the costs of developing new community facilities from development contributions can lead to deferred investment and a consequent reduction in the level of service for ratepayers.8

Facilitating use of the Housing Infrastructure Fund

68. The proposed change to facilitate local authorities’ use of the HIF is technical. This change is necessary to support the use of the HIF for its intended purpose. Should the status quo persist, this will limit the effectiveness of the HIF because HIF funding for transport projects will substitute for development contributions funding rather than providing local authorities with an additional source of funding for transport infrastructure as intended.

8 “Net Cost of Growth to New Zealand Local Authorities”, Morrison Low, June 2017 (para 59).


Impact Analysis

Affected parties (identify)

Comment: nature of cost or benefit (e.g. ongoing, one-off), evidence and assumption (e.g. compliance rates), risks

Impact

$m present value, for monetised impacts; high, medium or low for non-monetised impacts

Additional costs of proposed approach, compared to taking no action

Regulated parties Likely increase in the amount of development contributions required in most cases (subject to local authorities’ development contributions policies)

Medium

Regulators None None

Wider government None None

Other parties None None

Total monetised cost

None None

Non-monetised costs

Increase in amount of development contributions

Medium

Expected benefits of proposed approach, compared to taking no action

Regulated parties Removal of a barrier to local authorities’ supporting and facilitating growth through extending use of development contributions. Facilitating access to HIF funding for network infrastructure necessary to support growth.

Medium

Regulators Potential reduction in compliance burden resulting from improved legislative clarity

Low

Wider government None None

Other parties None None

Total monetised benefit

None None

Non-monetised benefits

Removal of a barrier to growth and reduction in compliance burden

Medium


Other potential impacts

Potential risks 69. There is a potential risk that local authorities may use the enhanced option of

contributing to the funding of community infrastructure through development contributions inappropriately. The risk is that development contributions funding may be used beyond the intended scope of funding community infrastructure that is required as a consequence of the development.

70. A local authority must have a development contributions policy. It must consult on the draft policy, and any amendments, in accordance with the principles of consultation in s 82 of the LGA02. This gives the community, including the development community, the opportunity to submit on any change to a local authority’s development contributions policy, such as in relation to enhanced funding for community infrastructure.

71. Existing legislative provisions that require local authorities to provide a detailed explanation of what will be funded by development contributions (e.g. the schedule of assets required by s 201A LGA02) help to protect against the risk of inappropriate use of development contributions and will not be changed by this Bill.

72. Additionally, the Department will work with SOLGM on preparing practice guides and promoting good practice to mitigate this risk.


Stakeholder views 73. The Department has not undertaken consultation on this proposal, other than brief

initial discussions with LGNZ and SOLGM to the extent that timing limitations have allowed. Nevertheless, the proposed changes were requested by LGNZ and SOLGM and we anticipate they will be supported by the wider local government sector. There will be ongoing consultation with LGNZ and SOLGM as the legislative proposal develops. There has been no consultation with the development community.

Implementation and operation 74. The preferred policy option will require legislative amendment to the LGA02. Once the

legislation is amended, the provisions in the Bill will be implemented by local authorities. This will be effected principally through planning and decision-making mechanisms such as the annual plans and long-term plans. Local authorities are currently finalising long-term plans for the years 2018-2028 for adoption by 30 June 2018. Implementation of the provisions in the Bill will be likely undertaken through annual plans in the coming years as appropriate, and through the next cycle of long-term plans due for adoption by 30 June 2021.

Monitoring, evaluation, and review 75. No formal monitoring or review programme is proposed for the specific changes in the

Bill.

76. Reviewing annual plans and long-term plans will be undertaken as business as usual by the Department.

77. The Auditor-General has a statutory responsibility to review long-term plans and issue opinions, including sharing and promoting best practice among local authorities.

Document number A2066207. Page 1 of 2

Item: 7.1

Meeting: Council – 24 May 2018 Name of item: Response to submission on LTP financial

errors Author: Janice Smith – Chief Financial Officer



Purpose of the report This report provides information in response to a detailed submission which suggested significant financial errors were present in the underlying documents on which the Consultation Document for the 2018/28 LTP was based.

Recommendation That Council note the report “Response to submission on LTP financial errors”.

1) Background During the submission process for the 2018/28 LTP, Council received a detailed submission which suggested that significant financial errors were present over a wide range of areas and that this raised concern in relation to the validity of the underlying documents on which the Consultation Document relied.

2) Discussion and options Each question or issue raised has been identified and responded to in the attachment to this report

Reason for the recommendation The points raised were felt to be serious in nature and a formal response to Council was required.

3) Financial implications and budgetary provision There are no specific financial implications arising from this report

Manager: Samantha Edmonds - General Manager Corporate Services Department

Attachment 1: Response to submission on LTP financial errors - Document number A2066194

Document number A2066207. Page 2 of 2










N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


There are no financial implications relating to this report

Chief Financial Officer review. The Chief Financial Officer prepared this report



of 7 Document number A2066194

The issues raised in the submission are shown in italics. Issue 1

• The LTP includes easy to see contradictions such as Building Activity assumption of 360 new dwellings pa but an increase of only 49 Separately Used or Inhabited Parts (SUIPs) of rating units.

• If one takes figures from the rates table for UAGC or Roading uniform charge, the increase is only 47 pa.

• That same source shows zero growth in number of SUIPs for Ward rates although these are based on the same figures.

An increase in new dwellings does not translate into an increase in rating units. The rating unit is created at the time of the sub division so the land is already being rated prior to the property being built. Council rates on land value, not capital value, so the building of the property is not a relevant measure for determining rating increases. The calculations referenced in the above paragraph relate to two different sets of data. The increase in rating units in the Financial Strategy is based on the total number of rating units in the district (39010) whilst the rating funding impact refers to SUIP’s (37,565). Total rating units will include units which are non-rateable land as well as those that are deemed to be contiguous, either under legislation or policy. The difference of 1,445 units, multiplied by the assumed growth rate of 0.00125 creates the difference of 2 between the two sets of data. It was not possible to apply the growth units to the ward rate without making further assumptions as to where the growth would occur. Modelling this on a proportional basis or an equal split per ward resulted in a change of less than 1 rating unit per ward. Audit has reviewed Council’s current approach and is comfortable that there is no material miss-statement.

Issue 2

• Because of the deadline to make this submission, analysis has only been possible on a limited area. But it is sufficient to reveal serious errors in the basic information used to calculate capital rates for the Kerikeri Sewerage scheme including:

• Misidentification of capital works as Level of Service when they include a Renewal component that should be funded by depreciation.

The Funding Impact Statement for services requires capital work to be grouped by “primary” purpose. This means that if a project is made up of both new and renewal components, the largest proportion of the two elements becomes the “primary” purpose. For the Kerikeri wastewater scheme, the largest proportion is new therefore the project is classed as “Level of Service”. The project is partially funded by renewal funding appropriate to the assets being replaced


• Miscalculation of depreciation by: including assets after disposal.

Current modelling assumes a perpetual life for assets within the Fixed Asset register. Where an asset is being replaced with a mix of new and renewal works, depreciation is only calculated on the new portion as the renewal portion is assumed to continue. Using this methodology, depreciation is not incorrectly charged.

including assets before they are in use.

In February 2018, a report to Council identified a change to the proposed rate for the Kerikeri scheme that changed the effective date of the rating calculations to July 2019 rather than July 2018 to acknowledge that fact that subsidy had changed in terms of the years it applied and that the assets would not come into use until 2019.

included costs in depreciation calculation which do not relate to

depreciable assets. There are two main non depreciable assets created in this project – an easement and the purchase of the land. Both of these assets have been capitalised as at 30th June 17 and neither are capitalised as depreciable assets. These are therefore not included in the depreciation calculation.

using incorrect asset lives.

The life of 35 years is the average weighted life (calculated on current assets) for “Overground” assets such as pump stations and treatment plants. This weighted life has been audited and until the assets are capitalised is the best assumption that can be made.

revaluing annually rather than bi-annually.

Actual revaluations are carried out bi-annually. However an inflationary component is added annually to smooth the jumps in revaluation values. This position is agreed as appropriate with Audit NZ.

failure to correct useful life when asset disposal planed before original expected life.

The useful life on the asset register is the remaining life as at the last valuation date. In the case of the vast majority of the assets at the Kerikeri wastewater treatment plant the remaining lives were decreased to 3 years at the last valuation (30th June 2016). This means that the remaining lives of these assets as at 30th June 2017 is 2 years, Remaining life as at 30th June 2018 is 1 year etc. This means that as at 30th June 2019 the remaining life will be 0 as per the expected “Go Live” date of the new assets.


• Understating the number of units to be rated by omitting availability charges on non-connected rateable properties in extended area of benefit.

The Area Of Benefit Connected/Available figures were calculated at a point in time (mid last year) and is a conservative number, consistent with total numbers published for elected members. Declined properties were taken into account, knowing they will receive an availability charge. • omitting additional pans in extended area of benefit although figures should now be

available from installation work already completed. The additional pan charges were not included as there are only a few commercial properties in the new area that are not connected. To be conservative, we have excluded any increase in possible commercial connections from the projected calculations. • not providing for any increase in number of connections after commissioning despite

this being classed as a growth area. • Omitted charging for pans in public buildings in current area. • ◦ Public toilets in carpark between Homestead Road and Fairway Drive. • ◦ Public toilets on Cobham Road. • ◦ Library on Domain reserve • ◦ Pavillion on Domain reserve • ◦ Dump station on Cobham Road • . An investigation into the assertion that Council was not charging pans in public buildings found that: • The Julian Car Park toilet is receiving an availability charge which is equal to the

capital charge & only has 2 toilets so not liable for additional pan charges. • Cobham Road - There is a capital sewer rate and additional pan charges. • Library toilets - There is a capital sewer rate and additional pan charges. • Dump Station – the land is privately owned and has 1 charge for Sewerage.

Issue 3

• What is clear from the analysis is that either: • the forecasts were prepared by someone with little understanding of: • ◦ the accounting standards relating to asset valuations • ◦ the basic rules of depreciation • ◦ council’s rating policies • and • that the basic work has not been reviewed by a competent manager • or • there has been a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential multimillion dollar fraud.

All of the processes followed in the establishment of the information provided have been subject to Audit NZ scrutiny and audit have found no issue or material miss-statement with the way in which the numbers have been calculated. Issue 4

• The Funding Impact Statement does not appear to include the income that council will receive when it charges those connecting in the extended area of benefit a connection fee. This will generate a one-off entry of some $200K in the year charged but fees and charges do not reflect any such item. One must ask if the expense side


has also been omitted or if it is included in the budgeted capital costs. If the latter then further adjustment will be required.

Connection fees are collected and managed through an agency arrangement with the wastewater contractors who actually carry out the work. Expenses are also managed in this way. Issue 5

• There is the ongoing issue of failure to apply council’s rating policy on SUIPs correctly. Some action is currently being taken by staff to correct that error but will the numbers be changed before final rates calculation? The LTP understates the number of SUIPs by over 1600 or 4% resulting in miscalculation of charges by over $30 to the average ratepayer in 2018-19. Failure to correct this item will result in individual objections to the RID under LGRA2002 S29(1)(c) when it is published for public inspection in May.

Staff are aware of this issue and are reviewing the relevant accounts. Each case has to be considered individually and whilst it would be the aim to have these all corrected by 30 June 2018, this may not be possible given current workloads. Not all of these cases will result in an increase to the number of chargeable SUIP’s Issue 6

• Analysis of response to OIA request RFS3873573 and related LTP • information. • Examination of Proposed capital works programme p7 shows the following entries for

Wastewater at Kerikeri: 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Level of Service $ $ $ Disposal Field 306,000 Resource consent 20,000 Reticulation upgrade 10,130,927 Treatment plant enabling 2,000,000 Renewals Pump station renewals 80,000 20,848 Scheduled renewals 138,687

• Given the fact that total budget for scheme was $20.5M and this was provided for in the 2016/17 AP and 2017/18 AP, what does the above entry of $10.1M refer to?

• Obvious options are: 1. It has been repeated due to delays in the progress of the scheme and thus forms part

of the $20.5M, now increased to $22.5M. In this case it would appear to be wrongly titled as the outstanding expenditure must relate to treatment plant.

It is agreed that the name “Reticulation upgrade” is incorrect. This will be amended to read Treatment Plant for the final LTP

2. It is new expenditure not previously mentioned, thus raising the scheme costs to some $32.6M. If this option were correct then this matter has not be consulted on


and is heading down the Mangawhai sewerage path. (See OIA information which suggest this is not the case)

• While considering the total expenditure, I note that the whole scheme has been classified as Levels of Service works to be funded by loan. As part of the project relates to the renewal of the treatment plant, part of the scheme must be considered as a renewal and thus funded from depreciation reserves. If this is not the case then Council would appear to be committing a multi-million dollar fraud on the existing users of the Kerikeri Scheme as past rates have been levied to fund replacement of the treatment plant but are not being used for that purpose.

How much should be funded as renewal? A number of possible answers can be considered:

1. The draft Asset Management Plan for Wastewater in 2015-25 showed that $5.7M

was to be funded as renewals in 2015/16 and 2016/17. Since then a further 3 years depreciation has been added so a minimum of $6.2M would be available on this basis.

2. The new treatment plant has a capacity increase from 570 m3 to 1000 m3 per day, so take 57% of treatment plant cost as renewal. Assuming the 2018/19 expenditure is for treatment enabling costs are considered as treatment plant costs.

3. Based on the depreciation information (see below) the replacement cost for the existing plant is about $5.6M.

4. It may be possible to trace back though council records and establish the exact sum rated as depreciation over the years.

The Kerikeri wastewater treatment plant element is funded partially from renewal funding. The LGOIMA request did not ask how much of the project was funded from renewal funding so the assumptions made are incorrect. The amount of renewal funding allocated to this renewal is $2.508m. Renewal funds held in relation to the reticulation can not be used for the treatment plant renewal

Interest. 1. The loans opening balance includes $11.0M raised in the years 2015-16 to date. As

this relates to assets not yet in service, should the interest on any part of this be recovered in 2018/19?

Rating for the project has been recalculated to 2019/20 when the project is commissioned

2. From 2019/20 there is a need to correct the calculation by reducing the loan amount for the renewal funding error described above. This will reduce the interest charges by about 25%. Depreciation Infrastructural.

• The supporting sheet contains nearly 800 lines of detail. These include 310 lines described as treatment plant with a useful life of 3 years. The annual depreciation on these lines totals $181,817.64 for the first year. Clearly this relates to the original treatment plant. There are a further 32 lines of treatment plant with various useful lives up to 40 years and annual depreciation of $11,842.86. There is insufficient information to assess if these items will have any value after the existing plant is decommissioned. The ongoing inflation adjusted calculations fail to make any correction for the removal of the original treatment plant when it is decommissioned, thus overstating the depreciation charge in years 2019-20 onwards.


As previously advised, the renewal element is viewed as perpetual if there is no certainty around replacement timing. As it is not yet clear if all of the assets will be decommissioned or if some can be transferred, this remains as a perpetual calculation

Depreciation PR RD • The detail behind this line uses the description Kerikeri Wastewater Infrastructure

and gives a useful life of 35 years which gives close agreement to the loans raised in 2016. Thus one must question why this sum is depreciated before the ommissioning of the new plant in 2019/20.

Rating for the project has been recalculated to 2019/20 when the project is commissioned

Depn Not Funded • No information could be traced for this item. However it does raise some other

questions: • Why has no inflation adjustment been applied to this line?

This is not inflated as it refers to the fixed subsidy value of $7.3m.

• If this entry relates to a non-depreciable amount included in the total costs, why was that item included in the first place?

Apart from the issues discussed above, there are other matters which require correction.

Costs that do not relate to depreciable assets. • The three items, PR RD, WIP and CAPEX appear to confirm the total project cost at

$22.5M. • However part of this expenditure is for the destruction and infilling of existing septic

tanks. While that process is a requirement of council, it does not constitute part of the cost of creating a new asset and therefore should not be included in any depreciation calculations. Even if council were to argue it was necessary, say for health reasons, and include it in the initial valuation, it would be excluded

• at the first revaluation and result in an accounting adjustment and lower depreciation from that time.

The cost of decommissioning the septic tanks on site is part of the connection fee payable by the homeowners, not Council

Connections • This figure is a weighted average of the number of charges for each type of rate and

should be a straightforward figure to calculate. The opening numbers can be taken straight from the current rating information database and then adjust for future expected growth. The figures provided show a change in the number of connected properties when the scheme becomes operational in 2019-20, with an increase of 244 connections.

• This figure falls well short of the 317 properties reportedly already signed up. • No change for 29 properties reported as declined but which will be subject to

availability charge. • Omits a number of other rateable properties which would become subject to

availability rate. • No change for additional pans. As the individual property reticulation is well under

way, one would have expected reasonably reliable figures to be available.


• No future growth, even at the district-wide level of 0.1% per year. Given approved resource consents provide for over 5% increase, this is unacceptable. I note that the growth calculations are based on 30 year figure of 64,000 for the district and ignore the figure of 64,900 by 2028 from the same Statistics New Zealand projection.

All of the calculations relating to the rates for this scheme have been based on the same number of connections so as to err on the side of caution and be conservative in our expectations. This has allowed some consistency in how the numbers are presented but it is acknowledged that the actual number of connections when the scheme is commissioned will be higher. This will lead to a lower rate per household than currently shown but until the final number is known, the agreed number of 244 will remain


Item: 7.2

Meeting: Council – 24 May 2018 Name of item: Long Term Plan 2018-28 Deliberations Authors: Sheryl Gavin – Manager, Corporate Planning & Engagement



Purpose of the report The purpose of this report is to provide information to enable Council to deliberate on submissions received during the statutory consultation period for the proposed Long Term Plan 2018/2028.

Executive summary Far North District Council’s consultation document and supporting information were adopted on 28 February 2018. Consultation took place between 5 March and 4 April. 866 submissions were received. More than 130 submitters spoke at hearings in Kerikeri on 18 April, Te Ahu on 19 April and Kaikohe on 20 April.

It is now for Council to consider the submissions received to enable the completion of the final Long Term Plan 2018-28 document for adoption on 28 June, 2018.

Following adoption submitters will be advised of the decisions made and the 2018-28 Long Term Plan will be made available.

Recommendations

Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub

1.1a) That Council approves option 1a, the community and civic hub for Kaikohe ($11.8m), as proposed in the Consultation Document.

1.1b) That Council approves bringing forward funding for the hub project into the early years of the LTP 2018-28 as follows:

• Bring forward the library renewals of $294,578 in years 4 and 5 to year 2

• Bring forward the Kaihohe hub project funding (which is a mix of renewals and debt funding) to year 1 $1m, year 2 $5m, year 3 $3m, year 4 $2.8m to achieve a total of $11.8 available in the first four years of the plan on the understanding that these funds may need to be brought forward or carried over into later years depending on progress with the business case, community engagement, build and applications for external funding.

1.1c) That Council approves an increase to operational funding for the project to cover professional fees associated with the build to $200k in years one and two of the LTP.

1.1d) That Council requests staff progress an application for Provincial Growth Funding (and other relevant funding providers), including the


development of a business case, with Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi and Ngapuhi Asset Holdings Company and FNHL.

Taumarere-Opua cycle trail

1.2a) That Council approves option 2a, full replacement alongside, as proposed in the Consultation Document, subject to ownership and lease arrangements being successfully negotiated to protect further investment in the route and external funding being secured.

1.2b) That Council request staff negotiate sub-lease(s) for the Taumarere to Opua cycle trail with BOIVRT once they have resolved land ownership and lease arrangements for a permanent route to Opua, and that only once suitable sub-leases(s) are in place staff work with FNHL and BOIVRT to progress design and resource consents for the permanent cycle trail.

1.2c) That Council agrees to increase the total operational expenditure approved by $80,000 (for 17/18) to enable further negotiations to occur to secure the ongoing free use of the rail corridor as a cycle trail until the trail is either given up by Council or reclaimed by the BoIVRT.

Twin Coast Cycle Trail extension

1.3a) That Council approves $1.875m per annum for cycle trail extensions, to be expended on the projects in the order determined by regional cost/benefit, with a modifier for lower socio-economic areas in the district. Only projects that attract subsidy of 45% or more are to proceed.

1.3b) That in approving these amounts Council acknowledges that funding may be brought forward or deferred into later years as necessary to complete projects.

Russell Wharf

1.4a) That Council approves option 4a (transfer the wharf to FNHL for $1) as proposed in the Consultation Document, subject to the execution of a legally-binding agreement between FNHL and the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust that provides for: • community and tangata whenua input into the Wharf’s development,

future direction, management and governance • a first option for the Trust to buy the wharf should FNHL wish to divest

it in the future. 1.4b) That accumulated depreciation reserves for the Russell Wharf be retained

by Council and distributed to FNHL, for expenditure on the wharf, as and when the funds are required.

Kaitaia sewerage

1.5a) That Council approves option 5b, preventing spills in a one-in-three month storm, $5.1m, as proposed in the Consultation Document.


Place making funding

1.6a) That Council approve option 6a (each community board is allocated an additional $33,333 for place making projects funded from the General Rate as proposed in the Consultation Document) as proposed in the Consultation Document.

Community infrastructure project funding

1.7a) That Council approve option 7a as proposed in the Consultation document ($100k per year Council decides).

1.7b) That Council requests staff to work with Community Board members on options to improve the application and decision making process to provide an opportunity for Community Board input into decision making and that staff report these options to Council before September 2018 (when the next funding round opens for applications).

Events and festival funding

1.8a) That Council approves $80,000 for district events funding as proposed in the Consultation Document.

1.8b) That Council agrees that the current delegation of decision making to the Infrastructure Network Committee for allocation of the Events Investment Fund remain in place for the 2018/19 funding round (which is imminent).

1.8c) That Council agrees to review the delegation of decision making for the Events Investment Fund as part of the review of the Events Strategy and / or Committee delegations during 2018/19 and to further consider feedback from the LTP 2018-28 consultation process as part of its decision making process.

Rainwater harvesting Te Kao

1.9a) That Council supports option 9a (rainwater harvesting using two tanks and UV treatment as proposed in the Consultation document).

Funding safe drinking water at Te Kao

1.10a) That Council approves a grant of $371,000 to achieve affordable potable water in Te Kao for the purchase and installation of (up to) two 25,000 litre rainwater tanks for approximately 65 properties currently connected to the Doubtless Bay Water Supply Company Ltd’s water supply scheme at Te Kao.

1.10b) That Council delegates to the CEO the ability to negotiate and conclude an agreement for the administration of the grant of $371,000 with a suitable entity on Council’s behalf.

1.10c) That Council agrees, upon request from the Te Kao community, to consider alternative uses of the grant funding that achieve affordable potable water in Te Kao (such as rainwater tank with treatment at each property plus bore for “top up supply” using existing pipe network or a new community owned water treatment plant, new pipework and new bore supply in line).


Toilets and showers for Kawakawa Tourism Hub

1.11a) That Council approves option 11a (a grant of $230,000 for four toilets and one pay shower for the Kawakawa Tourism Hub / Te Hononga from the BOI-Whangaroa ward rate) as proposed in the Consultation Document.

Funds to create a Kawakawa square

1.12a) That Council agrees in principle to loan $160,000 to the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust plus interest at Council’s cost of borrowing plus 0.25% for administration from 2019/20; with a loan term of 10 years.

1.12b) That Council delegates to the CEO the authority to negotiate the terms of $160,000 loan to the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust.

Libraries for the future

2.1a) That Council approves implementation of the Library Strategy and s17A review recommendations as proposed in the Consultation Document.

2.1b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the strategy prior to its publication.

Fees and charges

2.2a) That Council adopts the schedule of fees and charges for 2018/19 as proposed.

2.2b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the strategy prior to its publication.

Rating policies

2.3a) That Council approves an amendment to the Community, Sports and Not-for-Profit Organisations provision, replacing the term “owned or used by” with “owned or used by, and for the purposes of”.

2.3b) That Council approve operating budget of $100,000 per year to cover the expected level of applications under the Community, Sports and Not-for-Profit Organisations provision.

2.3c) That Council approve operating budget of $100,000 per year to cover the expected level of applications under the Extreme Financial Hardship provision.

2.3d) That Council approves an amendment to the Landlocked Land provision, condition 5, to state that if the land ceases to be landlocked during a postponement, postponed rates will not become repayable as long as the owner keeps current and future rates up to date.

2.3e) That Council approves an amendment to the Land Subject to Protection for Outstanding Natural Landscape, Cultural, Historic or Ecological Purposes, condition 5, be amended to state that the remission or postponement will only apply to the protected portion of the rating unit.

2.3f) That Council approves an amendment to the Māori Freehold Land Not Used provisions to remove the term “unoccupied” and replacing with “not used”.


2.3g) That Council approves an amendment to the Papakainga on Māori Freehold Land provisions, condition 5, to now read “Council reserves the right to cancel the remission on the portion of a rating unit upon which rates remain unpaid for a period of more than one month after the due date”.

2.3h) That Council approves an amendment to the Water Charges on Government Funded Subsidy Schemes provisions to clarify that the remission does not terminate upon change of ownership.

2.3i) That Council adopt the Rating Policies as amended. 2.3j) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to

the strategy prior to its publication.

Significance and Engagement Policy

2.4a) That Council adopts the Significance and Engagement policy as proposed.

2.4b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the policy prior to its publication.

Community Outcomes

2.5a) That Council make no change to Community Outcome 1. 2.5b) That Council amend Community Outcome 2 to read “Connected and

engaged communities prepared for the unexpected”. 2.5c) That Council make no change to Community Outcome 3. 2.5d) That Council amend Community Outcome 4 to read “Prosperous

communities supported by a sustainable economy”. 2.5e) That Council amend Community Outcome 5 to read “A wisely managed

and treasured environment that recognises the special role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki.

Wastewater Drainage Bylaw

2.6a) That Council adopt the Wastewater Drainage Bylaw with the following amendments:

• Amend clause 2.2 to read No person other than licenced drainlayers or authorised agents of the Council shall, without approval, make any connection to or otherwise interfere with any part of the Council’s wastewater drainage system.

• Remove the definitions for Buried Services, Infiltration, Inflow and Trunk Main, as they no longer appear in the proposed Bylaw:

2.6b) That Council delegate authority to the CEO to make any final minor edits prior to publication.

West Coast Rd, Panguru flood mitigation

3.1a) That Council approve the retiming of the Panguru Road Raising project to start preliminary work (engineering design and consenting) in 2018/19;


3.1b) That Council approve the reallocation of capital funding for the Panguru Road Raising project of $208,000 from 2020/21 to 2019/20, acknowledging that this timing is a best case scenario dependent on outside factors and alignment with NRC (i.e. consent applications);

3.1c) That Council agrees to seek a retrospective subsidy from NZTA for the Panguru Road Raising project.

Development of the Kerikeri road network

3.2a) That Council note the submissions but make no change to the proposals relating to major Kerikeri roading initiatives in the LTP 2018-28 roading budgets until such time as traffic studies and business cases have been concluded.

3.2b) That Council confirms its intention to develop a district wide roading strategy as proposed in the draft Infrastructure Strategy and Asset Management Plans.

Road sealing

3.3a) That Council initiates consultation with affected ratepayers to confirm the decision to co-fund the sealing of 400m of Inlet Road Kerikeri.

3.3b) That Council initiates consultation with affected ratepayers to confirm the decision to co-fund the sealing of 1.95km of Ruaroa Road Kaitaia from RP3050 to RP5000.

3.3c) That Council notes all other submissions and that no changes be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Footpaths

3.4a) That Council note the submissions, add new footpath proposals to the district footpaths database and advise Community Boards of the additions and advise their associated ranking.

Parking

3.5a) That Council note the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Hokianga ferry

3.6a) That staff accelerate work on the Long Term Strategy for the Hokianga Harbour Crossing, with continued liaison with the Hokianga Ferry Liaison Group

3.6b) That Council notes all submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

State Highway designation

3.7a) That Council refers the requests for Kohukohu to Herekino and Rawene to Kaitaia via Broadwood to be designated state highways to NZTA.


Speed restrictions

3.8a) That Council refer submissions on speed control and traffic calming and control measures to road safety staff for assessment in line with Safer Journeys, the safe system approach, rules and speed management guidance and makes no change to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Other roading issues

3.9a) That Council notes these submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

General water supply


Matauri Bay Wastewater

5.1a) That Council notes the submission and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

5.1b) That Council enters into further discussion with Matauri X and other potential stakeholders of the scheme to determine any desire to consult on funding and/or divestment arrangements.

General wastewater

5.2a) That Council notes the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

General stormwater


General solid waste


Boat Ramps

8.1a) That Council notes the submissions and accepts that these matters will be managed by FNHL without further amendments to 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets.

Broadwood Swing Bridge

8.2a) That Council allocate $100,000 capital funding in 2018/19 to repair the bridge, carry out a full load assessment and procure the necessary easements.


Kerikeri Cricket Pitch

8.3a) That Council approve the Kerikeri Cricket Club installation of a concrete wicket on the Kerikeri Domain on the condition that this aligns with the Kerikeri Domain reserve management plan.

Street and amenity lighting


Town maintenance


Pools


Public toilets

8.7a) That Council approve scoping work for tourism-related toilet facilities at Henderson Bay, Opononi, Te Hapua, Rangi Point, Rangitane Reserve and Waitangi.

8.7b) That Council approve the development of a public toilet strategy, including current and future requirements and capacity, location of facilities and minimum standards.

Recreation Spaces

8.8a) That Council ask Community Boards to take on board suggestions for place making, implementation of community plans and the Kawakawa skate park and work with the relevant communities to identify how the Board may assist.

8.8b) That Council ask staff to work with the Te Hiku Community Board on costing upgrades and renewals to Kaitaia parks/playgrounds.

8.8c) That Council ask the Te Hiku Community Board to continue to work with the Kaitaia community on restoration plans for the Mathews Mission Bush.

8.8d) That Council approves the commencement of repair work for the Opua-Paihia walking track in 2018/19 from existing budgets.

8.8e) That Council approves development and consultation on a Smoke Free on Council Property policy.

Kerikeri sporting facilities


8.9b) That Council confirm the budget for the land purchase and ancillary buildings and consents to enable fields and request that staff continue


discussions with the community regarding long-term solutions, with proposals subject to community consultation.

Dog control and amenities


Environmental Policy


Funding request Para Kore ki Te Hiku

10.1a) That Council approves additional grant funding of $10,000 per annum for three years to Para Kore ki Te Hiku.

Funding request Te Hiku Sports Hub

10.2a) That Council approve the development of a governance model, strategic plan and budget with the Trust with a view to consider funding if required in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

Funding request Te Au Marie Trust

10.3a) That Council approve an amendment to the Events Investment Funding criteria for 2018/19 and 2019/20 to give higher priority to funding proposals that support or align with the commemorations.

Funding request Far North Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee

10.4a) That Council does not approve an additional $80,000. 10.4b) That Council request both Creative Communities and Community

Boards to consider greater alignment for art projects that enhance our communities as part of place making.

Funding request Turner Centre

10.5a) That Council approves, starting in the 2018/19 financial year, an annual retrospective reimbursement for discounts given for community use of the facilities, and that reimbursement be supported by a reconciliation of the discounts given in the year of the claim.

10.5a) That Council budget a sum of $85,000 in each of the first three years of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan for this purpose.

Funding request Te Ahu Charitable Trust

10.6a) That Council note the submission and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

10.6b) That Council request that the Te Ahu Charitable Trust develop a strategic business plan within the 2018/19 financial year.

Funding request Heritage


10.7a) That staff, as part of the District Plan review, work with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to develop guidelines for areas that do not have them, such as Te Waimate

10.7b) That staff investigate the feasibility and financial implications of having a fund as well as criteria for contestability in conjunction with other funding sources for heritage to consider as part of the next Annual Plan 2019/20.

10.7c) That Community Boards consider greater focus on funding heritage initiatives as part of place-making given the sense of place and tourism value heritage properties or precincts contribute to the Far North.

Funding request Northland Inc (NINC)

10.8a) That Council approve a financial contribution from the economic development budget proposed in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 to Northland Inc of up to $100,000 annually for three years subject to an agreed service level agreement with Northland Inc. that provides for dedicated resourcing to Far North Business development and regional tourism.

10.8b) That Council delegate the negotiation of a Service Level Agreement with Northland Inc to the CEO.

Economic development

10.9a) That Council note the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan

10.9b) That Council request staff to continue to work with submitters on specific proposals.

Other issues raised

11a) That Council note the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Funding for Kaikohe and Districts Sportsville

12.1a) That Council approve an operating grant of $40,000 to Sportsville to assist in their role of managing Lindvart Park in Kaikohe.

Change to NZTA Funding Assistance Rate & Government Policy Statement implications

12.2a) That Council approve the retention of the local share identified above within the budgets set in the LTP to allow Council the flexibility to respond to any funding offered to Council under the changes that may arise from the review of the GPS.


New NZTA bridge at Taipa and associated work on stormwater and wastewater assets

12.3a) That Council approve capital budget of $90,000 in year one of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for a replacement wastewater pipe over the Taipa River to be constructed by NZTA in conjunction with the Taipa Bridge replacement.

12.3b) That Council approve capital budget of $400,000 in year one of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for an upgrade to the stormwater network around the Taipa township to be constructed by NZTA in conjunction with the Taipa Bridge replacement.

Electricity supply

12.4a) That Council approve the replacement of the $400k previously thought to be savings to the overall power budget.

Capital works changes

12.5a) That Council approve the changes to the overall capital programme as detailed above. The overall capital programme for 2018/19 is confirmed as $65.446m and an additional $120k of operational funding is approved to provide local share to match TIF funding for transport-related feasibility studies.

12.5b) Council acknowledges that the Twin Coast Cycle Trail and the Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub projects are contingent upon external funding support and that these projects may need further consideration if that funding is not able to be secured.

Civil Defence

12.6a) That Council includes an additional $120,000 of operational funding in year 1 of the LTP to cover Council’s share of the regional recovery manager’s salary, additional car, equipment and professional advice on the Service Level Agreement for a fully integrated regional shared services model for Civil Defence.

12.6b) That Council reviews the funding for regional Civil Defence in later years of the LTP during 18/19 based on experience and the potential for a Regional Rate for this service being introduced in 19/20.

1) Background The LGA requires that Council adopt a new Long Term Plan every three years. Over the last year, Council has progressed the development of the new plan for the years 2018-28 through a number of Council workshops. Formal consultation occurred during March and April this year.

2) Discussion and options 866 submissions were received, and over 130 submitters presented to Council hearings.


This report summarises these submissions and presents options for responding to them.

Submissions received that were relevant to the regional council or other agencies rather than this Council will be been forwarded on to them.

Submissions that raised specific issues to which Council would normally respond as part of business as usual activities have been recorded as requests for service.

The Deliberations Report attached is a summary of the feedback received through submissions and hearings. The remainder of items for deliberation relate to error corrections and other officer recommended changes that have arisen as a result of new information or changed circumstances.

For each, an overview of the item for deliberation along with staff analysis and a recommendation are included. General Managers and staff will be at the meeting to provide further clarity or advice if Council requests it.

Following deliberations the Long Term Plan will be amended for Council’s consideration and adopted at the Council meeting on 28 June, 2018.

3) Financial implications and budgetary provision

The decisions made at this meeting determine the financial implications and rates for the period 2018-28.

Manager: Kathryn Ross - General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy Group

Attachment 1: LTP Deliberations Issues and Recommendations – Document number A2041236

Attachment 2: LTP Submissions Analysis & Results – Document number A2068009









Compliance requirement Staff Assessment


The Special Consultative Procedure has been undertaken as required by the Local Government Act 2002.

The issues consulted on in the Consultation Document were assessed as significant against Council’s Significance & Engagement Policy.


2018-28 Long Term Plan

Local Government Act 2002

2015 Significance & Engagement Policy (Policy 2124).


The LTP has district-wide relevance. Community Boards have been involved in the development of the proposals consulted on.


Significant consultation and engagement has been undertaken, incorporating social media and community feedback in all wards. Council facilitated a submissions period of one month.


District-wide relevance. Submitters were invited to speak to their submissions at hearings held in Kerikeri, Kaitaia and Kaikohe.


Decisions will set budgets and determine rates for the decade from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2028.

Chief Financial Officer review. The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed




this report


CONTENT 1. Submissions relating to key issues ................................................................................................ 5

1.1. A Community and Civic Hub for Kaikohe? ........................................................................................ 6

1.2. A permanent cycle trail for Opua to Taumarere? .............................................................................. 9 1.3. Extend the Twin Coast Cycle Trail? ................................................................................................ 11

1.4. Who should own Russell Wharf?..................................................................................................... 14

1.5. What price for better sewerage in Kaitaia? ..................................................................................... 16

1.6. Money for placemaking projects? .................................................................................................... 18

1.7. Increase funds for community infrastructure projects? ................................................................... 20

1.8. What support for events and festivals? ........................................................................................... 22 1.9. Rainwater harvesting for Te Kao? ................................................................................................... 24

1.10. How should we fund safe drinking water at Te Kao? ...................................................................... 26

1.11. Toilets and showers for Kawakawa Tourism Hub? ......................................................................... 29

1.12. Funds to create a Kawakawa square? ............................................................................................ 31 2. Submissions relating to other items we asked for feedback on ................................................ 33

2.1. Libraries for the future ..................................................................................................................... 33

2.2. Fees and charges ............................................................................................................................ 35

2.3. Rating policies ................................................................................................................................. 37

2.4. Significance and Engagement Policy .............................................................................................. 47

2.5. Community Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 48

2.6. Wastewater Drainage Bylaw ........................................................................................................... 50 3. Submissions on Roading and Footpaths ..................................................................................... 52

3.1. West Coast Rd, Panguru flood mitigation ....................................................................................... 52

3.2. Development of the Kerikeri road network ...................................................................................... 53

3.3. Road sealing .................................................................................................................................... 54

3.4. Footpaths ......................................................................................................................................... 55

3.5. Parking ............................................................................................................................................. 56 3.6. Hokianga ferry ................................................................................................................................. 58

3.7. State Highway designation .............................................................................................................. 58

3.8. Speed restrictions ............................................................................................................................ 59

3.9. Other roading issues ....................................................................................................................... 60 4. Submissions on Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 61

4.1. General water submissions ............................................................................................................. 61 5. Submissions on Wastewater ......................................................................................................... 61

5.1. Matauri Bay...................................................................................................................................... 61

5.2. General wastewater submissions .................................................................................................... 62 6. Submissions on Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 63

6.1. General stormwater ......................................................................................................................... 63 7. Submissions on Solid Waste Management .................................................................................. 64

7.1. General solid waste submissions .................................................................................................... 64


8. Submissions on District Facilities ................................................................................................. 65

8.1. Boat Ramps ..................................................................................................................................... 65

8.2. Broadwood Swing Bridge ................................................................................................................ 65

8.3. Kerikeri Cricket Pitch ....................................................................................................................... 66

8.4. Street and amenity lighting .............................................................................................................. 66

8.5. Town maintenance .......................................................................................................................... 67

8.6. Pools ................................................................................................................................................ 68 8.7. Public toilets..................................................................................................................................... 68

8.8. Recreation Spaces .......................................................................................................................... 69

8.9. Kerikeri sports hub ........................................................................................................................... 71 9. Submissions on District Services ................................................................................................. 71

9.1. Dog control and amenities ............................................................................................................... 71

9.2. Environmental Policy ....................................................................................................................... 72 10. Submissions requesting funding .................................................................................................. 73

10.1. Para Kore ki Te Hiku ....................................................................................................................... 73

10.2. Te Hiku Sports Hub ......................................................................................................................... 73

10.3. Te Au Marie Trust ............................................................................................................................ 74

10.4. Far North Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee ............................................... 74

10.5. Turner Centre .................................................................................................................................. 75 10.6. Te Ahu Charitable Trust .................................................................................................................. 75

10.7. Heritage funding .............................................................................................................................. 76

10.8. Northland Inc (NINC) ....................................................................................................................... 76

10.9. Economic development ................................................................................................................... 77 11. Other issues raised ......................................................................................................................... 78 12. Corrections and updates as a result of new information............................................................ 79

12.1. Funding for Kaikohe and Districts Sportsville .................................................................................. 79

12.2. Change to NZTA Funding Assistance Rate & Government Policy Statement implications ............ 79

12.3. New NZTA bridge at Taipa and associated work on stormwater and wastewater assets .............. 79

12.4. Electricity supply .............................................................................................................................. 82

12.5. Capital works changes .................................................................................................................... 83 12.6. Civil Defence.................................................................................................................................... 84

LTP 2018-28 Deliberations – Issues & Recommendations


Introduction This document is a summary of the feedback received through submissions on the key issues presented in the Consultation Document for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP). Also included are items for deliberation relating to corrections and adjustments due to the availability of new information.

Location of submitters

Readers will notice that for each of the items specified in the Consultation Document an assessment of submissions received by ward has been completed. The location of submitters was determined by matching postcodes, and where that information was not available, street names. Although submitters were asked to provide an address, this was not mandatory. Submissions from those who did not provide sufficient detail to determine ward were counted as being from “Other areas”, i.e. those who either did not give any locational information, live elsewhere in Northland or live elsewhere in New Zealand.

1. Submissions relating to key issues

The Consultation Document outlined the following key issues:

• A community and civic hub for Kaikohe?

• A permanent cycle trail from Opua to Taumarere?

• Extend the Twin Coast Cycle Trail?

• Who should own Russell wharf?

• What price for better sewerage in Kaitaia?

• Money for placemaking projects?

• Increase funds for community infrastructure projects?

• What support for events and festivals?

• Rainwater harvesting for Te Kao?

• How should we fund safe drinking water at Te Kao?

• Toilets and showers for the Kawakawa Tourism Hub?

• Funds to create a Kawakawa square?

This section of the report analyses feedback on these issues and provides a staff recommendation for Council to consider when deliberating the item.



1.1. A Community and Civic Hub for Kaikohe?

Council’s proposed option was 1a, build a community and civic hub for Kaikohe at a cost of $11.8m. This may include land Council doesn’t own currently, and it may be built in stages.

Respondents:

BOI-Whangaroa ward 106

Kaikohe-Hokianga ward 106

Te Hiku ward 42

Outside district or unknown location 31

Total submitters 285 Responses:

1a. Community hub for Kaikohe ($11.8m) 187 66%

1b. Civic centre on our current site ($6.4m) 44 15%

1c. Status quo ($1.19m) 54 19%

Total submitters living in Kaikohe area 70 Feedback by location



Comments in support of the proposed option included:

• This project is a must

• Kaikohe should definitely have a community hub

• This is what Council promised when we were asked to support Te Ahu

• It should be a community house where people of the community can develop classes, sessions, meetings etc that are community supporting.

Other comments were:

• Don’t concentrate everything in the hub e.g. a business incubator should be located elsewhere

• Avoid it being a freedom camping area

• It is “nonsensical” to invest in a town in decline

• Fix the roads in the Hokianga first

• Update and modernise the Kaikohe Memorial Hall using the funding already set aside in the LTP.

There were also additional suggestions, as requested, about what could be included in the hub.

Staff comment:

The majority of the total respondents (66%) and Kaikohe residents (81%) preferred the proposed option, option 1a. There is significant support from respondents (81%) for a hub i.e. doing something (options 1a and 1b combined). There was very little support for the status quo (option 1c) from Kaikohe submitters (4.3%), although 19% support from across the District for this option.

The top 10 “inclusions” identified off the proposed list for inclusion in the hub were:

• Cultural centre

• Kaikohe Public Library

• Parks and playgrounds

• Community Wi-Fi

• i-Site or tourist information centre

• Theatre / performance area

• Museum and / or archiving - taonga, history

• Improved streetscapes

• Youth space

• Public showers and toilets to cater for residents, users and visitors (cyclists, freedom campers)

A conference centre and café, Council service centre, improved access and integration of the Pioneer Village and links to the Kaikohe section of Pou Herenga Tai Cycle Trail were popular inclusions within percentage points of the top 10.

Additional items suggested by submitters (but not included in the list we consulted on) were:

• Movie theatre/cinema

• Main street rejuvenation including footbaths, lighting, signage

• Fruit trees and community garden

• A café selling local produce and food

• Security cameras

• A landscaped area with native plants and trees

• Sports facilities

• Art gallery with local artists



• Adequate parking.

Throughout the last three months there have been meetings and discussions at the governance and staff level with Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi and Ngapuhi Asset Holdings Company and FNHL, which have significantly progressed the concept of a staged development that has a main street presence for a hub that (among other things):

• Reflects the needs and celebrates the Kaikohe community and Ngapuhi

• Leverages the skills and capabilities of Ngapuhi

• Attracts people / causes people to want to stop here, providing economic benefit to the community

• Is commercially and environmentally sustainable

• Reflects innovation and new technologies

• Is a place of learning for the community.

The project could and should be an exemplar of working in partnership and with the community.

An appropriate vehicle for governance and delivery is being actively pursued.

There is also significant interest from the Government (including potential funding via the Provincial Growth Fund) for a community facility that integrates culture, tourism, economic development and that leverages the cycle trail. In order to leverage this opportunity a business case would, of course, be required. Adjustments to the timing of funding are recommended to enable progression on seeking Government assistance.

Staff recommendation(s):

1.1a) That Council approves option 1 a, the Community and civic hub for Kaikohe ($11.8m) as proposed in the Consultation Document.

1.1b) That Council approves bringing forward funding for the hub project into the early years of the LTP 2018-28 as follows:

• Bring forward the library renewals of $294,578 in years 4 and 5 to year 2

• Bring forward the Kaihohe hub project funding (which is a mix of renewals and debt funding) to year 1 $1m, year 2 $5m, year 3 $3m, year 4 $2.8m to achieve a total of $11.8 available in the first four years of the plan on the understanding that these funds may need to be brought forward or carried over into later years depending on progress with the business case, community engagement, build and applications for external funding.

1.1c) That Council approves an increase to operational funding for the project to cover professional fees associated with the build to $200k in years one and two of the LTP.

1.1d) That Council requests staff progress an application for Provincial Growth Funding (and other relevant funding providers), including the development of a business case, with Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi and Ngapuhi Asset Holdings Company and FNHL.



1.2. A permanent cycle trail for Opua to Taumarere?

Council’s proposed option was 2a, full replacement of the Opua to Taumarere section of the cycle trail at a cost of $4.6m.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 32



2a. Full replacement alongside ($4.6m) 203 72%

2b. Some replacement ($4.5m) 73 26%

2c. Using the State Highway ($5.5m) 6 2%

Feedback by location

There were four general comments from submitters, all supportive of the cycle trail. One requested Council work with the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust (BOIVRT) on the replacement route, another noted their belief that the cycle trail and the Te Araroa walkway and links to local attractions were good investments for Council. There were also comments on the trail extensions (such as the need to develop the Horeke end of the trail and link to the Boulders which a submitter has recently purchased). These ideas are considered in the next section.

As the consultation document did not include a “do nothing” option, submitters comments have been analysed for comments that appear to support a “do nothing” option. At the time of completing this report six comments requesting the Council do nothing (or work with BOIVRT / prioritise other investments first) have been identified.

Staff comment:

The majority of all respondents supported option 2a. This was also the most supported option by all sub-area responses.

Council supports the BOIVRT plans to extend its railway from Taumarere to Opua as a significant tourist attraction for the District, however it is important that the newly formed Cycle Trail Trust and BOIVRT



have a shared vision for this section of trail. BOIVRT are developing a timetable for the reinstatement of the railway track, with the aim of completion within the next two years.

The Twin Coast Cycle Trail must vacate the Taumarere to Opua section of the rail corridor to enable the BOIVRT to achieve its vision. However, railway restoration work and the development of a terminus and associated infrastructure at Opua/Colenso Triangle first requires land ownership and lease issues to be resolved with Kiwirail and the Office of Treaty Settlements by the BOIVRT. Secure land tenure is also required for Council to have certainty that any investment in a permanent replacement cycle route is prudent, as Council will need to negotiate a sub-lease from BOIVRT.

Obtaining resource consent for the reclamation works upon which the permanent trail is to be built is a major issue and there is a risk that consent will not be granted. Construction cannot commence until the design is complete and consents have been obtained. Obtaining consents alone will likely take two years, potentially more.

Quantity Surveyor estimates are being supplied to Far North Holdings (who are preparing a joint business case for BOIVRT and FNDC for their respective projects) on the costs associated with the replacement route to allow for a combined approach to the rail and cycle trail routes (that should achieve savings) and an application to the Provincial Growth Fund. However an application can not be made until the land ownership and lease issues are determined. Limited funding through the Maintaining the Quality of Great Rides Fund also remains a possibility.

Option 2b - building a permanent cycle trail between Taumarere and Bridge 12 (which is opposite the Opua Commercial Estate and not on land reserved for Treaty of Waitangi settlements) remains a possible option if the full replacement options cannot not be achieved. However, despite costing about the same money as Option 2a, a road or water link to Opua would still be required. Staff consider that such road / water links would be better provided from Taumarere for a much lower cost (around $0.5m).

In December 2017 Council resolved to “Acknowledge the notice to vacate the railway corridor, and suggest that the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust and the Far North District Council work together to determine whether any other options exist should Council determine that the cycle trail must end at Taumarere” and agreed a sum for compensation payable this financial year..

Negotiations commenced and in principle agreements were reached based on the Council resolutions. In March this year the BOIVRT has proposed an alternative compensation sum as cash settlement. As debts have already been accounted for there may be a need to increase the operational expenditure previously agreed by $80,000. To resolve this matter it is proposed that Council amend its original resolution to ensure that the total operational expenditure approved is increased by $80,000 to enable further negotiations to occur.. The CEO will make all efforts to ensure that any cash settlement is not excessive and is fair to the ratepayers.


1.2a) That Council approves option 2a (Cycle trail - Full replacement alongside) as proposed in the Consultation Document subject to ownership and lease arrangements being successfully negotiated to protect further investment in the route and external funding being secured.

1.2b) That Council request staff negotiate sub-lease(s) for the Taumarere to Opua cycle trail with BOIVRT once they have resolved land ownership and lease arrangements for a permanent route to Opua and that only once suitable sub-leases(s) are in place staff work with FNHL and BOIVRT to progress design and resource consents for the permanent cycle trail.

1,2c) That Council agrees to increase the total operational expenditure approved by $80,000 (for 17/18) to enable further negotiations to occur to secure the ongoing free use of the rail corridor as a cycle trail until the trail is either given up by Council or reclaimed by the BoIVRT.



1.3. Extend the Twin Coast Cycle Trail?

Council’s proposed option was 3c, extending the cycle trail extension over a longer period of time at a cost of $25.9m.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 43


Total submitters 299

Responses:

3a. No extension (no additional cost) 116 39%

3b. 12 years only if subsidy available (Council share $22.5m) 78 26%

3c. The long game (Council share $25.9m) 105 35%


As discussed in the Taumarere-Opua item, there were four comments directly related to the cycle trail, three of which related to extensions, all supportive. One submitter noted:

“I believe that the Twin Coast Cycle Trail and the Te Araroa Walkway and associated links to key local attractions represent a very high cost benefit return for the Far North, and should be given top priority (along with roading improvements).”

Another submitter noted the need to develop the Horeke end of the trail and link to the Boulders (which they had recently purchased), and another supported the cycle trail extensions generally and the development of a Pacific Coast trail along State Highway 10 from Awanui to Kerikeri, requesting that it be “brought forward from beginning of 2032 to beginning of 2020”. They also noted the need for engagement with Māori and a desire to see local contractors (employing local people) involved.



Staff comment:

Most submitters (39%) preferred option 3a – no extension, with 35% supporting option 3c – the long game (which was the proposed option in the Consultation Document) and 26% supporting option 3b – 12 year extension programme. The overall result of the consultation was therefore 39% against further extension, and a combined 61% for the two extension options. Whilst there is a substantial level of overall community support for extending the cycle trail, there is also a significant portion of the community who do not see value in extensions.

Staff consider that the most appropriate way to reflect both of these views is to proceed with the work, but only on the proviso that outside funding in the order of 50% is achieved (i.e. to maximise value per ratepayer dollar spent).

The priorities chosen by respondents can be grouped by area as follows:

While a majority of respondents picked Waitangi to Kerikeri (64%) and Opua to Waitangi (51%) as priority projects, overall respondents preferred projects in or linking to their areas:

• Te Hiku - Pacific Coast to Awanui (63%) and Rest Areas (37%);

• Kaikohe Hokianga - Rest Areas (66%) and Linking up Ngawha Springs (63%);

• Bay of Islands - Waitangi to Kerikeri (87%) and Opua to Waitangi (67%); and

The “other areas” category preferred linking up Ngawha Springs (63%) and Waitangi to Kerikeri (54%). There is therefore no clear regional priority.

The funding and timing included in the consultation document for each section was indicative and subject to further business case development. The regional walking and cycling strategy is still being completed (target date August 2018). It will prioritise cycling initiatives (urban and recreational) regionally and form the basis of applications for external funding, including applications to NZTA and the Provincial Growth



Fund. One aim of the strategy is to complete a figure eight network of recreational trails that leverage the Pou Herenga Tai trail (ie to the north and south using routes on each coast). NTA staff are preparing an application to the Provincial Growth Fund for the package of initiatives to complete feasibility and construction of the network.

Early applications to the Provincial Growth Fund showing the overall network ambition have been made for a technical feasibility study for a 36 km walking and cycling rail trail from Dargaville to Donnellys Crossing using the former Kaihu Valley Railway corridor and completion of the Waipu Cove Trail. The progress of these applications will give an indication of the future likelihood of funding for other regional and district projects from the Provincial Growth Fund. Proposed changes to the Government Policy Statement are favourable for cycling initiatives and Maintaining the Quality of Great Rides and Tourism Infrastructure funding are also currently available, subject to business cases and applications.

Given that respondents tended to favour their own areas, and funding will be dependent on business cases that demonstrate best benefit/cost, staff consider that projects should be prioritised by regional benefit/cost, with a modifier to account for benefits of works to lower socio-economic areas. An annual allocation of $1.875m should be made available, being the $22.5m ratepayer contribution consulted upon spread over 12 years. As discussed above, only projects that attract subsidy in the order of 50% should proceed.

Where subsidy is not available for a project, Council may choose to re-consult on that project to determine whether the community supports it without subsidy.


1.3a) That Council approves $1.875m per annum for cycle trail extensions, to be expended on the projects in the order determined by regional cost/benefit, with a modifier for lower socio-economic areas in the district. Only projects that attract subsidy of 45% or more are to proceed.

1.3b) That in approving these amounts Council acknowledges that funding may be brought forward or deferred into later years as necessary to complete projects.



1.4. Who should own Russell Wharf?

Council’s proposed option was 4a, transferring the wharf to Far North Holdings Limited.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 46

Unknown location 72


4a. Transfer the wharf to FNHL 418 74%

4b. Council retains ownership of the wharf 150 26%

Total submitters living in Russell area 263


Comments on the issue ranged from

• clear support (e.g. “private ownership should improve the facilities markedly”),

• conditional support (e.g. conditional on tangata whenua / community involvement in the future development; controls on future divestment, the development being in keeping with the wharf’s origins) though to

• opposition due to lack of consultation, the perception that the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust is purporting to speak for the community/isn’t representative, and suspicion regarding FNHL and its motives.

Staff comment:

In 2011, the wharf needed repair (replacing piles, walkway planks and steps). The community also asked for enhancements to the wharf. Council and the Russell community (through the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust) committed funding ($100,000) and volunteer time to complete the repairs and



improvements (including the boat ramp which was built with volunteer labour). The repairs were finished in 2012.

Under our 2012 agreement with the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust, if Council divests the wharf within 10 years (i.e. by 2022) we are required to repay $100,000 to the Trust (so they can use the money on an alternative community project) and offer them first option to purchase the wharf at market value.

Over the consultation period the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust and FNHL held public meetings and ran drop in centres, supported by Council officers and elected members, to enable the community to understand the proposal and give feedback.

This issue received the most submissions.

Formal feedback to Council though the submissions process shows majority support (74%) for option 4a. Of the 568 submissions received on the matter, 383 came from within the BOI-Whangaroa ward, with approximately 263 from the Russell area. 215 (or 82% of) Russell residents want to see the wharf put in the hands of FNHL while 48 prefer it stay in Council ownership.

Comments clearly indicate that much of the support for 4a was conditional on community involvement in an expanded Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust working in partnership with FNHL, along with and controls on FNHL’s ability to divest the wharf at a future date.

Draft agreements are being prepared by the Trust and FNHL to address the matters raised by submitters and in the public meetings.

Council has accumulated $904,000 in its depreciation reserves for the wharf. Some submitters suggested that this be transferred to FNHL.

FNHL will receive $1.114m for the Russell wharf (wharf, jetty and associated services enhancements) from the Provincial Growth Fund, subject to final business case approval.


1.4a) That Council approves option 4a (transfer the wharf to FNHL for $1) as proposed in the Consultation Document, subject to the execution of a legally-binding agreement between FNHL and the Russell Wharf and Waterfront Trust that provides for:

- community and tangata whenua input into the Wharf’s development, future direction, management and governance

- a first option for the Trust to buy the wharf should FNHL wish to divest it in the future.

1.4b) That accumulated depreciation reserves for the Russell Wharf be retained by Council and distributed to FNHL, for expenditure on the wharf, as and when the funds are required.



1.5. What price for better sewerage in Kaitaia?

Council’s proposed option was 5b, preventing spills in a one-in-three month storm at a cost of $5.1m).

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 54



5a. Preventing spills in a one-in-one year storm ($13.4m) 101 41%

5b. Preventing spills in a one-in-three month storm ($5.1m) 147 59%


One submitter was unclear about whether the rate was district wide or targeted and commented that there was no drop box to select whether you lived in Kaitaia or not. If the Kaitaia sewerage represents a general rate increase district-wide they did not support the project. One submitter, who supported the proposed option, requested Council “look at where cost efficiencies can be made within the existing budget and transferred to wastewater services e.g. from governance or forward planning”. A small number of submitters (3) commented that Council should focus on “fixing failing core infrastructure & sewerage / stormwater,” focus on Kaitaia roading water, sewerage (and not spend money elsewhere), “Our desperate needs are good water supply all year & secondly a sewage update.”



Staff comment:

The proposal was for a targeted capital rate not a district-wide rate.

There was majority support for option 5b (59%), including “strong” support for this option from the Northland Regional Council. The consultation document did not ask submitters to identify whether they were from Kaitaia. The majority of the respondents from Te Hiku, however, preferred option 5a. Not all Te Hiku residents will have to pay, due to the targeted nature of the rate.

Staff recommend option 5b on the basis of affordability. Progressing this option is still subject to gaining a resource consent.


1.5a) That Council approves option 5b (Preventing spills in a one-in-three month storm, $5.1m) as proposed in the Consultation Document.



1.6. Money for placemaking projects?

Council’s proposed option was 6a (additional annual budget for Community Boards of $100,000, bringing the total allocated to Community Boards to $457,176 per annum).

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 53



6a. More for community boards (general rated), $100k annually 125 42%

6b. More for community boards (ward rated), $100k annually 43 14%

6c. Allocation within status quo (no change) 36 12%

6d. Leave to community boards to decide what they fund (no change) 95 32%


There was one comment associated with this question that agreed with option 6a but agreed to all options acknowledging that many people can not afford their rates already and Council needs to “try to achieve best value in every way possible”. One comment related to the need for the funding of community plans and an integrated strategy.

Staff comment:

From the submissions there is majority support (56%) in favour of increasing the amount available for community boards for place making by $100,000 (options 6a and 6b combined). Within this group there was clear support for using the general rate (district-wide rating), ie subsidising wards with less ratepayers. 44% of submitters were not in favour of increasing the amount available; nearly two thirds of these submitters wanted it left up to the Community Boards to decide what they funded from their grant funding.

Creating great places is a cornerstone of the Council’s mission. Place-making inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. An option for Council, should it proceed with additional place-making funding, would be for Community Boards to start with communities that have an agreed plan and to initially allocate their place making funding to a place



making initiative with the plan as a catalyst, or to reinforce Council support, for the plan’s delivery. Community plans give an indication of the place making initiatives that communities want to see occur in “their patch”. Communities that have developed plans have gone through a considerable process to gain buy-in and agreement over their sense of place / place making ambitions. The Community plan is not the Council’s plan – it belongs to the community. However, the intention is that they guide and inform the Council’s, Community Board’s and other agencies strategic planning and allocation of resources. Using the community plan process to allocate place making resources may galvanise those communities that do not have a plan to create one or to consider the look and feel of their towns and initiate projects that have their communities buy-in.

Alternatively Community Boards could engage with communities on their aspirations for place making and make funding allocations according to their own criteria. This risks consultation fatigue and the undermining of the community planning process but opens the opportunity to communities without an agreed plan.

If Council did not proceed with the additional funding proposed, place making initiatives, could be pursued within existing funding by Community Boards.

The staff recommendation for the issue is:

1.6a) That Council approve option 6a (each community board is allocated an additional $33,333 for place making projects funded from the General Rate as proposed in the Consultation Document).



1.7. Increase funds for community infrastructure projects?

Council’s proposed option was 7a, making $100,000 available for district-wide community infrastructure grants each year. We also asked who should decide which projects get funded (Council or the Community Boards). Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 53



7a. Status quo ($100k per year) Council decides 59 20%

7b. Status quo ($100k per year) Community Board decides 119 40%

7c. Doubling the grant ($200k per year) Council decides 26 9%

7d. Doubling the grant ($200k per year) Community Board decides 95 31%


One submitter commented in the hearings that the grant should be administered by Council as a district-wide grant.

Staff comment:

While there was no overwhelming support for any one option but majority support (60%; options 7a and 7b results combined) for keeping the grant at $100,000. There was also majority support for Community Boards deciding who got funding (71%; options 7b and 7d results combined).

The purpose of the Infrastructure Grant Fund (formerly known as the District Community Grant Fund) is to fund one-off large new capital infrastructure projects in the District. It was originally envisaged that it would fund one significant project per year (although the current policy allows for one or more projects to be funded annually and each year that it has been available the fund has been allocated to more than one project). The focus of the fund is at the district level, and it was designed to complement the Local Grant Fund (formerly the Community Grant Fund – Local) that is administered at the Community Board level with a ward or community focus.



Given the Mayor and Councillors are elected to represent the interests of the district, the ultimate decision on who is allocated the funding under the Infrastructure Grant Fund / District Community Grant Fund policy has always been with Council.

Community Boards allocate their grant funding in the interests of their ward and communities according to the Local Grant Policy. The Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018-28, proposed increasing this funding by $100,000 for place making (or $33.3k for each Community Board); an overall total of $457,176 a year for all Boards combined. Within this amount there is sufficient scope for Community Boards to support infrastructure projects that align with their strategic plans, community plans and community aspirations at the local level.

Staff therefore consider that keeping the status quo and having Council decide is most in line with the intent of the fund and the policy for it. There are no obvious advantages to having Community Boards decide on projects for funding at a district level, and there are potential administrative and governance challenges given there are three Community Boards with a total 19 elected members.

The decision making processes to date have not provided for specific Community Board comment on the projects being considered for funding. However Community Board Chairs have made comments at both the Committee and Council decision making stages. The process could be changed to enable Community Board input prior to decision making. Alternatively a subcommittee / panel of Community Board members (with or without Council elected members) could be established to either make a recommendation to Council or make the decision for Council if it so wished to delegate this decision making ability.


1.7a) That Council approve option 7a as proposed in the Consultation document ($100k per year Council decides).

1.7b) That Council requests staff to work with Community Board members on options to improve the application and decision making process to provide an opportunity for Community Board input into decision making and that staff report these options to Council before September 2018 (when the next funding round opens for applications).



1.8. What support for events and festivals?

Council’s proposed option was 8a, to maintain the status quo funding of $80,000 but consider, with community input, who should allocate the fund – councillors or community boards.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 53



8a. Status quo ($80k per year) Community Boards decide 226 75%

8b. Invest more Community Boards decide 75 25%

Who decides:

Councillors 91 30%

Community Boards 210 70%




Staff comment:

The majority of submitters (75%) supported keeping the grant amount at $80,000. The majority (70%) of submitters supported the Community Boards deciding (30% support for decision making remaining with Council).

The current Events Strategy and contestable Events Investment Fund provide a source of investment funds for events and festivals that have the potential to deliver an economic return for the district. This funding is targeted at larger events that attract visitors and significantly enrich the district (applications should be for $5000 and over). The aim is develop a balanced portfolio of events through out the year and to invest in a few events that will give the best return on district investment. There is increased weighting to events that occur outside of the Bay of Islands to encourage dispersal of events.

Applications for funding open each year between May and June, with decisions made (generally) in July.

Council, an events panel (made up of staff and elected members) and a Council Committee have all previously had decision making authority. The Community Boards have not.

Currently the Infrastructure Network Committee has delegated decision making for this funding. The Community Board Chairs are appointed to this Committee with speaking, but not voting rights.

Community Boards also grant events funding from within their grant funding for local events (from Christmas parades to the Russell Birdman, walking weekends, and the Kaitaia Boxing Club summer event).

The Events Strategy is due for review this year. The Committee delegations are also due for review.


1.8a) That Council approves $80,000 for district events funding as proposed in the Consultation Document.

1.8b) That Council agrees that the current delegation of decision making to the Infrastructure Network Committee for allocation of the Events Investment Fund remain in place for the 2018/19 funding round (which is imminent).

1.8c) That Council agrees to review the delegation of decision making for the Events Investment Fund as part of the review of the Events Strategy and / or Committee delegations during 2018/19 and to further consider feedback from the LTP 2018-28 consultation process as part of its decision making process.



1.9. Rainwater harvesting for Te Kao?

Council’s proposed option was 9a, rainwater harvesting to two tanks with UV treatment.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 35



9a. Rainwater harvesting to two tanks (approx. $16.5k per household) 133 72%

9b. Bore supply with one tank ($260k bore plus $13.5k per household) 28 15%

9c. Treatment plant ($2.2m) 25 13%


There were not many comments on the options included in the Consultation Document, with most crossing over with the next question (whether funding assistance should be provided). Comments ranged from:

“it’s appalling that the livelihoods of our people of Te Kao do not have clean drinking water, a necessity. … the water supply is a fundamental resource that should have been managed years ago. Sometimes you have to spend the money to get better quality and sustainability really, you can’t go wrong here”

to preferences for spending more on Te Kao water and in other small communities to “solve their water problems” than on a hub in Kaikohe or to take money from the Kerikeri sports field proposed increase to fund all works at Te Kao, and that UV treatment should be a personal choice.

Ngātiwai Trust Board, Te Amokura Iwi Consortium Ltd, and Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi all supported the “re-direction” of funding to water tanks with UV.

The Northland District Health Board did not indicate a preferred option, noting it was difficult to make a strong recommendation. It commented as follows:



“Small communities need the most cost effective, safest and sustainable infrastructure (including drinking water supplies) that are compatible with the socio-demographic profile, governance and cultural aspirations of that community. Careful consideration needs to be given to any rating increase (targeted or general) on small communities that may result in people coming under increased pressure due to their financial circumstances.”

The NRC “supports implementation of a safer water supply for the residents of Te Kao”.

The one Te Kao resident that responded to this question did not make a comment.

Staff comment:

After extensive community engagement, the community of Te Kao were surveyed at the end of 2017 on their preferred option for achieving a potable water supply that addressed the small size of the community, the unacceptable public health risks and level of service issues that currently exist. Four options were put to the community at that time:

A. Rainwater tanks (two) with treatment at each property B. One rainwater tank with treatment at each property plus bore for “top up supply” using existing

pipe network C. A new water treatment plant, new pipework and new bore supply D. Status quo, i.e. no action.

Options A, B and C were all recognised as good options to achieve a reliable potable water supply, the major difference being the costs involved.

Option A was the first preference of 30 respondents. Option B was the first preference of 4 respondents. Option C was the first preference of 28 respondents. Option D was the first preference of 18 respondents.

The results were therefore very close between options A and C.

Using the Single Transferrable Vote system, option A scored 176, option B scored 66, option C scored 140 and option D scored 83.

Council consulted on options A, B and C as part of the Consultation Document, proposing option 9a (two rainwater tanks with UV treatment at each property). There was majority (71%) support for this option.

There was only one submission from a resident of Te Kao. Based on discussions between staff and the community, staff believe the reason for this is that the Te Kao community think they have already had their say and there was nothing further to be gained by submitting again.


1.9a) That Council supports option 9a (rainwater harvesting using two tanks and UV treatment as proposed in the Consultation document).



1.10. How should we fund safe drinking water at Te Kao?

Council did not propose any particular option, recognising that any targeted rate, loan or grant would have implications for Te Kao residents and all ratepayers if adopted. Council wished to therefore consider feedback from the community before making any decisions.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 36



10a. Targeted rate 54 30%

10b. Loan 23 13%

10c. Grant for tanks only 57 31%

10d. Grant for all work 47 26%




Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi and Te Amokura support a one-off community grant to fund the costs of buying the tanks to improve public health outcomes for this community, and recommend that communities “who experience material hardship” should receive direct funding from Council. Another submitter supported grants for tanks but not UV.

Ngātiwai Trust Board commented that “communities that experience hardship, are high need and for marae, there should be direct funding from FNDC … toward roofing, gutter upgrades, pumps, tanks and sterilising systems”.

Of the 46 submitters that supported a grant in the region of $1 million for all work, one commented that they “support policies which give low income communities like Te Kao a boost from across the whole rating base”. Another submitter commented that their support for this option assumed that the rate increase for this purpose will only be for 2018/19. Their other assumption is that Te Kao residents will be responsible, maintain their rainwater harvesting systems, and not neglect them.

The Kaikohe Business Association suggested interest free “lay-by” for those with limited means.

One submitter said they weren’t sure about which option to choose, stating “Hopefully Te Kao residents will make the decision now but I think FNDC should help out”. Another noted that:

“Rural properties all over the district fund their own water supplies and it is unfair to expect them to contribute to a Te Kao water supply …” but in the circumstances … “would support a one off payment for one 25,000L tank and filter only per household, means tested with an income of say $50k. Income earners about that to provide their own water…”

Staff comment:

Council asked in the Consultation Document how safe potable water (proposed to be water tanks with treatment) could be made affordable for the community.

No option gained a majority; but there was majority support (57%) for a grant of some type to be made to the Te Kao community. 26% of submitters on this question thought the grant should cover all work (including spouting and rooves, estimated cost @$1,000,000) and 31% thought it should cover the costs of two rainwater tanks (estimated at $371,000). There is therefore a mandate from those who responded to this question to provide a grant of at least $371,000.

For efficiency, ease of administration and to ensure a grant is targeted appropriately it is recommended that a suitable entity to administer the grant on behalf of Council is identified, the funds are transferred to it and it reports to Council on the use of the grant.

While 30% of submitters favoured a “voluntary targeted rate” it should be noted that only one submission came from Te Kao. Therefore there is no mandate from the residents and ratepayers of Te Kao for a targeted rate over them. If it was applied over 10 years, at $2,343 for the average Te Kao household reducing over 10 years (or averaged over 10 years), it would be well above the working group’s $1,200 affordability target. Staff therefore do not recommend that this option is pursued. If Council was minded to approve this option staff recommend that it be provided over 20 years.

Staff discussion with TPK staff indicates that both MSD and TPK may be able to provide some funding assistance to the Te Kao community to help them with their housing and water needs, and staff from those ministries would like to meet with Council and the Te Kao community once Council has made its decision about its preferred option and any funding assistance that Council is prepared to make.

There is the potential for funding from other sources and for options other than water tanks, e.g.: Provincial Growth Fund (PGF); a new water treatment plant, new pipework and new bore supply. At the time of writing this report staff did not have confirmation that an application had been made to the PGF. If further information is available at the time of the deliberations meeting, Council staff will update the meeting if requested.



Council may wish to consider whether it would be prepared to make the grant funding available for options other than option 9a (such as option 9b and 9c) if they achieved potable water standards affordably and the supply was not owned by Council.


1.10a) That Council approves a grant of $371,000 to achieve affordable potable water in Te Kao for the purchase and installation of (up to) two 25,000 litre rainwater tanks for approximately 65 properties currently connected to the Doubtless Bay Water Supply Company Ltd’s water supply scheme at Te Kao.

1.10b) That Council delegates to the CEO the ability to negotiate and conclude an agreement for the administration of the grant of $371,000 with a suitable entity on Council’s behalf.

1.10c) That Council agrees, upon request from the Te Kao community, to consider alternative uses of the grant funding that achieve affordable potable water in Te Kao (such as rainwater tank with treatment at each property plus bore for “top up supply” using existing pipe network or a new community owned water treatment plant, new pipework and new bore supply in line).



1.11. Toilets and showers for Kawakawa Tourism Hub?

Council’s proposed option was 11a, four toilets and one pay shower funded through a ward rate.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 38



Submitters living in Kawakawa 21 Responses:

11a. Four toilets, one pay shower – ward rated 132 54%

11b. Four toilets, one pay shower – Kawakawa targeted rate 49 20%

11c. Six toilets, one pay shower 37 15%

11d. Twelve toilets, two pay showers 28 11%




18 comments have been identified that relate to the two Kawakawa Tourism Hub proposals. A submitter that supports the proposed option opposes freedom camping and recommends that the Hundertwasser image should be focused at Kawakawa (not Whangarei) and as Hundertwasser’s last home advantage of this unique selling point should be taken. Another suggested coin operated toilets.

One submitter who supported the Kawakawa development (but preferred option 11b) raised concerns about whether the infrastructure would cope with more visitors.

Another submitter thought there were enough toilets in Kawakawa and another raised concerns about costings given FNHL’s commercial interests in the project “as they have a vested interest in the project being the owner at the end of the day. This seems like a conflict of interest when we are talking about ratepayer dollars.”

One submitter was strongly in favour of two showers and another was in total opposition to any funding “Do not allocate one cent of ratepayers money … If they want to build buildings with old bottles … let them pay for it” and commented on the smell of the toilets.

Another submitter commented that “Council needs to stick to” its “core business of providing working services and infrastructure for the ratepayers, far less focus on tourism that benefits a small number of the community but can have negative impact on a larger proportion of the residents. The resident rate payers should not have to pay for service and amenities set up for the benefit of tourists.”

At least two submitters raised the Government funding and questioned why ratepayer funding was being considered. The Northland DHB commented that the grant should be funded using the general rate (i.e. district wide). Northland Inc supported the hub itself.

Staff comment:

There was majority (54%) support for the proposed option 11a four toilets, one pay shower ward rated. There was majority support for ward rating over targeted rating regardless of the toilet and shower numbers (70% preferred ward rating and 30% targeted rating).

The submitter who made the comment about Kawakawa having enough toilets potentially did not realise that the ones in the carpark were going to be demolished as a result of the building.

The Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust have confirmed to NRC that all funding for the build (with the assumption that the $230,000 from FNDC will be agreed) has now been secured including Foundation North and Government (PGF) funding.


1.11a) That Council approves option 11a (a grant of $230,000 for four toilets and one pay shower for the Kawakawa Tourism Hub / Te Hononga from the BOI-Whangaroa ward rate) as proposed in the Consultation Document.



1.12. Funds to create a Kawakawa square?

Council’s proposed option was 12a, granting the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust (the Trust) $160,000 to facilitate the creation of a vibrant public space in Kawakawa.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 35



Submitters living in Kawakawa 21 Responses:

12a. Helping out ($160k grant) 145 58%

12b. Leaving it to the Trust (no cost) 107 42%




Many of the funding comments above also applied to the park proposal. One submitter objected to the additional park / square funding (but supports funding the hub) on the basis that “$400,000 is a large slice of the pie when there are many similar towns that also need attention.”

Staff comment:

There is majority support (57%) for helping out. However during the lead up to the consultation period the Trust indicated that they did not want to forsake the $40,000 from 2019/20 for four years for toilet servicing, effectively off-setting the grant. Both FNHL and the Trust indicated that it was their understanding that the additional toilets in the hub are public toilets and will be serviced under contract to Council, despite Council not owning the hub.

The Trust has indicated that they want funding assistance from Council to complete the square. If Council is not prepared to pay or a grant is not possible, they would like a loan for $160,000, and would use this as an option of last resort. A loan term of four years would be in keeping with the original proposal, however the Trust have asked for a term of 10 years as they are forecasting an annual net profit of $34,000; Council usually takes out loans over 20 years, but not for such as small amount. Council would charge interest at our cost of borrowing and normally add 0.25% for administration. It would, however, be cost neutral to the ratepayer, which was a key factor in the proposed option.

Responsibility for cleaning and maintenance of the toilets within the hub remains an issue to be resolved.

In addition, the Kawakawa community is leading the development of their own community plan. Community development staff have offered to assist the community and the Trust to complete the plan and identify priority projects for future Council and Community Board investment (as well as other funders). If Council adopts the place making fund for Community Boards this would be a new funding option.


1.12a) That Council agrees in principle to loan $160,000 to the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust plus interest at Council’s cost of borrowing plus 0.25% for administration from 2019/20; with a loan term of 10 years.

1.12b) That Council delegates to the CEO the authority to negotiate the terms of $160,000 loan to the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust.



2. Submissions relating to other items we asked for feedback on

2.1. Libraries for the future

The Consultation Document proposed funding to support a strategy for the District’s libraries both now and into the future. The strategy included outreach services, learning programmes, digital upgrades, accessibility initiatives, the provision of multi-purpose spaces and an overall increase in the level of service for our libraries. Submitters were asked if they are in favour of modernising our libraries and making them more accessible.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 59



In favour of modernising libraries and making them more accessible 256 81%

Not in favour of modernising libraries and making them more accessible

59 19%


In addition to answering the question posed regarding libraries in the Far North, some submitters made additional comments. Submitters who felt libraries are important said:

• Libraries are key amenities for all communities in the Far North, and they should be modernised and accessible to all members of the community

• FNDC’s library strategy shares similarities with library systems across the country, with the provision of features such as a self-help kiosk to check out and return books. I have even used a community space at the Whakatane Library for a telephone conference with a judge. I support any outreach service to remote areas, elderly or disabled.

• Te Rananga A Iwi O Ngapuhi are in favour of modernising libraries to make learning more accessible to our communities, and recommend that Council work with iwi, hapu and tangata whenua to ensure needs are met through this process, and that the Ngapuhi Arts Strategy and pending Education Strategy be used to inform the direction of Far North libraries. The archiving of digital stories and histories, and availability of reference books significant to the Far North should be prioritised.



One submitter felt that Council should close all libraries down and use the money to deliver essential infrastructure and services.

While one submitter does not support an outreach service or literary programmes due to the costs, and because it is not core business, they do support the improved use of technology and space in existing libraries as they provide good quality local public services. The submitter also says that while allowing residents to record their stories, knowledge and skills is very important this is not a council function.

Staff comment:

The above statistics indicates that libraries remain relevant to the communities in our District, and that ongoing development and the provision of additional services is an attractive proposition to most.

The Local Government Act (2002) section 11A states that in performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that a number of core services make to its communities. One of these is libraries. Council must therefore continue to provide libraries within the District, but the form of delivery may be decided by the Council, hence the Library Strategy.

In developing the Strategy, Council ran a comprehensive survey asking the people of the Far North what they valued about libraries and how they saw the service progress towards the future. The survey attracted an extraordinarily high level of response, with public preferences informing the content of the proposed strategy.


2.1a) That Council approves implementation of the Library Strategy and s17A review recommendations as proposed in the Consultation Document. 2.1b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the strategy prior to its publication.



2.2. Fees and charges

The annual review of fees and charges resulted in amendments to various fees for the 2018/19 financial year. In most cases increases were limited to the Local Government Cost Index, the inflation factor used by many councils. Submitters were asked if they agree with the changes proposed.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 47



Agree with proposed changes 189 73%

Disagree with proposed changes 70 27%


The majority of submitters agree with the fees and charges as proposed. A small number of submitters provided comments summarised as follows:

• Ratepayers pay enough in their rates, service fees should not be rising

• There should be no charge for RAPID number applications and replacement RAPID signs

• There should be no charge for submission documents

• Libraries should be completely free, with no late charges

• Disagrees with sewerage fees, no detail given

• Does not agree with the inflation factor used

• Council should seek 100% cost recovery in its fees and charges

• Levy fees from cycle trail users and freedom campers.

Staff comment:

If fees and charges were to remain static, Council would be asking the District’s ratepayers to pay for a larger share of services that have a private benefit. Although the schedule of fees and charges provides for charging large document copying/printing, this does not apply to submission documentation unless the request is for a high volume of large documents. During the 2018-28 LTP consultation no such instances arose.



Fees and charges, and the amount we seek to recover from them, are discussed on an annual basis, and will be within the scope of Council’s upcoming rating and revenue review. Staff acknowledge that the affordability of both rates and fees and charges will be a focus of the review. The staff recommendation for the issue is:

2.2a) That Council adopts the schedule of fees and charges for 2018/19 as proposed. 2.2b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the strategy prior to its publication.



2.3. Rating policies

Alongside the development of the 2018-28 LTP, Council carried out a thorough review of its rating relief policies. We proposed replacing 19 separate rating relief policies with one rating relief suite including 17 issues-based policies. The focus was on removing confusing language and making the policies easier to understand. We proposed introducing two new policies to incentivise Māori economic development on Māori freehold and Treaty settlement lands, along with an annual remission policy for extreme financial hardship and continuation of the postponement policy for senior citizens. We also proposed revoking four policies that are no longer required.

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 43






Taking each rates relief issue at a time, staff comment on feedback is as follows.

Rating relief for common use properties

The intention of this policy is to treat multiple rating units as one rating unit if they are physically separated but used jointly as one, as is the case for some farming and commercial operations. The policy is also allows multiple rating units in a property development to be treated as a single rating unit for a maximum of three years. The review of this policy resulted in three changes:

• Change in the focus of the policy from ‘contiguous’ to ‘common-use’. This change was made because contiguous properties are already treated as one rating unit under the Local Government Rating Act 2002 (LGRA). This policy expands on the LGRA to treat common-use properties as one rating unit.

• Removed the exclusion of lifestyle farms. Section 20 of the LGRA defines rating units in common ownership and does not exclude lifestyle farms, thus removal of this restriction on the policy.

• Removed the ability for developers to apply for an extension on their developments beyond three years. At a time when development activity was suppressed due to economic conditions, this



provision was seen as necessary, but now that some degree of recovery is evident staff believe a three year period should be sufficient. Council may grant remission extensions outside of policy should it wish to on a case by case basis.

Staff comment:

Two comments were received regarding this policy. One submitter felt that ratepayers with multiple dwellings used as a single family home would not be eligible. However this is not the case; a scenario such as this would be covered by section 20 of the LGRA. One submitter felt that although a farming property may be seen as common use the current SUIP (Separately Used or Inhabited Part) definition would negate the benefit of any remission awarded. Staff acknowledge that this may be the case and recommend that the definition of a SUIP be addressed through the planned rating review.

The total amount remitted under this policy is likely to reduce because the additional three year extension available to commercial subdivision/ development has been removed.

Council does not need to make any further financial provision for changes to this policy.

Rating relief for community, sports and not-for-profit organisations

The intention of this policy is to assist in the sustainable provision of community services and recreational opportunities and to support access to drug, alcohol and mental health facilities through reducing the rates burden on these entities. The review of this policy resulted in four changes:

• Strengthen the provisions to allow 100% remissions only if an organisation is registered as charitable or is Inland Revenue donee-approved, rather than any ‘charitable or community organisation’. This change was made to tighten up the scope of those entities that may apply to include only those legally restricted to using their funds for public benefit.

• Amend the organisations that are eligible for 50% remissions. References to specific organisations have been removed (i.e. NZ Plunket, St Johns) to simplify the policy.

• Allow for the remission of service charges in some cases. Some organisations may not pay rates on the building they occupy but may still be paying service charges. The policy amendment allows for the remission of those charges at the discretion of the Council.

• Inclusion of eligibility for mental health and inpatient drug and alcohol care services. This acknowledges the increased prevalence of mental health, drug and alcohol issues in our District and assists the community in the provision of treatment.

Staff comment:

Six submitters commented on this item. Two felt that organisations licenced to sell alcohol should be ineligible for remission. The policy already considers organisations using premises to generate revenue as ineligible. However, this restriction is wide, and applies to organisations such as charity shops as well. For this reason, Council may choose to consider applications on a case by case basis and make a decision outside of policy where it sees fit.

One submitter felt that replacing the term “owned or used by” with “owned or used by, and for the purposes of …” be made to strengthen the definition of eligible entities. Staff agree that this would be a worthwhile change to incorporate.

Two submitters registered their opposition to the remission of sewerage charges, although no rationale was provided. One submitter is opposed to a 100% remission for some not-for-profits, although again no rationale was provided.

The total amount remitted under this policy provision is likely to double with the inclusion of service charges. The rate of applications is increasing.

Council would need to make provision for approximately $100,000 to include service charges in this policy over a 10 year period.



Rating relief for excess water charges

The intention of this policy is to assist in covering excess water charges in the case that there is a leak the ratepayer is unaware of. One of the conditions of the remission is that the leak is repaired and proof of this repair is supplied to Council.

• Change in timeframe for a remission. This timeframe has changes from once in the life of the property to once every 10 years for the ratepayer.

• Addition of 50% remission rate for second leak. If a second leak occurs in a ten year period, Council may remit 50% of the charges.

The financial impact of this policy has been assessed as negligible as we currently remit on excess water charges outside of policy. No further funding needs to be allocated.

Rating relief for extreme financial hardship

This was originally part of the Postponement of Rates on Residential Land policy, and seeks to assist ratepayers experiencing extreme financial hardship. The review of the provisions of the original policy resulted in five changes:

• Change from postponement to remission. Where a postponement delays payment, a remission removes the financial burden in that year, aligning with the objective of the Government Rates Rebate process.

• Exclusion of holiday homes. Criteria for the policy has been strengthened to ensure that remissions are only granted for on the rates of the primary place of residence. Staff believe that remitting rates on holiday homes is inconsistent with the concept of equity.

• Remissions are applicable only on the total that is not covered by a Rates Rebate. This assumes that if a ratepayer is experiencing extreme financial hardship they would be eligible for a Government rebate regardless of whether or not Council granted a remission.

• Added requirement for the ratepayer remaining responsible for the amount of rates equal to the maximum rebate available under the Rates Rebate scheme. If the ratepayer is not eligible for a rates rebate they will be required to enter into a payment arrangement with Council, e.g. Rates Easy Pay.

• Amendment to extend eligibility to allow remissions for Extreme Financial Hardship on Māori Freehold Land.

Staff comment:

Only one submitter commented on this policy, simply stating their support for the policy. Staff have viewed an absence of comment as being generally supportive of this provision.

Approximately 1,830 households in the Far North District earn less than $25,000 per year where the property is owned/partly owned by the occupiers. In calculating the impact an assumption can be made that of these households, the number of rating units in arrears and that are not on rates payment arrangements would qualify for this policy.

Based on the 2017-2018 figures, this policy would have had an impact of $95,494 in this financial year. An assumption can be made that Council would need to make provision for approximately $100,000 per annum for the term of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Rating relief for incentivising Māori economic development

This is a new policy with the primary purpose of providing an incentive for Māori land owners to develop Māori Freehold Land for economic use. The proposed policy offers remissions on a sliding scale over eight years, including 100% for the first three years then reducing annually. The sliding scale is based on feedback from business operators that a return on a business can take up to six years to realise. Applicants must have a business case for their development and progress reports must be submitted to Council each year to secure the next year’s remission.



Staff comment:

Six submitters provided comments on this provision. Three submitters suggested the use of external assessor with experience in Māori land, business and organisation development to assist in assessing applications made under this provision. Staff believe this could be considered as part of operationalising the policy.

One submitter questions how incentives for Māori freehold land compare with other economic development activities and asks if it is equitable to other Council incentive policies. Staff acknowledge that one of Council’s strategic priorities is the return of Māori freehold land to productive use, and this policy has been created to support that direction. There is no rating relief available for incentivisation of economic development on general title land, other than Treaty Settlement land.

One submitter would like the requirement for the applicant to provide annual reports and financial statements as this discriminates against Māori. The submitter also wishes to know if this is a requirement for non-Māori land. As mentioned above, getting Māori freehold land into productive use is the objective behind this policy provision. Annual reporting requirements are to provide transparency for the benefit of those ratepayers who are sharing the rating burden so that this provision can be offered. There is no rating relief available on general title land other than Treaty Settlement land.

One submitter requests a few amendments to these provisions, including changing it from a remission to a postponement and making the reporting requirements stricter, including payment of postponed rates if conditional reporting has not been complete. Staff believe the provisions and conditions in the policy are adequate in meeting the strategic imperative of incentivising Māori economic development and believe that taking these ideas on board may in fact pose a risk of alienating Māori freehold land.

It is generally thought that the financial implications of this policy would directly offset against reductions in the remissions under the rating relief for Māori Freehold Land Not Used policy. Some applications previously declined under the unused/unoccupied land policy may become eligible under this policy but the quantum is un-known.

Rating relief for landlocked land

The intention of this policy is to provide relief where land has no reasonable access and the ratepayer cannot afford to take legal action. This policy was formerly known as Postponement of rates on Landlocked General Title Land. The review of the provisions of the original policy resulted in two changes:

• Definition of “landlocked land” updated to match that in the Property Law Act 2007. The updated definition does not require landowners to explore access potential by sea before a property is deemed landlocked.

• Scope has been extended to include Māori Freehold Land.

Staff comment:

Two submitters commented on this policy. One requested that the requirement to repay postponed rates on land that has ceased to be landlocked be removed, stating that this would be unaffordable. Staff recommend the amendment of condition 5 so that if the land ceases to be landlocked during a postponement, postponed rates will not become repayable as long as the owner keeps current and future rates up to date.

One submitter would like Council to commit to co-developing with Runanga a rating formula that supports the development of landlocked Māori land. Staff believe this should be considered as an operational matter.

The financial implications of this policy are felt to be negligible as there are currently less than two accounts to which this would apply. Again, remissions that may previously have been approved under the un-occupied/unused Māori Freehold Land policy may now qualify under this policy so the increase should be offset by reduction in remissions under that policy



Rating relief for land subject to protection for outstanding natural landscape, cultural, historic or ecological purposes

This single provision provides for both the remission and postponement of rates on land subject to protection for outstanding landscape, cultural, historic or ecological purposes. Formerly remission and postponement provisions were separate policies. Aside from amalgamating the postponement and remission policies, the scope of formal protection agreements was expanded to include Nga Whenua Rahui kawenata under section 77A of the Reserves Act 1977 to recognise that this is a legitimate form of protection.

Staff comment:

Two submitters commented on this provision, both requesting that condition 5 be removed as it states that protected land will be partially rated if it is being used, which is contradictory. In response staff agree that condition five could be amended to read “Remission or postponement will only apply to the protected portion of the rating unit”.

The current financial implications of these policies are $433k and the changes proposed are not expected to significantly increase this requirement.

Rating relief for Māori Freehold Land Not Used

Formerly the Remission of Rates on Unoccupied Māori Freehold Land policy, the purpose of this provision is to enable Council to, upon application from the owners, authorised agents of the owners, or Council itself acting for the owners, remit the rates on such unused land for a period not exceeding three year. The purpose of this provision is to not only provide rating relief on MFL under multiple ownership that are not used but to avoid further alienation of Māori Freehold Land as a result of financial pressures that may be brought by the imposition of rates on unoccupied land.

Staff comment:

Six submitters commented on this provision. Three would like clarification that Māori trusts and incorporations are not treated as a sole entity under Māori Freehold Land Not Used and would like trusts and incorporations to be recognised as forms of multiple ownership. Council already considers Māori trusts and incorporations to be a form of multiple ownership. One submitter requests that paragraph 2 of the background in this provision be removed as it is contradictory to economic incentives. The paragraph mentioned outlines the challenges that form the basis of the policy, but does not make the assumption that all Māori freehold land is not useable. The ultimate goal is to move Māori freehold land from this policy to the Incentivising Māori Economic Development policy.

One submitter suggested that the ownership threshold be adjusted from sole ownership to four owners or more, although staff acknowledge that the same challenges of multiple ownership may persist with as few as two owners.

One submitter is concerned that the term “unoccupied” is undefined and that it implies abandonment. In response to this comment staff believe the term “unoccupied” should be replaced with “not used”.

The current financial implication of this policy is $1.4m. It is thought that this may reduce if the other policies are approved and applicants move to alternate policies. However, the overall impact is not thought to be significant.

Rating relief for New Users of Māori Freehold Land

Formerly the Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land policy, the purpose of this provision is to enable Council to postpone the arrears of rates on MFL subject to the land being continuously used by a new user and that person agreeing to pay the rates while they are using the land. This removes the barrier of rate debt for new users to be able to use or develop the land.

In reviewing the policy, provision was included for a sole-owner to be treated as a new user with rates arrears postponed as well, where the land was previously in multiple ownership. This recognises that the nature of multiple ownership can create a rates debt that may be passed on to a sole owner.



Staff comment:

Five submitters commented on this provision. Three would like the policy to enable a new user to start from zero, i.e. not be held accountable for any arrears on the land. The policy does in fact allow this, but requires that, in the interest of fairness to all ratepayers, the new user demonstrate a commitment to Council before the debt can be wiped.

One submitter asks for provisions for the new user keeping current and future rates up to date, and that postponements be automatically applied if current and future rates are not paid within one month of due dates. The submitter believes these conditions conflict with economic incentives and discriminates in situations where the land is not general title. As alluded to earlier, in fairness to ratepayers the new user must demonstrate a commitment to Council before the debt can be wiped. There are no policies that postpone or remit rates for new users of general title land outside of Treaty Settlement Lands.

One submitter asked for clarification about the term “user”, suggesting it be extended to include the plural. The Definitions section of the policy suite contains the statement that “For the purpose of these policies, words used in the singular include the plural, and words used in the plural include the singular. Staff therefore believe further clarification is unnecessary.

The current financial implications of this policy are approximately $200k and it is not thought that the proposed changes to the policy will significantly change this position.

Rating relief for Papakainga on Māori Freehold Land

The former Remission of Rates on Māori Freehold Land was used in relation to Papakainga or other housing purposes subject to occupation licenses and other informal arrangements. The policy allows for the remission of multiple UAGCs and other charges for separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit which are subject to a licence to occupy or other informal arrangement. This allows the residents with occupation licenses or other informal arrangements to pay their portion of the rates. In general the policy assists Māori to establish papakainga or similar housing on MFL and to establish an economic base for future development.

In reviewing this policy the only changes was aligning the definition of Papakainga to the District Plan.

Staff comment:

Five comments were received on this topic. Three would like clarification of what would happen if one occupier falls behind in the payment of their rates, asking if this would result in the remission being cancelled for the rest of the papakainga. In response to this comment staff recommend that condition 5 be amended to “Council reserves the right to cancel the remission on the portion of a rating unit upon which rates remain unpaid for a period of more than one month after the due date”.

One submitter expressed concern that if Council could cancel a remission after if rates remain unpaid more than one month after the due date this could cause arrears that would be very difficult for the ratepayer to clear. Staff offer the clarification that remission means the debt is absolved. If a remission is cancelled the occupier is simply made liable for the full rating amount going forward, not for rates that have already been remitted.

One submitter believes that for this provision the share of rates should include a share of the single UAGC on the land, and that such division could be made based on land values. This is current practice and is clearly outlined in the policy.

The current financial implications of this policy is $81k. It is not thought that the changes proposed will significantly affect this position

Rating relief for Residential Rates for Senior Citizens

Formerly part of the Postponement of Rates on Residential Land, this provision enables Council to postpone rates for ratepayers whose primary income is NZ Super. Postponement is in effect until settlement of the ratepayers estate, if the ratepayer sells the property, if the property is no longer their



primary residence, the accrued charges exceed 80% of the rateable value of the property, or a date specified by Council. In reviewing this policy the following changes were made:

• New requirements for eligibility, namely a fixed income (NZ Super)

• The ratepayer is now responsible for the maximum amount that could be obtained through a rates rebate. The rationale for this change is that if a ratepayer is eligible for the Government’s rates rebate contribution they should be using the rebate to pay a portion of their rates

• Postponement now only applies to the primary place of residence and does not apply to holiday homes. This is consistent with the objective of the policies to ensure equity where possible.

Staff comment:

Two submitters provided comments. One requests that these policies take into account the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Act, which allows retirement village residents to apply for a rates rebate. The submitter requests that Council provide for the remission of rates for the tenants of the Duffus Memorial Trust and for trusts operating in a similar manner. Staff believe that the policies do indeed align with the potential amendment and that they do not preclude anyone from applying for relief based on their eligibility status for the Rates Rebate Scheme.

Another submitter argues that everyone should pay rates, and senior citizens have other entitlements on a pension that are available to them.

In the 2016/17 financial year, 1069 people aged 65 years and over were granted a rates rebate. Of these, 79 were in rates arrears, 55 of which had not agreed a payment arrangement with Council. An assumption can be made that those eligible for a rates rebate are likely to provide for their basic needs before paying their rates, Council would need to make provision for approximately $85,745 annually. As this is a postponement policy, this money would be returned to Council as estates are settled. This amount will increase with the district’s increasing population of superannuates and should be reviewed as part of the annual budgeting process.

Rating relief for Treaty Settlement Lands

This is a new policy that recognises that post-settlement governance entities which are formed to receive properties returned as a part of Treaty settlements will require time to develop strategic plans, restore protections and complete necessary works for cultural and commercial redress properties. These properties can be classed as General Title, which means that the rating relief policies for MFL do not apply to all of them.

Staff comment:

Four submitters commented on this provision.

Two submitters would like condition three amended to (addition in italics): “Returned lands that were non-rateable under the previous ownership will receive a full rates remission for a period of three years. Council may consider renewing the rating relief upon receipt of further applications from the owners.” The reason for the request is that cultural redress lands returned that were previously non-rateable under DOC ownership and that provide no pecuniary advantage to iwi should continue as non-rateable. Staff argue that three years is sufficient time for protection to be restored or for the owner to convert the title to MFL and apply for relief under another policy.

One submitter also requested a change to the condition to “Returned lands that were non-rateable as per Schedule 1 of the Local Government Rating Act will receive a full rates remission and remain non-rateable unless the land use changes to an activity that makes it rateable.” Their rationale is that cultural redress lands returned that were previously non-rateable under DOC ownership and give no pecuniary advantage to iwi should continue as non-rateable. Again, staff consider that three years is sufficient time for protection to be restored or the title to be converted so that they can apply for relief under another policy. Council is not able to classify land as “non-rateable”.



One submitter does not believe that MFL and Treaty Settlement Land should be treated as related. Staff point out that this is the reason for separating the provisions for MFL from Treaty Settlement Lands, recognising that not all Treaty Settlement Land is MFL and would not be covered by other MFL policies.

Council is not currently receiving rates from these lands prior to settlement. The purpose of the policy is to provide the PSGEs with time to determine the future use of the land post-settlement. This is likely to have an initial impact on rates that will decrease over time. Outstanding debt from these properties will decrease as rating units are developed.

Rating relief for Water Charges on Government Funded Subsidy Schemes

Formerly the Remission of Sewerage Charges on Schemes Funded by Government Subsidy Schemes, this policy provision has been separated for ease of reference. It allows Council to provide a remission for the capital portion of the wastewater charge for new schemes funded by the Government Subsidy Scheme where the deprivation index of that community is seven or higher. No significant changes have been made to this policy, only minor wording amendments.

Staff comment:

Two submitters commented on this topic. One questions the need for the policy given subsidy conditions will include the requirement for the benefit to be passed onto the ratepayers of the subsidised scheme. The other requests that condition 3 be amended so that remission does not terminate upon change of ownership, as tis will produce inequitable results. Staff recommend that this amendment be made, as the remission is for the property, not for the individual.

There have been no remissions under this policy for many years. There are only two capital schemes that are qualifying for capital subsidy in the water activities within the proposed LTP and it is unlikely that this will increase in the future as the subsidy programmes have been withdrawn.

Rating Relief for Penalties

The former Remission of Penalties policy has been reviewed. The policy enables Council to remit rates penalties where the application provides a good reason for the remission. This is considered useful for situations where the ratepayer has entered into repayment arrangements or there are other reasonable grounds for removing the penalty. No significant changes have been made apart from minor wording amendments.

Staff comment:

No submitters commented on this topic.

There are no financial implications that have not already been budgeted for.

Rating relief policy revocations

The new suite of remission and postponement policies proposed revocation of the following:

• Remission of Additional Penalties. Policy is now redundant following Council resolution in 2015 to cease charging and remit all additional penalties outstanding on rates accounts prior to 30 June 2015.

• Remission of Postponed Rates. All policies now contain a condition that once postponed rates reach the maximum term they will be remitted. Policy is now redundant.

• Remission of Rates on Land that has made Lump Sum Contributions. Council does not have any claims for remissions under this policy and there are no lump sum contribution schemes. If there were future provision for lump sum contributions Council automatically applies a remission. The policy is now redundant.

• Transitional Policy for the Postponement of Rates on Farmland. Eleven properties are subject to this policy and have existing agreements with Council. Since the policy does not provide for new applications, it is redundant.

Staff comment:



One submitter commented on this, stating their concern that proposed revocation of the current Remissions rates on land that has made lump sum contributions policy will leave the Kohukohu community in a difficult position. Staff reiterate that future remissions would be automatically applied by Council should they arise.

Kath I think we need a paragraph in here about adopting as one policy or adopting parts or not adopting at all until the rating review.

The staff recommendation(s) for the issue is:

2.3a) That Council approves an amendment to the Community, Sports and Not-for-Profit Organisations provision, replacing the term “owned or used by” with “owned or used by, and for the purposes of”. 2.3b) That Council approve operating budget of $100,000 per year to cover the expected level of applications under the Community, Sports and Not-for-Profit Organisations provision. 2.3c) That Council approve operating budget of $100,000 per year to cover the expected level of applications under the Extreme Financial Hardship provision. 2.3d) That Council approves an amendment to the Landlocked Land provision, condition 5, to state that if the land ceases to be landlocked during a postponement, postponed rates will not become repayable as long as the owner keeps current and future rates up to date. 2.3e) That Council approves an amendment to the Land Subject to Protection for Outstanding Natural Landscape, Cultural, Historic or Ecological Purposes, condition 5, be amended to state that the remission or postponement will only apply to the protected portion of the rating unit. 2.3f) That Council approves an amendment to the Māori Freehold Land Not Used provisions to remove the term “unoccupied” and replacing with “not used”. 2.3g) That Council approves an amendment to the Papakainga on Māori Freehold Land provisions, condition 5, to now read “Council reserves the right to cancel the remission on the portion of a rating unit upon which rates remain unpaid for a period of more than one month after the due date”. 2.3h) That Council approves an amendment to the Water Charges on Government Funded Subsidy Schemes provisions to clarify that the remission does not terminate upon change of ownership. 2.3i) That Council adopt the Rating Policies as amended. 2.3j) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the strategy prior to its publication.



2.4. Significance and Engagement Policy

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 38






The majority of submitters on the subject agreed with the changes proposed to Council’s policy on Significance and Engagement. Common comments were:

• The impact on rates should be used as the financial threshold. Staff note that if the impact on rates is used a project with significant expenditure may not be consulted upon if it does not result in a rates increase.

• Engagement with tangata whenua is not addressed in enough depth by the policy.

• Supportive of the policy changes and encourages better communication with communities and a higher level of engagement with information presented with honesty and transparency.

Staff comment:

Feedback on the proposed policy supports adoption with no changes, recognising the future work required to develop a framework for engagement with Māori that will supplement the policy.


2.4a) That Council adopts the Significance and Engagement policy as proposed. 2.4b) That Council delegate the CEO authority to make any final minor edits to the policy prior to its publication.



2.5. Community Outcomes

Respondents:



Te Hiku ward 59



Agree with proposed Community Outcomes 283 76%

Disagree with proposed Community Outcomes 90 24%


Although the majority of submitters on this matter agreed with the proposed community outcomes, some had reservations, including:

• Te Iwi Māori, tangata whenua or hapu are non-existent in outcomes

• They don’t go far enough; equity and affordability are real concerns

• Agree in principle but not sure they are achievable

• No Māori representatives involved in the decision-making about community outcomes.

Submitters who do not agree with the proposed community outcomes say that the purpose of local government is very clear in the Local Government Act and our community outcomes should reflect only that purpose. Others also said that the outcomes should acknowledge that basic needs must be met within the constraint of people’s ability to pay.

A number of submitters suggested the following amendments to the outcomes:

Proposed Suggested amendment

Community outcome 1:

Liveable communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

Suggestion:

Liveable Habitable communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

Community outcome 2: Suggestion:



Proposed Suggested amendment ‘Can do’ communities prepared for the unexpected

‘Can do’ Connected and engaged communities prepared for the unexpected

Community outcome 3: Proud, vibrant communities

Suggestion: Proud, vibrant communities supported and contributing to a growing local and regional economy

Community outcome 4: Prosperous communities supported by a growing economy

Suggestion: Prosperous communities supported by a growing economy that support local, sustainable and innovative products and services’ Suggestion: Prosperous communities supported by a growing sustainable economy

Community outcome 5: A wisely managed and treasured environment

Suggestion: A wisely managed and treasured environment in conjunction with tangata whenua

Staff comment:

In reviewing submitter comments, staff make the following comments:

• Outcome 1: The term “habitable” implies a minimum standard, while “liveable” is much more than a minimum standard. Staff suggest retaining the term “liveable”.

• Changing “can do” in outcome 2 to “connected and engaged” is an improvement on what was proposed. Staff suggest making this change.

• Extending outcome 3 to include “supported and contributing to a growing local and regional economy” makes the outcome longer than it needs to be. Staff believe this sentiment is encompassed in the other outcomes and this amendment is not necessary.

• Changing “growing” to “sustainable” in outcome 4 is an improvement; it recognises that an endlessly growing economy is not possible, and aligns with Council’s vision

• Specifically identifying tangata whenua as a collaborative partner in outcome 5 recognises the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki, although the intent is not as much about collaboration with tangata whenua as it is about the philosophy of kaitiaki. Staff therefore recommend amendment of outcome 5 to: “A wisely managed and treasured environment that recognises the special role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki”.


2.5a) That Council make no change to Community Outcome 1. 2.5b) That Council amend Community Outcome 2 to read “Connected and engaged communities prepared for the unexpected”. 2.5c) That Council make no change to Community Outcome 3. 2.5d) That Council amend Community Outcome 4 to read “Prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy”. 2.5e) That Council amend Community Outcome 5 to read “A wisely managed and treasured environment that recognises the special role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki.



2.6. Wastewater Drainage Bylaw

This is the second time we have consulted on this bylaw. Initially, public consultation under the Special Consultative Procedure ran from 26 June 2017 to 21 July 2017. Hearings took place on 21 September 2017. Following Council agreement, an extended round of consultation took place from 5 March to 4 April 2018 at the same time as the LTP was being consulted on.

Six submissions were received in relation to the proposed bylaw. Two submitters spoke at hearings.

Of the six submissions, one was in support of the proposed Bylaw, four were opposed to the proposed Bylaw, and one did not directly indicate whether they supported or opposed the proposed Bylaw.

Comments from submitters expressed the following concerns:

• Pumping chambers on private land should be owned by property owners (2 comments)

• Establishing easements on residential properties to provide for Council-owned pumping stations is costly and creates compliance issues (3 comments)

• Subdivision criteria must be considered in the bylaw (1 comment)

• Any contractor should be able to apply to Council to carry out PWC installations, as using only one can cause transparency issues (1 comment)

• Existing buildings will be subject to the bylaw (1 comment)

• A zone of influence could extend to a neighbouring property and potentially restrict building on said neighbouring property (1 comment)

• The term “structure” is not defined in the bylaw (2 comments)

• Council must know what is going into the wastewater system and needs to get good value for money without too much red tape (1 comment).

Staff comment:

Staff believe that consistency of application of wastewater drainage rules is important, and that exceptions to rules can lead to confusion, delays and mistakes in emergency situations such as sewer spills. It is for these reasons that the bylaw proposes that ownership and maintenance of low pressure sewer pump stations be placed with Council.

Section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 gives Council the ability to build public drains on private property and access rights for inspection, maintenance or repair of the drain/sewer without easement. Rights of entry are supplemented by sections 182 and 186. The submitters concerns regarding the costliness of easements for wastewater asset purposes is noted but no change is required to the bylaw as a result.

Staff note the submitters concerns about subdivision criteria and clarify that these criteria are outlined in the District Plan.

Council’s procurement processes ensure that all suitably qualified people have the opportunity contract to Council for the purpose of installing pressure wastewater collection and disposal systems for the purpose of delivering domestic wastewater from individual properties to the wastewater network.

The bylaw applies to buildings constructed after the bylaw comes into force, and does not have a retrospective effect on any lawfully constructed buildings prior to the commencement of the bylaw.

Amendments to the Statement of Proposal that was adopted for the extended consultation on this bylaw eliminate the issues raised regarding restriction of building and the definition of the term “structure”.

On the basis of the above comments, staff believe no further changes to the proposed bylaw are required.




2.6a) That Council adopt the Wastewater Drainage Bylaw with the following amendments: − Amend clause 2.2 to read No person other than licenced drainlayers or authorised agents of the

Council shall, without approval, make any connection to or otherwise interfere with any part of the Council’s wastewater drainage system.

− Remove the definitions for Buried Services, Infiltration, Inflow and Trunk Main, as they no longer appear in the proposed Bylaw:

2.6b) That Council delegate authority to the CEO to make any final minor edits prior to publication.



3. Submissions on Roading and Footpaths

3.1. West Coast Rd, Panguru flood mitigation

Five submissions were received from concerned residents of the affected area supporting the Panguru road raising flood mitigation works and asking that the works be completed as soon as possible. All of the submitters spoke at hearings, and included a delegation from the school, Te Kura Taumata o Panguru, who expressed their concern at the frequency of flooding and the impact that not being able to get to school at those times has on their education.

Staff comment:

The project known as “Panguru Road Raising” is a joint initiative between FNDC and NRC, supplemented with a working party that includes local stakeholders. At this point, both organisations are assuming that the solution will involve some combination of flood channel re-routing to pre-1999 watercourses, estuarine clearing and road works, however this cannot be confirmed until engineering studies, flood modelling and design have been completed.

Proposed in FNDC’s LTP is funding of $208,000 capex and $300,000 opex in 2020/21 (a total of just over $500,000 inflated). NRC’s LTP funding of $440,000 is allocated to 2022/23. Costs at this point would not be confirmed until engineering design is complete.

Announcements relating to the new (draft) Government Policy Statement (GPS) for roading indicate that a successful bid for subsidy may be possible. However, the GPS is in its first draft, so we are some way away from being able to put in an application and therefore should be proceeding with awareness of the GPS but not as a definitive fact.

FNDC staff propose that priority needs to be given to the preliminary work for this project, and acknowledge that while a retrospective NZTA subsidy request may not be successful, believe that prioritising action will strengthen the relationship between Council and the affected community.

FNDC staff consider that flood modelling and design could be completed in six months based on all information available to date. Consenting is estimated to take a further 12 month period. Depending on decisions around the degree of public consultation required (determined by NRC as the consenting authority) and the outcomes of the ecological assessment, the consenting could at best be reduced from 12 to six months. With a low risk of re-work, a three month consultation on the proposed design with the affected community could be completed concurrently with the consent applications.

Commencing early 2018/19 requires both parties, FNDC and NRC, to allocate sufficient funding for engineering design work, community consultation and consenting in 2018/19, with construction funds allocated in 2019/20. NRC has been asked to consider re-timing of the project in their LTP, but agreement to this has not yet been received. Both parties, FNDC and NRC, will bid for NZTA subsidy and if successful budgets will be reviewed in the 2019/20 annual plan.

The rating impact of commencing the design work in 2018/19 is neutral. Activities will be funded from the existing 2018/19 operating budget, with the work plan for subsequent years amended to affect the swap.


3.1a) That Council approve the retiming of the Panguru Road Raising project to start preliminary work (engineering design and consenting) in 2018/19;

3.1b) That Council approve the reallocation of capital funding for the Panguru Road Raising project of $208,000 from 2020/21 to 2019/20, acknowledging that this timing is a best case scenario dependent on outside factors and alignment with NRC (i.e. consent applications);

3.1c) That Council agrees to seek a retrospective subsidy from NZTA for the Panguru Road Raising project.



3.2. Development of the Kerikeri road network

During consultation, Council provided supplementary information regarding proposed major roading initiatives in the Kerikeri area. These were:

• The South-Eastern Bypass, a 1km road linking the Mill Lane industrial area with Maraenui Drive.

• The Kerikeri Ring Road, joining Butler and Clark roads, creating an extension of the one-way system in the CBD.

• The Waipiro-Waipapa link, a 2km road linking Waipapa Road and Kapiro Road in the vicinity of Doonside Road, providing easier access to Kerikeri for northern residents and reducing expected increased traffic on Landing Road.

• Various road extensions in Waipapa, including Klinac Lane to Waipapa Loop Road (connecting to the new roundabout on State Highway 10), a new Klinac Lane North Road eventually linking Koropewa Road to the business park at Waipapa, and a southern extension to Kahikatearoa Road.

85 submissions were received in specific response to these roading projects. 64 submitters registered their support for the proposals, but in some cases offered alternative routes to those specified. Many of these submitters, including those who are resident on Maraenui Drive, feel that the South-Eastern bypass should link with State Highway 10, not only to avoid additional traffic activity on Maraenui Drive and consequently Kerikeri Road, but to divert traffic from Kerikeri township which they understand to be the primary purpose of the bypass.

Those opposed felt that Council should focus on fixing current roads before building new ones, and in many cases said they felt rural roads should receive more funding than urban roads. Some did, however, feel that Kerikeri’s roading requirements legitimately need attention, but so does the rest of the District. One submitter opposed the proposed Kerikeri works and did not give any reason. One submitter was undecided; he felt more planning and consultation is required. There were a small number of comments that said Kerikeri gets more than its fair share of Council budgets, including roading budgets, and generally agreed that there could be some merit to this but that the rest of the District has needs too, and these must be addressed.

Staff comment:

There appears to be significant support for the proposed further development and implementation of the road projects identified in the Long Term Plan (LTP) and arising from the Kerikeri Waipapa Structure Plan and Strategic Road Network Plan. It must be noted that the routes suggested in the LTP and the plans are very preliminary and are more indicative of general connection points than specific routes. Significant technical, planning and consultation work will be necessary to verify the need for the roads, to identify viable routes and to confirm appropriate construction timescales. Traffic modelling will be a key process that will soon commence to answer these questions.

The suggested connection of the South Eastern Bypass direct to State Highway 10 features in the Road Network Plan for construction in 2035 but indicates a connection with Maraenui Drive and connecting with SH10 south of Bulls Gorge. The potential alternative connections to SH10 will be investigated further during the forthcoming traffic modelling and technical development stages but will require careful consideration of the issues around close proximity of the existing SH10 roundabout and the potential land use planning issues around what is one of the North Islands most fertile and valuable Rural Production Orcharding zones.


3.2a) That Council note the submissions but make no change to the proposals relating to major Kerikeri roading initiatives in the LTP 2018-28 roading budgets until such time as traffic studies and business cases have been concluded.



3.2b) That Council confirms its intention to develop a district wide roading strategy as proposed in the draft Infrastructure Strategy and Asset Management Plans.

3.3. Road sealing

Approximately 60 submissions addressed the topic of road sealing. Multiple submissions were received from Te Hapua and Kohukohu communities calling for sealing in their areas. The table below lists all sealing requests.

Residents of Inlet Road in Kerikeri (4 submitters) and Ruaroa Road in Kaitaia (3 submitters) wish to have their roads sealed under Council’s Community Initiated Infrastructure Roading Contribution policy.

# subs # subs Te Hapua Rd, Te Hapua 9 Paparore Rd, Waiharara 1 Waiparera Marae, Kohukohu 7 Heath Rd, Waiharara 1 Inlet Rd Kerikeri (400m) 4 Quarry Rd Kaitaia 1 Ruaroa Rd, Kaitaia 3 Rangihouia Rd, Te Tii 1 Waikare Rd, Russell 3 Ngapuhi Rd, Kaikohe 1 Horeke toTaheke road 2 Rarawa Beach Rd, Ngataki 1 Baylys Rd, Waitangi 2 Henderson Bay, Houhora 1 Koutu Loop Rd, Whirinaki 2 Kimberley Rd, Houhora 1 Waiotemarama Gorge Rd, Opononi 2 Runaruna Rd, Panguru 1 Okahu Loop Rd, Kaitaia (300m) 1 shipwreck Bay Rd, Shipwreck Bay 1 Fairburn Rd, Kaitaia 1 Wharepunga Rd, Hokianga 1 Kokohuia Rd, Omapere (500m) 1 Lodore Rd, Okaihau 1 Waiotamarama Gorge Rd, Hokianga 1 Omaunu Rd, Kaeo 1 Mill, Noy & Settlement Rds (Kawakawa)

1 Potter St, Kohukohu 1

Ngataki Rd, Ngataki 1 Station Rd, Kawakawa and domain to greenacre

1

Ninihi Rd, Taheke 1 Whangae Rd, Kawakawa 1 Otaua Rd-Wharepunga Rd, Hokianga 1

Comments regarding unsealed roads were varied:

• Spend more on sealing gravel roads, particularly where there is a dust nuisance or where the road serves a tourist destination

• The road between Broadwood and Kaitaia needs to be made a state highway as traffic volumes are high.

• There needs to be more focus and spending on maintaining the roads we already have.

Staff comment:

The NTA has a prioritised list that details the roads in the Northland region that are the most impacted by dust, and for each the extent of the impact (including the length of road and the number of houses affected).

NTA’s approach to sealing or partially sealing a road is to work through the list, seeking subsidy from NZTA where this can be justified through a business case. Many of the roads submitters have asked us to seal are not on the priority list simply because there are others in a worse state.

Sealing roads increases maintenance costs. The current maintenance cost per kilometre is around $2,000 (average) per km for an unsealed road and $5,000 (average) per km for a sealed road. For every 100km of road we seal there is an increase in maintenance cost of approximately $300,000.



Co-funding the sealing roads under the Community Initiated Infrastructure Roading Contribution policy requires Council to consult with those ratepayers in the proposed area of benefit and to secure their agreement to either a targeted rate or lump sum contributions. If the ratepayers choose to proceed with a targeted rate Council must set this rate through a Long Term Plan (or an amendment to a current Long Term Plan). The process for setting a targeted rate and/or accepting lump sum contributions from ratepayers is prescribed in the Local Government Rating Act 2002. The process, while not arduous, can take some time.


3.3a) That Council initiates consultation with affected ratepayers to confirm the decision to co-fund the sealing of 400m of Inlet Road Kerikeri.

3.3b) That Council initiates consultation with affected ratepayers to confirm the decision to co-fund the sealing of 1.95km of Ruaroa Road Kaitaia from RP3050 to RP5000.

3.3c) That Council notes all other submissions and that no changes be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

3.4. Footpaths

We received approximately 50 submissions regarding footpaths across the District. While several submitters expressed concern about the state of footpaths in various areas (particularly Kaitaia, Awanui, Opua and Paihia), many requested new paths in the following areas:

- Karikari Peninsula

- Tasman Heights, Ahipara

- Shipwreck Bay

- Waipapa Landing Bridge to Kapiro Road

- Skudders Beach to Kapiro Road, Kerikeri

- Watea to Haruru, Paihia

- Ngatiki/Rarawa Beach – to urupa and school

- Te Hapua

- Pakanae Village to Opononi

- Taumatawiwi St, Opononi

- Taumatawiwi St - Fairlie Cres - bowling club, Omapere

- Signal Station Road, Omapere

- South Head/Arai Te Uru

- Reinga Road peninsula, Kerikeri

- Ward Drive, Opua

- Mill Road, Kawakawa

- Kent Bay – Lewers Access, Whangaroa

- SH10 from Kaeo Fire Station – Omaunu Road, Kaeo

- Whangaroa village general store to motel

Note that those who submitted on a Waipapa Landing bridge to Kapiro Road footpath believed that a dual-purpose one for cyclists and pedestrians would improve safety.

One submitter from the Hokianga requests an annual allocation of funding for a set amount of new footpath to be constructed in Rawene to enable this community’s footpath requirements to be met over 10 years.

Staff comment:

The majority of suggestions for new footpaths have already been identified, added to the district footpath database, evaluated and prioritised. The resulting highest priority sites have been confirmed by the Community Boards for the next three years but we welcome all suggestions for additional footpaths and will evaluate and advise the Community Boards of any sites that are considered sufficiently high priority to warrant consideration of adjustment to the programmed list.



With regard to the current state of footpaths, we have limited resource to identify, programme and undertake repair works. We have therefore initiated a district-wide footpath condition rating assessment survey. The results of this survey will be evaluated and prioritised to ensure that maintenance works and budgets target the most needed areas, especially those locations that present a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists.

The annual district-wide budget set aside for new footpaths is currently unofficially shared equally by the three Community Boards and they can decide where they wish their share to be spent. Any request for an annual allocation of funding for a specific area would need to be submitted to the respective Community Board for their consideration.


3.4a) That Council note the submissions, add new footpath proposals to the district footpaths database and advise Community Boards of the additions and advise their associated ranking.

3.5. Parking

Approximately 20 submissions were received regarding car parking in three locations, with 11 discussing parking in Kerikeri, five discussing parking in Paihia and two discussing boat trailer parking in Opononi and Omapere. Submitters said:

• Kerikeri carparking is reaching crisis point. Its often impossible to find a park and the situation is only going to get worse with continued growth. Suggestions ranged from a private/public partnership parking building in the CBD, a public transport route and carparks outside of the CBD and a shuttle service.

• Paihia needs more parking facilities, including dedicated off-street mobility parking and short-term pick up/drop off parking.

• Boat trailer parking is an issue in Opononi and Omapere. People turn their vehicles and boat trailers in people’s driveways as across the state highway, which is not ideal. A suggestion was made that reclamation of the seafront in specific areas for this purpose would be a good idea.

Staff comment:

We acknowledge that parking in some of our larger towns can be difficult during busy periods but the 2016 parking survey data suggests we are not yet at the stage where new parking facilities are required. Work is therefore underway on an update to the parking bylaw and a review of roadside parking time limits in all our districts CBD's as part of a broader Parking Management Strategy. It is hoped that this process will identify opportunities to free up more public parking spaces and better cater for peak season demand.

We recognise that one of the many benefits of active transport modes such as walking and cycling is a reduction in the number of motor vehicles that need to be parked in our towns. We aim to promote this concept through the Walking and Cycling Strategy which is currently being developed.

We also have a strategic road network plan that is about to be tested through traffic counting and modelling. This should provide data to confirm which traffic issues require addressing first.

Access for disability is considered a fundamental aspect of all transport, parking and district facility activities and projects. Roading staff work closely with the Disability Action Group to identify and resolve access issues including appropriate numbers and siting of Mobility Parking spaces.

Shortage of boat trailer parking is an acknowledged issue throughout the district. FNDC is working closely with Far North Holdings as manager of our marine facilities to find appropriate solutions. In the case of Opononi and Omapere, we are also working closely with the local Ratepayers and Residents Association and NZTA to ensure that boat trailer parking is incorporated into the developed Corridor Plan, sea wall rehabilitation project and the FNHL led reclamation / boat ramp realignment project.




3.5a) That Council note the submissions and make no change to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan as a result.

3.6. Hokianga ferry

Four submissions were received about the Hokianga Ferry, requesting the following:

• Limiting any fare increases because there has been little maintenance undertaken

• Increasing the frequency of ferry crossings and running later at night for evening events and in summer

• Revisiting the proposal to extend Motukiore Rd to the western end of the Narrows and link vehicle and cycle traffic to the Horeke Peninsula

• Accelerating the development of the Long Term Harbour Crossing strategy.

Staff comment:

Council receives a subsidy from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for the cost of running the ferry service. A condition of receiving this subsidy is that a formal fare review be carried out by Council once every three years, to ensure that revenue received is sufficient to recover costs, without unfair compromise to the local community. The last review, completed in May 2017, resulted in no fare increase. The next review will be carried out in the 2018/19 financial year with the resulting fees in place for the 2019/20 financial year.

Levels of service and fares have been discussed with the Hokianga Ferry Liaison Group over the past year or so. Any increases to levels of service (such as later and/or more frequent sailings) will have a cost implication. Because the ferry is subsidised by the NZTA, Council would need to ask to review the current conditions of the funding arrangement, and there would need a clear rationale for recommending a change. In the meantime, during peak periods the ferry shuttles run continuously to minimize and clear queuing traffic.

The proposal to extend Motukiore Rd is to be considered as part of the Long Term Strategy for the Hokianga Harbour crossing. Council notes the request to accelerate this strategy. The potential for increased levels of service will be examined as part of this strategy development.


3.6a) That staff accelerate work on the Long Term Strategy for the Hokianga Harbour Crossing, with continued liaison with the Hokianga Ferry Liaison Group

3.6b) That Council notes all submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

3.7. State Highway designation

Three submitters requested that the roads from Kohukohu to Herekino and Rawene to Kaitaia via Broadwood be designated state highways by NZTA given that they are tourist routes that are heavily used.

Staff comment:

NZTA makes recommendations to the Ministry of Transport on state highways. These requests should be referred to NZTA for review.




3.7a) That Council refers the requests for Kohukohu to Herekino and Rawene to Kaitaia via Broadwood to be designated state highways to NZTA.

3.8. Speed restrictions

Nine submitters requested speed restrictions or roading assets to reduce vehicular speeds.

Specific requests were received for speed restrictions at the following locations:

• Kapiro Rd

• Te Kao

• Puketona Rd

• Heritage Rd roundabout and Landing Rd, Kerikeri

• Kerikeri to Opito Bay

Four submitters requested judder bars/speed humps or roundabouts to control speed in the following locations:

• Ninihi Rd-Otaua Rd, Wharepunga

• Bonnets & Lake Rds, Kaitaia

• Wynyard St & Nisbet St, Moerewa (particularly in the vicinity of the Nisbet St playground)

Staff comment:

Safe speeds are a key component of the Safe System approach to road safety, and are a key pillar in Safer Journeys, New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020. More information about Safer Journeys and the safe system approach to road safety can be found at: www.saferjourneys.govt.nz

Speed limits are one form of speed management.

A new approach to limit setting was recently introduced and uses an assessment framework that produces evidence-based maps using nationally-consistent data sets showing travel speeds, road risk and road classification. The Speed Management Guide assists road controlling authorities to implement the new speed limit setting approach and includes the new assessment and engagement frameworks for speed management. The Guide can be found at https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Safety/docs/speed-management-resources/speed-management-guide-first-edition-201611.pdf

Council, as the road controlling authority, must consider mandatory criteria when reviewing speed limits. Speed limits (other than default speed limits) must be made using a bylaw, which requires public consultation.

Traffic Calming and control measures are related to speed management but are different subjects, we still have work to do in understanding how we manage this going forward as more and more of our communities are asking for speed humps due to anti-social driver behaviour but without sufficient crash data it’s hard for me to justify spending any of our road safety funding (low cost low risk).


3.8a) That Council refer submissions on speed control and traffic calming and control measures to road safety staff for assessment in line with Safer Journeys, the safe system approach, rules and speed management guidance and makes no change to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

http://www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/



3.9. Other roading issues

The following general roading comments were made:

• Some roads in the District are so dangerous they cannot be used

• Speed humps in Kaikohe would be more effective than traffic islands

• Improvements needed where dust nuisance continues to be a problem

• Increase road safety initiatives, for example better signage, community education, speed humps and speed restrictions

• Spend money evenly across the District and avoid spending substantial sums in Kerikeri.

Staff comment:

Submissions that provided details of specific roading issues such as dangerous roads will be recorded as requests for service and allocated to staff for action.

On the matter of speed humps in Kaikohe, NZTA do not advocate their use as a traffic calming measure on State Highways and observed vehicle speeds are generally low and appropriate for the main street environment.

The issue of dust on unsealed roads is acknowledged as being of primary importance to the council. It features in the Mayor and CEO’s message at the front of the Long Term Plan and comes second in our list of transport priorities. Considerable work is being undertaken to address the issues including research, monitoring and trials of potential treatments. Council continues to proactively lobby central government to acknowledge the associated health and environmental issues and to provide much needed financial assistance towards remedying the problems. The Long Term Plan features $11M over the next 10 years to undertake Dust Coat Sealing of critical risk roads. Additionally, we are actively pursuing Provincial Growth Funding support towards the sealing of roads that serve tourism attractions and are a constraint on the economic growth of our district.

The allocation of transport related budgets is based on identified need and subject to rigorous technical evaluation, verification and business case justification. In the case of Kerikeri, the identified need relates to accommodation of the increasing traffic due to tourism and population growth. The obvious and undesirable implication of spreading the money evenly across the district would be that there may be insufficient funds to undertake high priority projects because of geographical location.


3.9a) That Council notes these submissions and makes no change to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.



4. Submissions on Water Supply

4.1. General water submissions

Approximately 35 general submissions on water covered a range of topics including:

• Support for water infrastructure and investment in potable water as core business of Council as well as the development of a water strategy and implementation of the NPS for Freshwater

• Support for rainwater tanks on all properties in the district and in specific places such as the Hokianga and Te Hapua, to encourage resilience and supplement supply, including two submissions that they should be compulsory (11 submissions in total)

• The taste and quality of water in Paihia and Coopers Beach not being acceptable (2 submissions) and the Paihia scheme not coping with the influx of visitors in summer (2 further submissions)

• The taste and quality of Kaitaia water; the need for Council to address Kaitaia’s water supply including using the Sweetwater consent and / or working with Te Rarawa on an alternatives source and explore a joint venture to keep costs down; concerns about the Aupouri aquifer and the water take for the avocado developments (8 submission).

• A drinking water station / fountain on the Waitangi walk (1 submission)

• The importance of access to freshwater in Te Hapua and requests for council to consider rainwater tanks and other options (3 submissions)

• That Council should take on the water supply for Kaeo (1 submitter)

• The need to bring forward work on a water scheme for Waipapa (1 submitter)

• The need for Kaikohe water supply to be considered alongside the needs of the Industrial park and the opportunity to raise lake Ompaere (1 submitter)

Staff comment:

Specific concerns will be recorded as requests for service (e.g. taste of water). Staff will continue to investigate sustainable water options for Kaitaia and other communities.


4.1a) That Council note the submissions but that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

5. Submissions on Wastewater

5.1. Matauri Bay wastewater

The Matauri X Incorporation along with the community and hapu of Matauri Bay (Ngati Kura, Ngati Miro, Ngati Torehina) ask that Council include in its Long Term Plan the operationalisation of the Innoflow wastewater treatment plant and system that has been vested in the FNDC and included as part of the resource consenting process attached to the subdivision application at Matauri Bay within the last 10 years. They understand that the plant has the capacity to manage the full extent of the future subdivision, current and future papakainga housing needs and the population of houses at Tapui (on top of the Matauri Hill, near Ngapuhi Marae).

Staff comment:

Council has from time to time entered into discussions with Matauri X on this matter, but no commitment to operationalise the scheme has been made by Council.

While FNDC owns the assets and has a right to operate a scheme, this doesn’t automatically make it an operational FNDC wastewater scheme. This requires consultation to set the area of benefit and therefore an appropriate targeted rate. Further, the Agreement to Acquire signed by FNDC and Matauri X includes



a joint funding proposal for the scheme’s operation. Further work would be required if Council decided to operationalise the scheme, and a targeted rate could not be struck unless via an LTP or LTP amendment.



5.1b) That Council enters into further discussion with Matauri X and other potential stakeholders of the scheme to determine any desire to consult on funding and/or divestment arrangements.

5.2. General wastewater submissions

There were 45 submissions that directly referenced wastewater issues that were not specifically being consulted on. These included:

• Comments on the Kerikeri scheme and requests to extend the Kerikeri reticulation to Riverview, Waipapa and beyond and/or bring forward the timing of work for Waipapa (6 submissions)

• Concerns about the smells, overflows, compliance and effects on the wetlands and waterways and harbour from discharges from the Paihia Wastewater Treatment works and the impact tourism has on the plant (6 submissions)

• Concerns about Kohukohu and Rawene rating, asset renewals and depreciation (4 submissions)

• Kawakawa system failures and overflows due to rainfall events, effects on Taumarere and the need to find solutions for Morewa and put in place a plan (5 submissions)

• Concerns about compliance at Taipa and the expired consent, smell and the effects on the receiving environment (3 submissions)

• Questions about the work that is planned for Whangaroa and the growth that is occurring, as well as a funding request (3 submissions)

• Request for rates subsidy for pumping out septic tanks in Taupo Bay due to lack of a wastewater treatment plant (1 submission)

• Request for treatment in Te Hapua (1 submission)

• Other: wastewater is core infrastructure and council should concentrate on core infrastructure, role of Iwi, Hapu, Māori as kaitiaki and the need for engagement, avoiding environmental pollution, achieving environmental compliance and avoiding discharges to water.

Staff comments:

Council has plans in place to achieve compliance in Paihia and the project plan for this has been submitted to NRC. While NRC would like us to complete the plan faster, we can not compromise the procurement process. In August a workshop with elected members will occur to discuss the option of sewerage discharge to land for the whole district and Taipa will be a focus area. Only when the options analysis for Taipa is complete can a resource consent for the preferred option be applied for.





6. Submissions on Stormwater

6.1. General stormwater

13 submissions were received on the topic of stormwater in general, excluding those made by the Panguru community regarding flooding on West Coast Road (which is dealt with separately in this report).

Submitters expressed concern and requested action on flooding/stormwater issues in the following areas:

• Moerewa. Submitters also requested a plan for stormwater and wastewater management in Moerewa.

• Te Hapua (drains inadequate for the volume of stormwater)

Six submitters request that Council invest more on general drain and culvert maintenance as part of the Stormwater Strategy. They encourage Council to provide stormwater assets to a high standard to prevent pollutants into waterways.

Issues in the following areas were noted. Where details are known, requests for service have been recorded:

• Coopers Beach

• Karikari Peninsula

• Ngataki Marae (collapsed culvert)

• Kaitaia township.

Staff comment:

Aside from addressing the issues for which requests for service have been assigned, Investigations for the more comprehensive stormwater issues mentioned by submitters will continue to be developed in conjunction with the Stormwater Strategy and catchment plans.





7. Submissions on Solid Waste Management

7.1. General solid waste submissions

A small number of submission comments were received about solid waste in general, including:

• Requests to close the Ahipara landfill which a small number of submitters say, is poorly managed and is too close to the beach, resulting in plastic contamination.

• Free rubbish collection for beach clean-ups, organic waste illegally dumped (i.e. weeds and invasive plants) and regular inorganic kerbside collections, and occasional free collection of large items to reduce fly tipping.

• Two requests to change the waste contractor to one that is committed to sustainability.

• Recycling bins at popular picnic areas.

• Food and green waste processing in Kaitaia.

• Zero waste events.

• One submitter believes that illegal dumping is a result of refuse fees, and argues they should be free if we want to control litter and eliminate illegal dumping.

• Implementing adequate rubbish collections during the tourist season.

Staff comment:

• The Ahipara landfill is scheduled to close in October.

• The current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan addresses beach litter, and organic waste.

• Inorganic kerbside collections, and occasional free collection of large items to reduce fly tipping. Staff feel that free inorganic kerbside collections is not feasible. It would incur significant costs, cause significant reduction in Council income from waste disposal fee and compromise Council’s user-pays philosophy for refuse.

• Waste contracts are fixed until 2020, at which time sustainability will be considered as part of Council’s procurement criteria and process.

• Recycling bins at popular picnic areas has merit, and perhaps this is something Community Boards could look at as placemaking initiatives or it could be looked at in a future annual or long term plan.

• Food waste processing is a good idea but there are currently no commercial services available in the Kaitaia or the District. Should Council decide that funding this is a priority it could be looked at in future annual or long term plans.

• Green waste processing should be left to existing private enterprise. Council involvement would not lower costs.

• The Solid Waste Bylaw requires event holders to provide waste minimisation plans, but insistence on zero waste events may deter communities from organising events.

• Staff believe that while there may be some value to totally free waste services, rates funded rubbish disposal would reduce the incentive to recycle, something Council sees as a higher priority.





8. Submissions on District Facilities

8.1. Boat Ramps

Six submissions commented on the topic of boat ramps:

The Awanui ratepayers association requested that the work scheduled for the Unahi Wharf in 2023/24 be brought forward to 2020/21 citing the current weight restrictions for safety purposes. Vehicles are unable to use the wharf which the Association believes disadvantages commercial users.

Two submitters request additional boat trailer and car parking amenities on the waterfront at Opononi/Omapere. One submitter also thinks the boat ramp at Opononi needs improvement to eliminate the need for boaties to reserve across the state highway to get their boats onto the ramp.

Three submitters expressed concern about the state of the Te Hapua wharf which the community feels needs urgent repair and ongoing maintenance.

Staff comment:

FNHL have responsibility for the boat ramps mentioned and make the following comments:

Unahi Wharf. Council accepts that the wharf has limited useful life remaining. Council is currently undertaking a formal asset condition assessment to determine whether it is possible to lift or reclassify the weight restrictions recently imposed. Subject to this assessment and further discussions with the Association Council will consider moving the renewal program for the wharf forward.

Opononi/Omapere Ramp. The submitters concerns are noted. Redevelopment options are being considered by the ratepayers group in association with LTNZ and FNHL. This development includes a reclamation for car and trailer parking. There are significant issues with an outstanding landscape feature that needs to be resolved to improve this situation regarding the current location of the ramp. LTNZ are leading on the road reclamation aspect and this will be linked to any possible reclamation for the boat ramp and parking. Planning work is ongoing.

Te Hapua. Successive storms damaged the intertidal steps going to the low landing. These have now been repaired and made safe. In addition a hand rail has been installed and a ladder is to be installed. A notice with contact information will also be erected so that any irregular maintenance issues can be passed to FNHL to respond to more readily. More regular checks of the facility will also be undertaken.


8.1a) That Council notes the submissions and accepts that these matters will be managed by FNHL without further amendments to 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets.

8.2. Broadwood Swing Bridge

Two submissions were received about the swing bridge at Broadwood which is currently closed because it needs repairs. Locals stress that this is a tourist attraction.

Staff comment:

An Opus assessment of the repairs has been completed, and repairs are estimated to be in the vicinity of $100,000. The cost includes a full load assessment as we have not currently got a justification for the current 10 person limit on loading. Opus and staff also agree that bollards or similar to protect the main supporting wires adjacent to the road are required.

The bridge was built by the community using Hokianga Community Board Funding, but there is record of Council taking ownership of the asset, though there are recorded statements such as we have “looked after the bridge in the past and will continue to do so”.



Whilst the bridge end supports are on Road Reserve / Esplanade Reserve, the bridge itself crosses 35 Takahue Saddle Road, which is owned by The General Trust Board Diocese of Auckland.

If Council was to take on the ownership of the asset we would need to arrange an easement with the Diocese so that we can guarantee ongoing legal use of the bridge.

Despite the ownership issue, Council has always funded repairs in the past, and the community doesn’t have the means to do it themselves. In the interests of having a usable tourism asset it makes sense for Council to continue to fund repairs regardless of ownership.


8.2a) That Council allocate $100,000 capital funding in 2018/19 to repair the bridge, carry out a full load assessment and procure the necessary easements.

8.3. Kerikeri Cricket Pitch

The Kerikeri Cricket Club has asked Council to allow them to re-establish cricket at the Kerikeri Domain. This entails putting in a concrete cricket block in the centre of the Domain at no cost to Council. The facility will be maintained by the Club and its members.

Kerikeri Cricket Club would consider a move to an alternate venue should Kerikeri sports hub concept be progressed. The Club is aware of the reserve management plan for the Domain that is currently being developed, and believe that their request is in line with the results of the community survey on the reserve management plan. In the survey results, field sports appeared to be highly favoured as a proposed activity on the domain, with cricket and rugby most commonly mentioned. For this reason, the club are asking that Council support the inclusion of the cricket pitch in the reserve management plan, and accept that should Council require the club to move its wicket in the future to a new venue the club is willing to do so.

The club would also like to make use of the changing rooms and storage facilities on the ground floor of what was formerly the rugby and squash clubrooms in the pavilion.

Staff comment:

At hearings the question was asked about other codes using the domain with a concrete pitch in the middle of it. The club confirmed verbally (and have since followed up in writing) that the competing code (rugby league) have been consulted and both clubs are willing to make compromises in order to accommodate each other. Cricket has agreed to reduce the size of their cricket boundaries and the league club have agreed to adjust the dimensions of their league field.

The club confirmed in writing that they will be fully responsible for the capital cost, installation and maintenance of the wicket and that if in the future Council needs them to move the wicket they will do so.

Should the community interest in a Kerikeri sports hub come to fruition the Club is keen to make a permanent home there and will bear the cost of removing the concrete wicket from the Domain.


8.3a) That Council approve the Kerikeri Cricket Club installation of a concrete wicket on the Kerikeri Domain on the condition that this aligns with the Kerikeri Domain reserve management plan.

8.4. Street and amenity lighting

A small number of submitters commented on street lighting in general, encouraging Council to develop strategies around amenity and street lighting that uses solar energy.



Specific issues with inadequate, faulty or no lighting, both street and amenity, were noted in the following locations:

• Wynyard and Nisbet St, Moerewa

• Ward Dr, Opua

• The lower side of Mill Rd, Kerikeri

• Te Hapua

• Doubtless Bay

• Opononi (by the Four Square)

• Hokianga

• Kaikohe

Staff comment:

Installing solar street lights involves a fairly significant upfront cost, which can be justified where the cost of power supply is considered prohibitive. This is the case mainly in isolated rural areas where lighting intersections for traffic safety may be required.

For new streetlights, the NZTA funds more than 60% of the capital cost of an improvement project. Council needs to demonstrate to the NZTA, with an evidence based business case, that there is a traffic safety issue that can be mitigated with the installation of new/additional lights. An example of this is a night time crash history.

On some occasions the Community Boards have funded the capital cost of new street lights that are unlikely to meet the NZTA requirements for a lighting improvement project.

Community Boards identify the priorities for amenity lighting. Requests will be passed to the relevant Board.



8.5. Town maintenance

11 submissions were received calling for better town maintenance across the District. Specific comments requested:

• Execution of the Karikari peninsula community plan which includes town maintenance

• Beach cleanup facilities and a general tidy-up at Te Hapua

• Improving the Kerikeri entrance, making it more attractive

• A complete facelift for Kaikohe

• A general tidy-up for Paihia.

Staff comment:

All items require investigation. Staff will scope the nature of the works and liaise with Community Boards and other stakeholders.





8.6. Pools

Six submissions were received regarding swimming pools.

• Two requests to cover the Kerikeri high school pool or heat it.

• One request to cover the Kaikohe pool.

• Two requests to provide a heated pool for the Kerikeri/Waipapa community as proposed by those in favour of a Kerikeri sports hub.

Staff comment:

Council does not own the school pools. It would be premature to commit any funding to covering the school pools at this stage, given the “scoping work” for the Kerikeri sports hub and the current Aquatic Strategy. Should the Kerikeri sports hub concept come to fruition, aquatic facilities may be included.



8.7. Public toilets

Public toilets are always a topic of conversation during consultation, particularly here in the Far North where tourism season puts pressure on what we’ve got and highlights areas where facilities are needed. Requests for facilities in the following areas were recorded:

• Facilities required at Henderson Bay

• Increased facilities at Opononi

• More facilities required for freedom campers at Te Hapua

• Facilities required at Rangi Point (several submissions supported this). There was a suggestion of a composting toilet at this location.

• Facilities required for North Park business development, Kaitaia

• Facilities required at or near the skate park in Kaikohe.

• Facilities required on the Waitangi bush walk to Haruru Falls.

• Facilieis required at Rangitane Reserve.

• Better facilities needed in the Kerikeri CBD.

A few general comments were made encouraging a better number of public toilet facilities across the district for the benefit of locals and tourists.

Staff comment:

Many of these ideas relate to tourism, particularly those at Henderson Bay, Opononi, Te Hapua, Rangi Point, Rangitane Reserve and Waitangi. These may be good candidates for a TIF application in January 2019 once scoping work has been done. The LTP already has funding allocated to toilet facilities in Memorial Park in Kaikohe (2020/21). Staff are aware of a lack of signage for public toilets in Kerikeri.

A recent Council suggestion was the development of a public toilet strategy. Staff believe this could be valuable not only as support for TIF applications but also for reviewing and strengthening Council policy on public toilets.




8.7a) That Council approve scoping work for tourism-related toilet facilities at Henderson Bay, Opononi, Te Hapua, Rangi Point, Rangitane Reserve and Waitangi.

8.7b) That Council approve the development of a public toilet strategy, including current and future requirements and capacity, location of facilities and minimum standards.

8.8. Recreation Spaces

The topic of parks, playgrounds and general recreation facilities were commented on by a small number of submitters:

• Kohukohu and Karikari communities have developed community plans and would like to execute those plans, particularly in the area of parks.

• A request from the Te Hiku Community Board, supported by a few members of the public, to cost the concept plans for Centennial (Jaycee) and Parkdale Parks in Kaitaia, and Korora Park in Ahipara.

• Several submissions were received from Kaitaia residents asking for the Mathews Mission Scenic Bush in Church Rd, Kaitaia be restored to a high standard for use by the public, especially the education sector. Work required involves removal of rubbish, parking, clearing and creating tracks, installing picnic furniture, a dry vault toilet and hand sanitiser, and helping the community put a management plan together. If this initiative is endorsed by Council the public will look to get support from other interested groups such as iwi, early childhood centres, the Regional Council and others.

• Two requests for outdoor fitness equipment at the park at the Stone Store

• A request for assistance from Council to scope out and develop a walking track along the Kerikeri inlet round the Reinga Road peninsula for use by residents and tourists. The resident who brought the idea to Council has pledged $100,000 of his own money to the project.

• That the walkway between Opua and Paihia, currently closed due to storm damage be repaired

• Two requests for Council to adopt a comprehensive smoke free outdoor public spaces policy.

• General requests for more and better playgrounds across the District, catering for both young and older children.

• A request for funding provision in the LTP to support the implementation of reserve management plans at the Kerikeri Domain in Kerikeri and Lindvart Park in Kaikohe.

• One submission encouraging Council to restore the Kerikeri Domain pavilion.

• Children in the Kawakawa community have been working with the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board on a plan to get a skate park established in Kawakawa, and after studying the amount of space required and a basic idea they think it could be constructed at Johnson Park. The children are supported by the Kawakawa Connect and Tukau groups, and once they have a plan the Kawakawa Business and Community Association will likely support then in securing sufficient funding. However, before they go any further, they would like to get a design and engineering report done, given the potential flood risk at that location. To this end, the children ask that Council assist them financially to complete this preliminary work. They have been working on this project since last year and would like to get the skate park underway by the beginning of 2020.

Staff comments:

• Community plans: Community Plans belong to the community and they highlight the priorities and can use the document as evidence of a strategic approach and community buy in to implement the actions within the plan. Some will relate to council and many are about place making and other infrastructure mostly related to the Community Board delegations such as lighting and footpaths. Staff support them to deal with other agencies and to seek funding from non-council sources.



• Kaitaia playgrounds: Staff have had some dialog with the Te Hiku Community Board and Councillor Foy regarding these playgrounds, and will work with them to cost the proposed facilities as requested.

• Mathews Mission bush restoration: This needs some investigation before a plan of action and funding proposals can be put together. Staff will contact the Mission Place Kindergarten, who put in the most comprehensive submission on the matter, and start the discussion in liaison with the Te Hiku Community Board.

• Fitness equipment at the Stone Store Park: This is a place-making initiative the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board may wish to investigate.

• Reinga Peninsula walkway: This is an initiative that staff have been working with interested parties on, with the next step a detailed investigation of the route, which appears to be mostly esplanade, to develop a feasible proposal. Council has not committed to approving funds for the project at this point, and staff believe this could be a good candidate for the Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF). The next TIF round is in January 2019; by this time we should have a proposal at an advanced stage and be in a position to apply to the fund.

• Repair of the Opua-Paihia walking track. The damaged walkway between Opua and Paihia is part of Te Araroa walking trail, and needs to be repaired. It is also an essential pedestrian link between Opua and Paihia that is popular with the locals and visitors as a safer route than the state highway. Staff have been asked to determine the cost of minimum repairs to enable Council to re-open the walkway. Once cost is known the repair work will be carried out.

• Smoke free policy: Council does have a smoke free policy but it is focused on Council smoke free workplaces. As part of the Policy development programme for the next three years, staff could add a Smokefree on Council Property Policy. We could then use this to show leadership and work with businesses to have smoke free precincts beyond bars and restaurants.

• Better/more playgrounds: The provision of sufficient playgrounds to suit all age groups requires a review of all current playground provisions and alignment with expected growth patterns. Areas where there is evidence of inadequate or insufficient play facilities would be identified and proposals for funding put to Council for a future Annual or Long Term Plan.

• Reserve management plan funding: Reserve management plans for Kerikeri Domain and Lindvart Park are in their formative stages and have not yet been consulted on. Until this has happened, capital funding requirements remain unquantified. Once requirements are known funding can be allocated as approved by Council as a part of the next Annual Plan (19/20).

• Kawakawa skate park: Planning and engineering for the proposed skate park in Kawakawa is the type of initiative that the Community Board could assist with by way of. Construction of the skate park, once plans are in place, could then be a good candidate for could then be a good candidate for a grant from the Community Board’s Placemaking fund should the fund be established.


8.8a) That Council ask Community Boards to take on board suggestions for place making, implementation of community plans and the Kawakawa skate park and work with the relevant communities to identify how the Board may assist.

8.8b) That Council ask staff to work with the Te Hiku Community Board on costing upgrades and renewals to Kaitaia parks/playgrounds.

8.8c) That Council ask the Te Hiku Community Board to continue to work with the Kaitaia community on restoration plans for the Mathews Mission Bush.

8.8d) That Council approves the commencement of repair work for the Opua-Paihia walking track in 2018/19 from existing budgets.

8.8e) That Council approves development and consultation on a Smoke Free on Council Property policy.



8.9. Kerikeri sporting facilities

52 submissions asking for a sports hub in Kerikeri were received, many of which were from sporting organisations and codes that believe there is an urgent and significant requirement for more sporting facilities in the Kerikeri/Waipapa area. Only two submitters disagreed with the allocation of funding. All others were in full support.

Staff comment:

Staff have been working with Bay Sports and supporters for some time to progress purchasing land, that could be used for a sports hub or additional playing fields.

It is understood that there is no further capacity for growth for a number of codes, and that additional playing fields are required. Staff have been looking at the purchase of land and construction of additional fields that could ease the capacity issue in the short to medium term while long-term plans such as a sports hub are put in place. Some options proposed by submitters would require changes in land zoning that create unparalleled residential density (beyond the existing settlement sizes of Ahipara, Russell, Kawakawa, or Paihia) as part of the development and/or significantly more budget than proposed in the Consultation Document.

A multicriteria analysis of options has been performed and a full report on options will be included in an update report to the next Infrastructure Network Committee meeting. In summary it concludes that an option that may cost in the region of $5.6m may be preferable, however a formal business case still needs to be prepared, with further investigation, due diligence, valuation, opportunities for external funding etc required.

The total available budget proposed in the LTP 2018-28 was $4,481,165 for land purchase and facilities including consents, carparking and ablution blocks.



8.9b) That Council confirm the budget for the land purchase and ancillary buildings and consents to enable fields and request that staff continue discussions with the community regarding long-term solutions, with proposals subject to community consultation.

9. Submissions on District Services

9.1. Dog control and amenities

A small number of submissions were received regarding dog. A few submitters mentioned the dog control bylaw and policy work that has been underway for some time. However, most submissions were about a need for dog exercise areas for which budget has not been allocated in the LTP.

Staff comment:

$63,000 in capital funding is currently allocated for the development of a dog exercise area in Sammaree Place in Kerikeri. No other funding provisions have been made for similar facilities across the District.

The future use of the Kerikeri Domain will be determined by the Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan that is currently under development.

Pest management and plans for a predator free Northland are the responsibility of the Northland Regional Council.

All bylaw or policy related comments will be dealt with as part of the review and consultation on the continuing Dog Policy and Dog Control Bylaw work.



Council is committed to providing adequate dog management practices and enforcement.



9.2. Environmental Policy

A small number of submissions were received environmental policy and concerns:

• Inclusion of a GE/GMO policy in the LTP

• Future environmental considerations as part of Council planning

• Pest control, including tobacco trees, privet, swans and horses

• Use of glysophate for weed control

• Dark sky initiative

Staff comment:

GE/GMO issues are being progressed through the regional policy statement, the regional plan and our own District Plan review. Inclusion in the LTP is not required.

Pest control is the domain of the Northland Regional Council. Submissions on this topic will be passed on to NRC for action.

The use of glysophate and other herbicides is a topic many councils are looking into. Based on experience within Council and work undertaken in Auckland, it is estimated that it takes eight people to weedeat the same area that one spray operator can spray. Weedeating needs to be done every four weeks whereas spraying is done every 12 weeks. T

Different methods of weed control are being trialled around the country, including fatty acids and hot foam as a substitute for glysophate. None seem particularly successful or cost effective at this stage.

The Dark Sky initiative is a long-term project that is being actively investigated, but no reason to address this in the LTP.

Pest management and plans for a predator free Northland are the responsibility of the Northland Regional Council.





10. Submissions requesting funding

10.1. Para Kore ki Te Hiku

Para Kore ki Te Hiku is working with marae, kohanga reo, kura, events, community organisations and businesses to provide resources and education in a bid to divert waste away from landfill to be dealt with in an environmentally and ethical way.

Until the end of 2017, Para Kore ki Te Hiku had a budget of $55,000 which was 80% funded from the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund (WMF), and the remainder funded through contributions by local partners including CBEC, Northland Waste and FNDC. FNDC’s contribution is currently $5,000 annually.

To assist the continuation of this work, Para Kore request an increased level of funding from FNDC of $10,000 per annum.

The submission from Para Kore ki Te Hiku is supported by 23 submissions from within the community they serve.

Staff comment:

Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan strives to increase recycling. Staff respect and encourage the work of Para Kore and believe that additional investment in this area could be of great value to Council going forward. Staff believe a trial of three years of extended funding to $15,000 per annum (from the current $5,000) could be worthwhile.


10.1a) That Council approves additional grant funding of $10,000 per annum for three years to Para Kore ki Te Hiku.

10.2. Te Hiku Sports Hub

The Te Hiku Sports Hub community group is grateful for progress made to date on the site works that are now almost complete, and have now turned their minds to future works to see the Sports Hub operational as soon as possible.

Although the Te Hiku Sports Hub is a community-lead initiative, they seek to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the asset and the services it offers to the community. To this end, the group request a grant of $50,000 to enable the development of a suitable governance structure and team. They also request appropriate levels of council staff resources be committed to assist towards the hub’s successful completion.

Staff comment:

Council and the Trust need to begin discussions regarding the future governance and operations of the Te Hiku Sports Hub, in the same spirit as the Cycle Trail Trust and Te Ahu Trust. From those discussions the most appropriate governance model, strategic plan and budget can be developed. The Trust and Council should be working together, as the asset will be owned by Council, and there will be on-going renewals, operational and maintenance of the assets.

In addition, thought needs to be given to the Council relationship management of Community led initiatives where Council has made considerable investment i.e. Te Ahu, Turner Center, Sportsville Kaikohe, and the foundation governance documents i.e. Deed of Trust, Service Agreements MOUs, the standardisation of those documents and the department responsible for the commercial/legal arrangement.




10.2a) That Council approve the development of a governance model, strategic plan and budget with the Trust with a view to consider funding if required in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

10.3. Te Au Marie Trust

The Trust requests that Council make provision for resources in support of community engagement for the Taitokerau Northland events and infrastructure planned around the Tuia 250 commemorations in 2019. Their plans for events are already lodged with Council.

The Trust also asks that Council set aside some of its events funding for those events that are in alignment with the Tuia Encounters theme.

Staff comment:

Council has supported Te Au Marie Trust to appoint a General Manager to manage the Tier 1 event. The infrastructure projects that required Council or FNHL funding that were outlined in the project sheet have been attained through the PGF. Other projects such as the Russell Museum could be supported for a PGF. The major event around the meeting of two people will be funded by Government. Local community events, once known, that fit around and support the major event, could be given an added criteria status in the existing events funding framework and be part of the contestable funding for 2018/19 and 2019/20. Staff do not believe there is a need to ring-fence the existing $80,000 events investment fund but to ensure that it can be used as a priority for this period balanced against other events. It would remain a contestable fund.


10.3a) That Council approve an amendment to the Events Investment Funding criteria for 2018/19 and 2019/20 to give higher priority to funding proposals that support or align with the commemorations.

10.4. Far North Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee

The Committee asks that Council reinstate a dedicated Arts and Culture fund of $80,000 annually, and request that this fund be disbursed by an Arts and Culture Committee made up of the Creative Communities Scheme Assessment Committee, one Councillor, one member of each Community board and hapu/iwi representation.

The committee also request that Council increases the District’s awareness of the place art and culture has in society and the funding available by referencing arts and culture in the Community Outcomes, Council’s strategic direction and goals, and other material relevant to funding.

Staff comment:

Arts and culture are inherently in our new community outcomes and are a vital component of what makes the district liveable and reflective of our bi-culturism. Art in its many forms on and in our public spaces is part of what makes our place distinctive. The Community Boards invest some grant funding already in such things as murals, distinctive furniture and streetscaping. With a further potential $100,000 for the 3 Community Boards along with the existing Creative Communities funding (around $50,000), there is scope to ensure that arts and art installation remain an integral part of our towns. Larger projects can apply to PGF, Lotteries and Foundation North (as examples) for infrastructure along the lines of Te Hohonga and Manea.



That Council (a) does not approve an additional $80,000 (b) request both Creative Communities and Community Boards to consider greater alignment for art projects that enhance our communities as part of placemeking.


10.4a) That Council does not approve an additional $80,000. 10.4b) That Council request both Creative Communities and Community Boards to consider greater alignment for art projects that enhance our communities as part of place making.

10.5. Turner Centre

The Turner Centre request that Council provide an additional grant of $85,000 to assist them in the recovery of discounts for community groups that use the Centre. These discounts have been encouraged and expected by Council as part of the Turner Centre’s agreement with Council. In 2016/17 discounts given were $70,376. The current year to the end of February 2018 discounts given were $64,158, and are expected to reach $85,000.

Staff comment:

Current funding arrangements for the Turner Centre are we guarantee the Turner Centre bank loan and council pays the interest and principal payments. This amounts to $179,000. From 2020 onwards, Council will pay the interest only on the loan ($66,000 per annum) as the Trust will then become responsible for repayment of the principal.

The Trust is seeking $85,000 financial assistance per annum for the reimbursement of Community discount the Trust gives to community groups to use the Turner Centre and in return the Trust will fund all staffing, operations and maintenance plus capital improvements to the facility.

Community discounts totalled $70,000 for the 16/17 year and $64,000 for the first seven months of the 17/18 year, and we believe it is feasible the total could be close to $85,000 for the year

The Trust will be using interest earned from their $1.5 million investment to fund operations, and working through options with Far North Holdings regarding a boutique hotel investment adjacent to the Turner Centre.


10.5a) That Council approves, starting in the 2018/19 financial year, an annual retrospective reimbursement for discounts given for community use of the facilities, and that reimbursement be supported by a reconciliation of the discounts given in the year of the claim.

10.5a) That Council budget a sum of $85,000 in each of the first three years of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan for this purpose.

10.6. Te Ahu Charitable Trust

The Trust thanks Council for its support by way of a grant in the first two years of the LTP, and would like Council’s commitment that they will carry out this role on behalf of Council on an indefinite basis and ask that funding be included for the period beyond year two of the LTP.

Staff comment:

The Trust and Council need to work through the operational and management requirements for the Trust under the commercial lease arrangement. Council would like to see the Trust become more self-sufficient and secure profitable revenue activities and funding streams over the next three years. Staff therefore



recommend that a strategic business plan is developed by the Trust with an objective of sustainability over time and to support funding requests beyond year two of the Long Term Plan. Funding beyond year two can be considered by Council prior to adoption of the 20/21 Annual Plan.


10.6a) That Council note the submission and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

10.6b) That Council request that the Te Ahu Charitable Trust develop a strategic business plan within the 2018/19 financial year.

10.7. Heritage funding

We received two submissions regarding heritage areas including having a contestable Heritage fund whereby owners of scheduled properties can apply for funding for items over and above the usual maintenance required of a building, item, object or place as well as developing guidelines for areas that do not have them.

Staff comment:

Many local authorities actively promote heritage in their area and offer incentives such as grants and/or fee waivers to property owners. Some also employ specialist staff who are able to offer advice to anyone wanting to promote and protect their historic building or site.

The Regional Culture and Heritage Fund administered by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage is a contestable fund of last resort and utilises a funding sources model which promotes a mix of local government, philanthropic and community fundraising (including property owners) with central government funding.


10.7a) That staff, as part of the District Plan review, work with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to develop guidelines for areas that do not have them, such as Te Waimate

10.7b) That staff investigate the feasibility and financial implications of having a fund as well as criteria for contestability in conjunction with other funding sources for heritage to consider as part of the next Annual Plan 2019/20.

10.7c) That Community Boards consider greater focus on funding heritage initiatives as part of place-making given the sense of place and tourism value heritage properties or precincts contribute to the Far North.

10.8. Northland Inc (NINC)

Northland Inc requests Council funding for ongoing economic development activities, and requests an annual contribution of operational costs of 0.25% of the Far North District’s rating income, which Northland Inc estimate to be approximately $210,000.

Staff comment:

Council has allocated resources for engagement with NINC in the LTP.

Council staff previously sought to negotiate a shared resource with Northland Inc, which was put on hold as a result of the s17A review.

Officers recommend Council support Northland Inc re-establishing its presence in the Far North and make a financial contribution from the proposed economic development budget to Northland Inc of up to



$100,000 annually for three years based on a service level agreement with Northland Inc for dedicated resourcing to Far North Business development and regional tourism (including the development of a regional tourism strategy and Far North product development). The quantum of funding annually should relate to the agreed services and KPIs and should be re-examined annually.

The ability to negotiate an appropriate contribution and agreement is within the CEO's delegations. Specific initiatives or projects outside of the SLA may still be funded separately from the economic development budget if there is a suitable business case or opportunity presented.


10.8a) That Council approve a financial contribution from the economic development budget proposed in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 to Northland Inc of up to $100,000 annually for three years subject to an agreed service level agreement with Northland Inc. that provides for dedicated resourcing to Far North Business development and regional tourism.

10.8b) That Council delegate the negotiation of a Service Level Agreement with Northland Inc to the CEO.

10.9. Economic development

There were 18 submissions that directly addressed the issue of economic development. Of these one specifically asked for funding for themselves, Northland Inc ($210,000) and this request was supported by Northland Regional Council and Regional Tourism New Zealand. This funding request was dealt with in item 10.8..

The other submissions raised matters that do not require a change to the Long Term Plan, including closer working with the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust, support for the Ngawha Springs development, a drive in/open air movie theatre for Kaikohe, a focus on economic development in Kaitaia / Te Hiku, start up business support, a desire for Air NZ to return to Kaitaia airport, the importance of the Māori economy, tourism related infrastructure and the use of the Tourism Infrastructure and Provincial Growth funding, the value of tourism to the economy and a full scale War Pa in Kaikohe (which has been extensively discussed with the submitter previously and Council staff continue to work with the submitter to prepare a suitable business case for Council consideration).

The movie theatre initiative has been referred to the community development team for consideration and potential alignment with the Kaikohe community plan and revitalisation of Kaikohe.

One submitter raised delays to their application for a campground, which has been raised as a request for service (RFS) for a direct response.

Council staff are in discussions with Ngati Rehia on their appetite for a Memorandum of Understanding or relationship agreement with Council that would provide an opportunity to explore economic and cultural initiatives, as requested.

Council is already involved in many of the initiatives that have been raised such as Ngawha Springs (FNHL) and the BOIVRT and are leverage TIF and PGF funds.


10.9a) That Council note the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan

10.9b) That Council request staff to continue to work with submitters on specific proposals.



11. Other issues raised

Submissions were received on the following topics that require no decision relating to the Long Term Plan, but that may have relevance to operations, and may be covered by existing policy, bylaw, strategy or other internal reviews. These have been collected in this section because they: • Relate to new legislation that Council is working through

• Are in relation to a topic that Council does not have responsibility for

• Are a part of day to day Council operations or a current Council project that relies on third parties

• Are a part of the rolling District Plan review (and will be taken into consideration in that activity)

• Is likely to be given consideration in the Sustainable District Strategy or subsequent town planning, community planning or place making initiatives

• Relates to the rating review that Council needs to carry out

• May require a strategy that includes central Government

The topics raised are: • Social housing & papakainga.

• Governance, including the governance of Council Organisations, Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations (FNHL)

• District Plan and zoning development of policy and enforcement

• Mobile coverage for the District

• Pedestrianisation of town centres

• Freedom camping

• Rates, particularly equity and affordability

• Crime and public safety

• Public transport

• Railway

• Eco design

• Coastal inundation and climate change

• The development and enforcement of policies and bylaws

• Consent enforcement

• Consultation on RMA issues and applications, including Mana Whakahono a Rohe

The submissions will be shared with staff working on these issues for consideration in the context of existing Council projects and work programmes.

The staff recommendations for these issues is:

11a) That Council note the submissions and that no change be made to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.



12. Corrections and updates as a result of new information

12.1. Funding for Kaikohe and Districts Sportsville

During the process of putting together the draft Long Term Plan, staff erroneously omitted operational funding for Sportsville.


12.1a) That Council approve an operating grant of $40,000 to Sportsville to assist in their role of managing Lindvart Park in Kaikohe.

12.2. Change to NZTA Funding Assistance Rate & Government Policy Statement implications

Communications have been received from NZTA that approve the early increase of the Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) to 66% from 1 July 2018. This does not increae the amount of funding available to Council for the NZTA programme in total however, it does release Council’s “local share” as follows:

The local share released has been “ring fenced” to allow Council the opportunity to react to any changes in subsidy that may be offered under the review of the GPS.


12.2a) That Council approve the retention of the local share identified above within the budgets set in the LTP to allow Council the flexibility to respond to any funding offered to Council under the changes that may arise from the review of the GPS.

12.3. New NZTA bridge at Taipa and associated work on stormwater and wastewater assets

The Taipa Bridge connects the township with Cable Bay, and is a popular swimming and fishing location. It also supports Council’s wastewater rising main which transfers wastewater from the Cable bay, Coopers Beach and Mangonui communities to the wastewater treatment plant in Taipa. The bridge is being replaced by NZTA, and as a result of this work Council is afforded an opportunity to deal with some wastewater and stormwater issues at relatively low cost.

Maintenance allocations Capital Renewal allocations

Year Subsidy change Year Subsidy change (62% up to 66%) (62% up to 66%)

2018/19 537,891 2018/19 646,320

2019/20 414,523 2019/20 569,099

2020/21 282,404 2020/21 386,674

2021/22 142,560 2021/22 186,899

Total 1,377,378 Total 1,788,992



To the west of the new bridge the state highway is being realigned requiring changes to, and upgrading of, the stormwater network. These works abut Taipa Area School which, due to poor design, has a stormwater adverse ponding problem. Upgrading the stormwater network presents an opportunity to reduce the flooding impacts at the school but eliminating flooding is unlikely.

NZTA has started earthworks and reclamation on the east side of the Taipa River. Works are also starting on the west side of Taipa River adjacent to the intersection of Oruru Road and SH10. The bridge team is due to start on site in early April and bridge construction works will continue through the winter months and into 2019. Significant work relating to stormwater through the township is expected to commence in August.

The projects ties in with many other infrastructure providers in the vicinity including the Northland Transport Alliance, Doubtless Bay Water Supply Company and FNDC’s wastewater network. Section 54 of the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 (GRPA) outlines how NZTA can require FNDC to remove and re-erect any utility that is in the way of any work proposed for the improvement of the road. GRPA states that the cost of removing and re-erecting the infrastructure shall be borne by NZTA and FNDC equally.

NZTA have advised that the rising main carrying wastewater across the bridge must be moved to the new bridge. NZTA have also identified a possible improvement opportunity with regard to the stormwater assets on the western side of the bridge (through the township and back to the Taipa Area School). Options for each asset are described below.

Wastewater

FNDC must move the existing 225mm uPVC rising main which is attached to the underside of the existing bridge to allow for, ultimately, demolishing the current bridge. The new rising main will be attached to the underside of the new bridge and span approximately 110m. Three options have been considered by FNDC and NZTA:

1. Replacement of the existing rising main with a new 227mm ID (280mm OD) PE100, PN16 pipe connected to the underside of the new bridge. This is a “like for like” replacement with a pipe of a similar size in modern materials.

2. Replacement of the existing rising main with a larger 260mm ID (316mm OD) PE100, PN16 pipe connected to the underside of the new bridge. This provides a slight increase in pipe capacity.

3. Replacement of the existing rising main with a new 260mm ID (316mm OD) PE100, PN16 pipe connected to the underside of the new bridge, with additional work to extend the new pipe approximately 230m to the existing manhole at Taipa Heights Drive. This provides a slight increase in pipe capacity but over a longer distance.

Costs for these options are:

Option 2 is the preferred option for the follow reasons:

• PE is a more robust pipe material. The current uPVC class B pipe has a reduced life expectancy due to the cyclic loading placed on it by the pumpstation and is of a low pressure rating.

• The slight increase in size and increase in pressure rating of the new main will prevent this section of main from immediately restricting the predicted growth in the area. This size pipe balances the risk between restricting growth and oversized pipes. An oversized pipe with current flows would impact

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3NZTA cost estimate 100,000 140,000 225,000NZTA contribution (50,000) (50,000) (50,000)FNDC contribution – renewal reserves (22,000) (22,000) (55,000)FNDC contribution - new capital funds required 38,000 68,000 120,000FNDC total LTP funding required 60,000 90,000 175,000



negatively on the network; causing septicity, corrosion and odour complaints. There are other factors in the network restricting new connections but we would like to take this opportunity to improve one of them.

• Works associated with removal of the existing footpath will reduce the strength of the existing seawall resulting in exposing of the existing rising main. NZTA have advised they will be upgrading the seawall to prevent erosion from happening. The additional 230m of pipe proposed in option 3 is not a priority if the seawall is upgraded and can be renewed closer to the end of its life.

Stormwater

Road realignment on the western side of the bridge and improvements to the town centre require stormwater upgrades in the area. Most crucially the outlets must be improved. Currently a 900mm SW line discharges into a 300mm outfall, with a 600mm high level overflow. Although NZTA can complete the stormwater work necessary for the realignment without funding from FNDC, there is an opportunity to extend beyond the realignment’s requirements and contribute to reducing flooding at the Taipa Area School.

FNDC and NZTA have prepared preliminary designs for two options to consider as the scope of the stormwater work associated with the bridge renewal. These are:

1. “Stand Alone System” – NZTA stormwater improvements required to allow the proposed bridge works to be completed. The design of this option has reached 50%.

2. “Combined System” – stormwater improvements to allow the bridge works to be completed and significant improvements to the current FNDC system. The design of this option has reached 85%.

Costs for these options are:

The Taipa Area School has a history of nuisance flooding, the severity and frequency of which has increased in recent years due to increased impermeable surfaces at the school and more intense rainfall.

Improvements to the FNDC and NZTA stormwater systems in the area will reduce the frequency and severity of flooding at the school, although the flooding will not be prevented entirely because work is also required on private land.

A number of requests for service have been raised by the Taipa Area School over the years. Most recently an email from school Principal Doreen Baily was distributed to locally elected members, members of parliament, NZTA and local iwi, establishing this as a high profile issue. At meetings between FNDC, NZTA and the school, Council has made a commitment to do what it can to improve the situation.

Discussion / Risks

There are obvious efficiencies with doing the work alongside the bridge and road alignment work that is currently underway. Traffic management can be combined with other construction work, minimising cost and disruption to traffic. The finished product will not need to be disturbed for a number of years, whereas staging the work will require patches in the road and is more likely to result in maintenance issues with the state highway.

There is minimal fall available for the stormwater pipes and siltation of the existing pipes has restricted flows. The size of the stormwater pipes will be determined by the catchment serviced. Because the system is entirely dependant on gravity and has a fixed discharge level we cannot simply increase the

Option 1 Option 2NZTA Cost Estimate 400,000 800,000NZTA Contribution 400,000 400,000FNDC contribution – renewal reserves - - FNDC contribution - new capital funds required - 400,000 FNDC total LTP funding required - 400,000



pipe size in the same location. In this case the increased capacity in the combined system results in a very different pipe network layout than the stand alone system; doing the work later will have significant challenges and additional costs.

NZTA would design and construct the stormwater upgrade. Upon completion of Contract Practical Completion & Defects Liability Period, the improved and upgraded stormwater reticulation would be returned to FNDC as an asset.

The costs are estimates at this stage. NZTA wish to understand our preferred options before progressing either design further.

There is a risk that our timeframes for approval do not align with their programme for delivery. NZTA wish to work together with FNDC as much as possible but cannot risk delays to the delivery of the project. Delays will incur NZTA costs and impact on their reputation with the Taipa community.

Option 2 is our preferred option for the stormwater element of these works for the following reasons:

• The current stormwater system is insufficient and contributes to nuisance flooding in the area. Option two will better address flooding issues including those at the Taipa Area School.

• The upgrades will support future planned works in the area including expanding the area benefitting from stormwater.

• Completing the stormwater upgrade with the bridge project rather than at a later date will save money and lesson disruption; contributing to a better outcome for the community.

• The NZTA contribution to this option is significant. Ratepayers will benefit by borrowing less money and paying less interest on loans associated with upgrading these assets.


12.3a) That Council approve capital budget of $90,000 in year one of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for a replacement wastewater pipe over the Taipa River to be constructed by NZTA in conjunction with the Taipa Bridge replacement.

12.3b) That Council approve capital budget of $400,000 in year one of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for an upgrade to the stormwater network around the Taipa township to be constructed by NZTA in conjunction with the Taipa Bridge replacement.

12.4. Electricity supply

During May it was brought to the attention of staff that the data on which the electricity contracts had been calculated by MBIE was incorrect. The previous power supplier had omitted some locations from the data file in error. MBIE have now re-calculated the contract values based on the revised data and this will increase the contracts currently in place.

Staff comment:

In December, a sum of $400k was removed from the power budgets as an anticipated saving based upon the information received from MBIE. This has now been found to be incorrect and the $400k needs to be returned to the power budget for 2018/19 and future years.


12.4a) That Council approve the replacement of the $400k previously thought to be savings to the overall power budget.



12.5. Capital works changes

At the capital workshop on 16 May 2018, staff outlined changes that would be required to the capital programme that were the result of reforecasting, amendments and corrections and new budget/project requirements. A memo was also sent to elected members that outlined the final capital programme provision after all changes had been made. A detailed list of all capital projects was circulated to the elected members at the end of the meeting and the information below refers to that documentation.

a) Projects reforecast to 2018/19 and beyond from 2017/18

At the capital workshop a number of projects were identified as requiring movement from the current 2017/18 programme to 2018/19 or beyond. The value of these projects is $2.830 million.

b) Amendments and corrections

At the capital workshop there were a number of projects that required amendment. This was a result of omissions, identification of work that was being undertaken in 2017/18 due to changed circumstances or work that was no longer required. The value of this work is $2.792 million.

c) Major projects

The following table provides detail on the major projects that were amended as a result of consultation outcomes and additional information on project requirements. It should be noted that the Twin Coast Cycle trail funding is contingent on Council being able to attract a subsidy. The Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub project is also contingent upon receiving funds from the Provincial Growth Fund.

The Mawson Avenue, Waipapa – new water reticulation project is the subject of a full report to Council (on the agenda for today’s meeting) as specific consultation on this project occurred after the Consultation Document was released for feedback.

Project Year Value

Mawson Avenue, Waipapa – new water reticulation 2018/19 $500,000

West Coast Road, Panguru – road raising (b/fwd from 2020/21) 2019/20 $200,000

Twin Coast Cycle Trail Extension (flat profile over 12 years) 2018/19 $3,750,000

The Hub – Kaikohe 2018/19 $1,000,000

Maromaku Domain 2018/19 $213,880

Omanaia / Rawene - new water treatment plant 2018/19 $400,000

Taipa stormwater 2018/19 $400,000

TOTAL $6,463,880

d) Emerging budget requirements

In addition to the major projects and additions above, three additional requirements were identified in the memo sent to the elected members. These are:

• Repairs to the Broadwood suspension bridge- $100k

• Council contribution to the Tourist Infrastructure Fund submission- $514k of which $394k is capital and $120k is operational

• Kerikeri Pavillion renewal for the part of the property that is not subject to the insurance claim - $300k

These projects total $794k in relation to capital projects and require an additional $120k in operational funding if they are approved.




12.5a) That Council approve the changes to the overall capital programme as detailed above. The overall capital programme for 2018/19 is confirmed as $65.446m and an additional $120k of operational funding is approved to provide local share to match TIF funding for transport-related feasibility studies.

12.5b) Council acknowledges that the Twin Coast Cycle Trail and the Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub projects are contingent upon external funding support and that these projects may need further consideration if that funding is not able to be secured.

12.6. Civil Defence

The section 17A review of Civil Defence and the 2017 Ministerial Review – Better Responses to Natural Disasters and other emergencies support the development of fully integrated regional shared services model for Civil Defence. This model is a natural evolution of the governance and operational structure and arrangements that have been operating in the region. Regionalisation is likely to be a national process in future based on the Ministerial review. In one sense developing the current model means we are already ahead of the game.

The next step is to agree a Service Level Agreement with the Northland Regional Council as an interim measure as a regional rate for Civil Defence is developed.

Key features of the shared service for inclusion in the SLA are:

• Key roles and responsibilities of the parties

• Shared data and information, alignment of services and shared best practice

• Joint development of staff through joint training, secondments etc and professional skills development

• Commitment to local as well as regional reduction, readiness, response and recovery arrangements, including maintaining a local presence and support for local CDEM activities

• Consistent public education and media (including social media) advice and information

• Commitment to continuous improvement and best value

• Regular reporting to Council, committees, and management

• Relationship arrangements that oversee, manage and review the SLA and service delivery to ensure the needs of the Council and Far North are met and work-programmes and resourcing are appropriate and realistic.

It is proposed to resource the majority of the shared service with existing budgets and resources (e.g. two staff positions, vehicle etc) with additional budget for Council’s contribution to a fulltime recovery manager at the Group level (no more than $25,000). Recent experiences with storms in Northland, Edgecombe and Buller illustrate the need for dedicated and qualified personnel to be available. It is not be practical or cost effective for us to maintain a qualified and dedicated recovery manager within the district. As was seen in Edgecombe and recently in Buller, if there is not a suitably qualified person on staff this role often falls to the person with the best fit (or not, often the appointed person has no training or previous experience and must learn on the job, under extreme pressure). A regional approach would address our current gap and the regional recovery manager’s skills and experience would be available to Council and local recovery. This investment represents value for money.

In addition, extra budget is required for another vehicle and some equipment. The GM Infrastructure and Asset Management recommends that an overall additional budget of $120,000 is included in the LTP to cover Council’s share of the recovery manager’s salary, additional car, equipment and professional advice on the Service Level Agreement.



Staff recommendation is:

12.6a) That Council includes an additional $120,000 of operational funding in year 1 of the LTP to cover Council’s share of the regional recovery manager’s salary, additional car, equipment and professional advice on the Service Level Agreement for a fully integrated regional shared services model for Civil Defence.

12.6b) That Council reviews the funding for regional Civil Defence in later years of the LTP during 18/19 based on experience and the potential for a Regional Rate for this service being introduced in 19/20.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

for deliberations in preparation

of the Long Term Plan

2018-28

CONSULTATION SUBMISSIONS


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

How it was advertised ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Key consultation dates .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Public engagement events.............................................................................................................................................. 4

RESPONSES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Survey particiation ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Submission types ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Location of submitters .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Submitters representing a group .................................................................................................................................. 6

QUESTIONS WE ASKED IN THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT .................................................................................... 7

Do you agree with our proposed Community Outcomes .......................................................................................... 7

1. A Community and Civic Hub for Kaikohe? ................................................................................................................ 8

2. A permanent Cycle Trail from Opua to Taumarere? ............................................................................................. 12

3. Extend the Twin Coast Cycle Trail? .......................................................................................................................... 14

4. Who should own Russell Wharf?.............................................................................................................................. 17

5. What price for better sewerage in Kaitaia? ............................................................................................................ 18

6. Money for placemaking projects? ............................................................................................................................ 19

7. Increase funds for community infrastructure projects? ....................................................................................... 21

8. What support for events and festivals? .................................................................................................................. 23

9. Rainwater harvesting for Te Kao? ............................................................................................................................ 25

10. How should we fund safe drinking water in Te Kao? .......................................................................................... 25

11. Toilets and showers for the Kawakawa Tourism Hub? ....................................................................................... 29

12. Funds to create a Kawakawa Square? ................................................................................................................... 32

Other items we consulted on ....................................................................................................................................... 34

CONTENTS

LONG TERM PLAN 2018-28Consultation Submissions - Analysis and Results


3Far North District Council | Long Term Plan 2018-28 | Consultation Submissions - Analysis and Results

INTRODUCTION

HOW CONSULTATION WAS ADVERTISED

CREATING GREAT PLACES Supporting our people

HE ARA TĀMATA

Tena KoeFar North District Council staff will be

visiting North Hokianga next week. Please come and chat to us.

We will have information to share about Council’s new Long Term Plan, the International Dark Skies Reserve

opportunity, the Request for Service process and more.

This won’t be our last visit – but as Long Term Plan submissions are due in a couple of weeks’ time, we want to make

sure you know how to have your say.

Tuesday 20 March Kohukohu Library

10am - 12noonBroadwood Gym

2pm - 4pm

Thursday 22 March Kohukohu Library

10am - 12noonTe Kura Taumata o Panguru

Seminar Room2pm - 4pm

Have your say on our

Long Term Plan

NEWSPAPERS WEBSITE FACEBOOK TWITTER NETWORKS WORD OF MOUTHS

POSTERS & BROCHURES IN SERVICE CENTRES

For the Long Term Plan we ran full-page advertisements in:

• The Northern News on March 7, 14, 21 and 28

• The Bay Chronicle on March 8, 15, 22 and 29.

This qualified us for a free local carousel ad on Stuff.co.nz mobile edition in Northland In March.

We also advertised in:

• The Northern Advocate on March 7, 14, 21 and 28.

• The Northland Age on March 8, 15, 22 and 29.

10 different Facebook posts about the LTP, each linked to our website:

Type Date

Reach (total number

of people)General 5 March 3,954General 7 March 958Twin Coast Cycle Trail 16 March 772Key proposals 23 March 3,000Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub 26 March 4,684Kaitaia sewerage 27 March 1,744Placemaking 28 March 3,131Te Kao water harvesting 29 March 2,577Kawakawa Tourism Hub 30 March 4,880Community initiatives 1 April 1,000

In addition, there were a dozen Facebook event posts covering the community events, each reaching 300 to 600 people.

Example of Facebook post

CREATING GREAT PLACES Supporting our people

HE ARA TĀMATA

Have your say on our Long Term Plan

Most of these proposals will affect your rates, so we encourage you to read this ad and refer to our consultation document to find out more.

You can get a consultation document and submission form at

www.fndc.govt.nz/ltp2018 or from one of our service centres.

The Mayor and councillors will consider your feedback before

they finalise the Long Term Plan on 21 June. The closing date

for submissions is 4.30pm on 4 April.

A COMMUNITY AND CIVIC HUB FOR KAIKOHE?We don’t believe Council offices and public facilities in Kaikohe will

meet the long-term needs of the community, so we propose to

develop an $11.8 million community and civic hub with the

community and key partners.

A CYCLE TRAIL FROM OPUA TO TAUMARERE?We need to remove the Opua-Taumarere section of the Twin Coast

Cycle Trail under an agreement with the Bay of Islands Vintage

Railway Trust. We propose to build a new cycle trail within the

rail reserve at an estimated cost of $4.6 million.

EXTEND THE TWIN COAST CYCLE TRAIL?We propose to develop a network of cycle trails across the district

and have developed a $26 million, 21-year works programme that

may qualify for Government funding.

WHO SHOULD OWN RUSSELL WHARF?The Council’s commercial company Far North Holdings Ltd (FNHL)

wants to develop a cafe and i-SITE Visitor Information Centre on

Russell Wharf. We propose to transfer the wharf to FNHL for $1,

saving ratepayers around $100,000 a year in maintenance.

WHAT PRICE FOR BETTER SEWERAGE IN KAITAIA?Our Kaitaia wastewater system is old and wasn’t designed to cope with

current sewage and stormwater levels. We propose to spend $5.1

million upgrading the system to reduce sewage spills into streams.

MONEY FOR PLACEMAKING PROJECTS?We propose to establish a $100,000 fund for placemaking projects

that improve the ‘liveability’ of places. Under this proposal, each

community board would have $33,000 a year to give to

placemaking projects in their wards.

INCREASE FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS?We propose to continue allocating $100,000 a year to support

the development of community-led cultural, sporting and

recreational initatives.

WHAT SUPPORT FOR EVENTS AND FESTIVALS?We propose to continue allocating $80,000 a year to support

events and festivals that bring people together and showcase

our district.

RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR TE KAO?The community of Te Kao relies on a private water supply that

fails to meet New Zealand drinking water standards. The

community’s preferred option is to install rainwater harvesting

systems at properties. We therefore propose to not reacquire and

improve the water supply as planned in 2015.

HOW SHOULD WE FUND SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR TE KAO?Improving drinking water at Te Kao will come at a cost that is

beyond the reach of this community. We are proposing options

to help this community, including providing a grant or loan funded

by ratepayers across the district.

TOILETS AND SHOWERS FOR KAWAKAWA TOURISM HUB?The Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust and Far North Holdings

Ltd are developing a tourism hub - Te Hononga - in Kawakawa to

attract more visitors to the town. We propose to grant $230,000

from ratepayers in the Bay of Islands/Whangaroa Ward to secure

four toilets and one pay shower in the hub.

FUNDS TO CREATE A KAWAKAWA SQUARE?A square will be developed next to the Hundertwasser Toilets as part

of the Te Hononga project. We propose to give the Hundertwasser

Trust a $160,000 grant toward the cost of creating the square.

Councils in New Zealand have to review and update their long term plans every three years. The Far North District Council is seeking community feedback on proposals for its Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Read our consultation document for

more information and make a submission

online at www.fndc.govt.nz/ltp2018,

or complete a submission form,

before 4.30pm on 4 April.

You can also find out more at our community engagement events:

Thursday 8 March Kaikohe Night Market 4pm – 6pm

Saturday 10 March Kerikeri Packhouse Market 8am – 1.30pm

Thursday 15 March Paihia Farmers Market 1pm – 4pm

Saturday 17 March Kaitaia Farmers Market 7am - midday

Thursday 22 March Kaikohe Night Market 4pm – 6pm

Saturday 24 March Kerikeri Packhouse Market 8am – 1.30pm

Thursday 29 March Paihia Farmers Market 1pm – 4pm

Saturday 31 March Kaitaia Farmers Market 7am - midday

Saturday 31 March Opononi Farmers Market 8am – 2pm

Newspaper advertising


4 Far North District Council | Long Term Plan 2018-28 | Consultation Submissions - Analysis and Results

KEY CONSULTATION DATES

5 MARCHPUBLIC

CONSULTATION FOR THE

LONG TERM PLAN OPENS

4 APRILPUBLIC

CONSULTATION FOR THE LONG

TERM PLAN CLOSES AT

4.30 PM

18-20 APRILCOUNCIL

HEARS SUBMISSIONS

AT PUBLIC HEARINGS

Where When TypeRawene 3 March Rawene MarketKawakawa 4 March Kawakawa MarketKaikohe 8 March Kaikohe MarketKerikeri 10 March Kerikeri Packhouse MarketPaihia 15 March Paihia Farmers MarketKaitaia 17 March Kaitaia MarketRussell 20 March Russell Hall - 3 drop-in sessionsKohukohu 20 March Kohukohu LibraryBroadwood 20 March Broadwood GymKaikohe 22 March Kaikohe MarketKokukohu 22 March Kohukohu LibraryPanguru 22 March Te Kura Taumata o PanguruKerikeri 24 March Kerikeri Packhouse MarketPaihia 29 March Paihia Farmers MarketKaitaia 31 March Kaitaia MarketOpononi 7 April Opononi Market

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENTS

• 11 Market days were held with a number of staff and Elected Members in attendance

• Six other events were also held as drop-in sessions.

Market days for the LTP consultation

KERIKERI

KAIKOHE

KAITAIA

RAWENE KAWAKAWA

PAIHIARUSSELL

OPONONI

BROADWOOD

PANGURU



RESPONSES

SUBMISSION TYPES

Overall responses total

Website engagement portal

Email response

Hardcopy form or letter

866 477 90 183

55%24%

21%

LOCATION OF SUBMITTERS

BOI / WHANGAROA

KAIKOHE /HOKIANGA

TE HIKU

12%

17%

54%

2% Elsewhere Northland 2% Elsewhere NZ 14% Not given Total Submissions 866

BOI / WHANGAROA

467

TE HIKU100

KAIKOHE /HOKIANGA

146

NOT GIVEN118

ELSEWHERE NORTHLAND 18ELSEWHERE NZ 17

For the analysis of the consultation the category ‘Other areas’ refers to respondents that:

• Did not give any locational information in their responses

• Live elsewhere in Northland or

• Live elsewhere in New Zealand.



SUBMITTER REPRESENTING A GROUP

Overall responses total Yes No No response866 117 515 234

NO RESPONSE27%

YES14%

NO59%



QUESTIONS WE ASKED IN THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

COMMUNITY OUTCOMESDo you agree with our proposed Community Outcomes?

Live

able

co

mmunities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable ‘C

an d

o’ c

omm

unities prepared for the unexpected

Prou

d, vibrant communities

Prosp

erou

s co

mm

unities supported by a grow

ing econom

y

A w

isel

y m

an

aged and treasured environment

RESULTS

Respondents by area to: Do you agree with our proposed Community Outcomes?Total

responsesBOI /

WhangaroaKaikohe / Hokianga

Te Hiku

Other areas

373 170 105 59 39

Overall responses total Yes No No response866 283 90 493

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

100%

Total Other BOI /Whangaroa

Kaikohe /Hokianga

Te Hiku

NoYes



1. A COMMUNITY AND CIVIC HUB FOR KAIKOHE?

Impact on debt$11,758,684m. The project will be funded from borrowing over a 20 year term during which time adjustments will be made to rates to accommodate depreciation and interest costs

Level of ServiceIncreased amenities and facilities for the Kaikohe community and visitors

Our proposed option1a. We don’t believe that council offices and public amenities in Kaikohe are fit-for-purpose in their current state. We believe these will eventually fail to deliver the level of service the community expects. At a minimum, we would need to renew these buildings significantly in the future, if not demolish and rebuild them. We consider the people of the Kaikohe area would benefit economically and socially from a Community and Civic Hub. There are opportunities to explore a range of governance, management and operational arrangements (such as a Trust, private / public partnership) and to secure external funding to facilitate the project’s completion and deliver value. We will actively pursue these before we commit significant funding as part of the delivery of this Long Term Plan. Our initial estimates of costs (based on our experience with Te Ahu) and the timing of the build may therefore change as the scope, location(s) and the services to be provided in the hub are refined and partners are secured.

* Operational costs are not included in the capital costs stated

Options

1a. Community Hub for KaikoheWe develop a community hub and civic centre that creates optimal social and economic benefits for the community, uses existing assets and involves private and public investment. This may include land Council doesn’t own currently and it could be built in stages. We see Ngāpuhi and hapū as key partners in this project. We also envisage transferring ownership and leadership of the multi-purpose facility to the community, just as we have done with Te Ahu.

Cost* $11.8m

1b. Civic centre on our current siteWe create a civic centre that integrates Council’s Kaikohe campus with the adjacent Memorial Hall and includes a new library, public spaces and commercial activities, such as a café. This would provide the community with a one-stop shop for council services, but not provide the benefits of revitalising Kaikohe through a multi-functional hub. Opportunities to partner with Ngāpuhi hapū and community are also limited under this option which is concerned with rationalising and upgrading Council amenities in the town and limits additional community facilities on our current site.

Cost* $6.4m

1c. Status quoWe maintain and renew the current Council buildings in Kaikohe, but abandon plans to create a community hub and civic centre or integrate Council facilities in the town. This is the least expensive option with minimal costs for ratepayers in the short-term. However, it doesn’t provide a long-term solution for the renewal of Council offices and other amenities in Kaikohe, nor does it address community needs or take advantage of opportunities to partner with Ngāpuhi and other community organisations to revitalise Kaikohe. This option would not be sufficient to accommodate all Council staff, so alternative office space would still be required. (i.e. John Butler Centre, Kerikeri)

Cost* $1.19m

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $02019/20 $02020/21 $02021-28 $5.61 average

per year

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $02019/20 $0.242020/21 $0.242021-28 $4.59 average

per year

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $02019/20 $02020/21 $02021-28 $0



RESULTSDo you live in Kaikohe?

Yes No No response79 305 482

NO35%

YES9%

NO RESPONSE56%

The majority of total respondents ((66%) and Kaikohe residents (81%) preferred the proposed option of 1a.Kaikohe residents showed different preferences for options in and around the community hub.

The top three picks were as follows:

• Kaikohe Residents - Cultural Centre (94%), Public Library (51%), and Theatre (49%)

• Outside of Kaikohe - Public Showers (86%), Public Library (77%), and Commercial Kitchen (77%)

• Total Response- Public Library (71%), Public Showers (71%), Commercial Kitchen (63%), and Community Wi-Fi (63%).

Respondents by area to: Preferred Kaikohe Community and Civic Hub option

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

1a 187 62 92 18 151b 44 16 10 12 61c 54 28 4 12 10No response 581 361 40 58 122

Totals for each optionOverall responses total 1a 1b 1c No response

866 187 44 54 581

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1a. 1b. 1c.

Total Other areasBay of Islands Kaikohe-Hokianga Te Hiku



Respondents by area to: What would you like to see in and around the community hub?Total

responsesKaikohe

residentsOutside Kaikohe

250 77 173

Totals for each optionOverall responses total Responded No response

866 250 616

Feature TotalKaikohe

residentsOutside Kaikohe

Culture centre 162 66 96Public library 202 36 166Theatre / performance area 138 33 105Museum and / or archiving - taonga, history 134 27 107i-SITE 148 26 122Conference facilities 104 20 84Community Wi-fi 179 20 159Improved access & integration of Pioneer village 146 19 127Parks and playground 159 19 140Council service centre 124 18 106Public shower and toilets for residents and visitors 202 17 185Hall / Kitchenette 95 16 79Improved streetscape 146 16 130Business incubator 80 15 65Technology suite 102 14 88Commercial kitchen 179 14 165Youth space 150 13 137Links to Kaikohe section of Cycle Trail 121 12 109Social enterprises 95 11 84Gym / fitness centre 90 8 82Other 32 3 29Café 114 0 114



Total Kaikohe residents Outside Kaikohe

Café

Other

Gym / fitness centre

Social enterprises

Links to the Kaikohe section of Pou Herenga Tai Cycle Trail

Youth space

Commercial kitchen

Technology suite

Business incubator

Improved streetscape

Hall / Kitchenette

Public shower & toilets for residents and visitors

Council service centre

Parks and playground

Improved access & integration of the Pioneer Village

Community Wi-fi

Conference facilites

i-SITE

Museum and / or archiving – taonga, history

Theatre / performance area

Public Library

Culture centre

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



2. A PERMANENT CYCLE TRAIL FROM OPUA TO TAUMARERE?

Our proposed option2a. We believe the option that best meets the community’s needs and fully realises the economic potential of the a coast to coast cycle trail is to build a permanent section within the rail reserve between Taumarere and Opua, although there are some risks.


Level of ServiceMaintains the link between Opua and Taumarere

Options

2a. Full replacement alongsideWe could build a new cycle trail within the rail reserve between Taumarere and Opua. This would provide cyclists with a flat, scenic trail from Taumarere to Opua. This would require us to sublease from the Trust the parts the trail would be on, some of which could be returned to iwi and hapu as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. Getting resource consents could be a lengthy process and there is no guarantee we will get government subsidy to meet 47% of capital costs. We have timed this for years 3 and 4.

Cost $4.6m

2b. Some replacementWe could build a permanent cycle trail between Taumarere and Bridge 12, which is opposite the Opua Commercial Estate, and not on land reserved for Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This would provide cyclists and walkers with a scenic cycling experience in the Opua / Kawakawa area. However, as with Option 2, building a new embankment in the coastal marine area would be costly and there is no guarantee we would get resource consents or external funding for this work.

Cost$4.5m

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $02019/20 $6.312020/21 $02021-28 $5.23 average

per year


per year


per year

2c. Using the State HighwayWe could build a cycle trail from Taumarere to Opua alongside State Highway 11. This would be safer for cyclists than cycling on the highway and the New Zealand Transport Agency might agree this work. However, many cyclists would find the narrow, winding route through steep hills difficult. This is the most expensive replacement option and we might struggle to get national cycle trail funding because the route is inferior to the existing trail. We might, however, be able to get funding from elsewhere.

Cost$5.5m

RESULTS

In response to preferred options for a permanent cycle trail from Opua to Taumarere, a majority of all respondents supported the proposed option 2a.

This was also the most supported option by all sub-area responses.

Respondents by area to: 2. Which of the proposed options do you prefer for a permanent cycle trail from Opua to Taumarere?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

2a 203 119 38 19 272b 73 26 29 12 62c 6 2 1 1 2No response 584 320 78 68 118


866 203 73 6 584



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2a. 2b. 2c.

Total BOI / Whangaroa Kaikohe / Hokianga Te Hiku Other areas



3. EXTEND THE TWIN COAST CYCLE TRAIL?

Our proposed option

3c. We believe we should take advantage of Government subsidies and aim to deliver the improvements so communities reap the social and economic benefits of a network of trails but think a slow and steady approach is realistic.


Level of ServiceIncreased availability of recreational facilities

Options

3a. No extensionDon’t extend or improve the cycle trail as proposed above. With this option there would be no impact on the level of service the trail currently provides. However, communities wouldn’t reap the economic and social benefits of a network of cycle trails.

Cost No extra capital costs

3b. 12 years only if subsidy availableWe could extend and improve the cycle trail over 12 years, but only if we get Government subsidies. This would allow communities to reap the benefits of a network of cycle trails, but ratepayers would have to meet about half (53%) of the costs.

Cost $22.5m from ratepayers and $20.1m subsidy (Including professional fees and maintenance)

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $0.952019/20 $0.262020/21 $1.312021-39 $26.32 average

per year

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $02019/20 $02020/21 $02022-30 $0

Annual ratepayer impact2018/19 $0.952019/20 $0.262020/21 $3.662021-30 $25.81 average

per year

3c. The long gameWe could extend and improve the cycle trail as proposed over 21 years, and assume Government subsidy to meet nearly half our costs (47%). This would delay the benefits produced by a network of cycle trails, but it provides more time to plan and deliver the improvements and spreads the costs across a longer period of time.

Cost $25.9m from ratepayers and $23m from subsidy (including professional fees and maintenance)

RESULTS

No option for extending the Twin Coast Cycle Trail was supported by a majority of respondents, with most (39%) preferring option 3a. followed closely (35%) with support for option 3c.

However, the preference is clearer for sub-area groups with respondents from three (Other areas, Kaikohe Hokianga, and Te Hiku) supporting 3a. Bay of Islands was the only sub-area that showed stronger support for the proposed option of 3c.

Respondents by area to: Which of the proposed options do you prefer for extending the Twin Coast Cycle Trail?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

3a 116 47 29 25 153b 78 40 21 9 83c 105 63 22 9 11No response 567 317 74 57 119


866 116 78 105 567



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

3a. 3b. 3c.

Total Other areasBOI / Whangaroa Kaikohe / Hokianga Te Hiku

Question: Which of the following projects are a priority?

• Rest areas and short connections

• Linking up Ngawha Springs

• West Cycle Trail to Rawene

• Kawiti Caves

• Opua to Waitangi

• Waitangi to Kerikeri

• Southern link to Whangarei

• Pacific Coast to Awanui

RESULTS

While a majority of respondents picked Waitangi to Kerikeri (64%) and Opua to Waitangi (51%) as priority projects, the top two options picked varied between sub-area groups.

The top two preferences for each were as follows:

• Te Hiku - Pacific Coast to Awanui (63%) and Rest Areas (37%)

• Kaikohe Hokinaga - Rest Areas (66%) and Linking up Ngawha Springs (63%)

• Bay of Islands - Waitangi to Kerikeri (87%) and Opua to Waitangi (67%)

• Other areas - Linking up Ngawha Springs (63%) and Waitangi to Kerikeri (54%)

Respondents by area to: Which of the following projects are a priority?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

Gave response 250 135 64 27 24No response 616 332 82 73 129

Totals for each optionOverall responses total Responded No response

866 250 616



Totals for each optionPriority Total BOI / Whangaroa Kaikohe /Hokianga Te Hiku Other areasRest areas 115 54 42 10 9Linking up Ngawha Springs 106 46 40 5 15West Cycle Trail to Rawene 82 42 26 4 10Kawiti Caves 62 34 18 6 4Opua to Waitangi 128 91 22 4 11Waitangi to Kerikeri 161 117 26 5 13Southern link to Whangarei 42 25 8 2 7Pacific to Awanui 55 25 8 17 5

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

Rest areas and short connections

Linking up Ngawha Springs

West Cycle Trail to Rawene

Kawiti Caves

Opua to Waitangi

Waitangi to Kerikeri

Southern Link to Whangarei

Pacific Coast to Awanui

Total BOI / Whangaroa Kaikohe / Hokianga Te Hiku Other areas



4. WHO SHOULD OWN RUSSELL WHARF?

Our proposed option4a. We propose to transfer ownership of the wharf to FNHL. We believe this option best balances our desire to provide fit-for-purpose infrastructure while reducing costs to ratepayers.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceThrough FNHL visitors and the local community will see better facilities, shelter from the weather, information and refreshments

Options

4a. Transfer the wharf to FNHLWe could transfer the wharf to FNHL for $1 and remove the currently allocated depreciation, maintenance, renewal and improvement funding from our budgets, saving ratepayers from $93,000 in year 1 to $156,000 in year 10.

Cost Annual ratepayer impactPotential annual savings between $93,000 and $156,000

2018/19 -$1.262019/20 -$1.282020/21 -$1.312021-28 -$1.70 average per year

4b. Council retains ownership of the wharfThe alternative is not to transfer ownership of the wharf and FNHL would continue to maintain on behalf of Council. Current depreciation, maintenance, renewal and improvement budgets for the wharf would remain unchanged.

Cost Annual ratepayer impactNo change to current costs

No change to rates

RESULTSRespondents by area to: Who should own Russell Wharf?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

4a 416 292 46 31 474b 152 91 21 15 25No response 298 84 79 54 81

Totals for each optionOverall responses total 4a 4b No response

866 416 152 298

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

4a. 4b.




5. WHAT PRICE FOR BETTER SEWERAGE IN KAITAIA?

Our proposed option5a. We believe that Option 5b best supports the community outcomes on page 2 by achieving the greatest reduction in sewage spills for the lowest cost. This option will handle twice as much rainfall before a spill occurs.

Impact on debt$5.1m. The project will be funded from borrowing over a 20 year term during which time adjustments will be made to rates to accommodate depreciation and interest costs

Level of ServiceThe Level of Service will increase, but not as much as we planned in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan. There will be less untreated spills during weather events.

* Operational costs are not included in the capital costs stated

Options

5a. Preventing spills in a one-in-one year stormWe could upgrade the system to prevent spills into streams in the sort of storm you get only once a year (a more severe but less frequent storm). We estimate the capital costs of this option would be $13.4m. We don’t expect operating costs to change.

Cost*$13.4m

5b. Preventing spills in a one-in-three month stormWe could upgrade the system to prevent spills into streams in the sort of storm you get every three months (less severe but more frequent storm). We estimate the capital costs of this option would be $5.1m. We don’t expect operating costs to change.

Cost*$5.1m

Per connection charge2019/20 $2.082020/21 $7.502021-28 $204.77 average

per year

Per connection charge

2019/20 $2.08

2020/21 $20.07

2021-28 $106.22 average per year

RESULTSRespondents by area to: Which option do you prefer for Kaitaia Sewerage?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

5a 101 42 22 29 85b 147 67 33 25 22No response 618 358 91 46 123

Totals for each option

Overall responses total 5a 5b No response866 101 147 618

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

5a. 5b.




6. MONEY FOR PLACEMAKING PROJECTS?

Options

6a. More for community boardsEach community board could be allocated $33,333 for placemaking projects, funded from the General Rate. Community boards would also collectively have $357,176 of General Rates to give to community projects.

Cost Additional $100,000 bringing the total to $457,176 a year

Annual ratepayer impactAn increase of $1.36

6b. More for community boards (but you pay your share)Each community board could have an additional $33,333 a year to allocate for placemaking projects. Council would fund these projects from a targeted rate, either a new rate or the current targeted Ward Rate, to ensure funds were spent on specific projects and properties that benefited from these were rated accordingly. Community boards would also collectively get $357,176 of General Rates each year to allocate to community projects.

Cost Additional $100,000 bringing the total to $457,176 a year

Annual ratepayer impactAn annual ward rate increase of:

Bay of Islands / Whangaroa ratepayers $1.98

Kaikohe / Hokianga ratepayers $4.09Te Hiku ratepayers $2.66

6c. Allocation within status quoEach community board could have an additional $33,333 to allocate for placemaking projects. Council could deduct these funds from the $357,176 of General Rates boards currently get each year to allocate to community projects.

Cost No change to the current cost of $357,176

Annual ratepayer impactNo change

6d. Leave to community boards to decide what they fundWe could allocate no extra funds for placemaking projects, but community boards would still get $357,176 of General Rates to allocate to community projects and could choose whether or not they allocate it to placemaking.

Cost No change to the current cost of $357,176

Annual ratepayer impactNo change

Our proposed option6a. We propose allocating a total of $100,000 ($33,333 to each community board) for placemaking projects on top of current community grant funds. We would fund this from the General Rate. We believe this option best meets the needs of our communities and supports our mission to create great places and support our people.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceIncreased amenities for those communities receiving the funds

RESULTSRespondents by area to: Which option for community board funding of placemaking projects do you prefer?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

6a 125 61 33 23 86b 43 23 8 8 46c 36 15 12 4 56d 95 44 19 18 14No response 567 324 74 47 122


Overall responses total 6a 6b 6c 6d No response866 125 43 36 95 567




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

6a. 6b. 6c. 6d.



7. INCREASE FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS?

Options

7a. Status quo - $100,000 We could make $100,000 available for district-wide community infrastructure grants each year. This would allow Council to provide a modest level of support for community infrastructure projects and funding decisions would be made by people elected to represent the district.

Cost $100,000 a year

Annual ratepayer impactNo change to rates

We would also like to know who should make the decision - councillors or community boards?

• status quo - $100,000 councillors decide or

• status quo - $100,000 community boards decide. Funding decisions may reflect local rather than district-wide interests.

7b. Doubling the grant - $200,000We could make $200,000 available for community infrastructure grants each year. This would allow Council to provide a higher level of support for community infrastructure projects, but this would mean higher costs for ratepayers and it may not be warranted if there is a shortage of eligible projects.

Cost $200,000 a year

Annual ratepayer impactAn increase of $2.72

We would also like to know who should make the decision - councillors or community boards?

• doubling the grant and councillors decide or

• doubling the grant and community boards decide. Funding decisions may reflect local rather than district-wide interests.

Our proposed option7a. We propose allocating $100,000 a year for community infrastructure projects. We believe this option best meets the needs of our communities and supports our mission to create great places and support our people. We also believe councillors, rather than community boards, should decide which projects benefit from these grants, because they are elected to represent the interests of the district and this is a district-wide fund.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceNo change

RESULTSRespondents by area to: Which option for funding community infrastructure projects do you prefer, and who should decide?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

7a 59 30 12 11 67b 119 54 29 23 137c 26 12 9 2 37d 95 45 22 17 11No response 567 326 74 47 120


Overall responses total 7a 7b 7c 7d No response866 59 119 26 95 567



Total Other BOI / Whangaroa Kaikohe / Hokianga Te Hiku

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

7a. 7b. 7c. 7d.



8. WHAT SUPPORT FOR EVENTS AND FESTIVALS?

Options

8a. Status quo - $80,000We could continue to make a contestable Events Investment Fund of $80,000 available each year for events and festivals. This ensures a source of investment funds for events and festivals that have the potential to deliver an economic return for the district, and decisions would be made by people elected to represent the interests of the district.

Cost $80,000 a year

Annual ratepayer impactNo change to rates

Who should decide how to allocate the fund? • councillors decide (current situation ensures District-wide focus).

• community boards decide. Funding decisions may reflect local rather than district-wide interests.

8b. Invest less or more?An alternative is to invest either less or more. Investing less reduces costs for ratepayers but means that events with the potential to deliver an economic return for the district may not get the support needed to be successful. On the other hand, investing more increases costs for ratepayers but will result in more quality events and festivals. Every year our funding is oversubscribed (illustrating there is a need for increased funding).

Cost Will depend on the amount agreed

Annual ratepayer impactImpact will depend on the amount. For example, an increase to raise the fund to $180,000 would be an increase of $2.44

Who should decide how to allocate the fund? • councillors decide (current situation ensures District-wide focus).

• community boards decide. Funding decisions may reflect local rather than district-wide interests.

Our proposed option8a. We propose allocating $80,000 a year for a contestable Events Investment Fund. We believe this option is affordable and supports our mission - to create great places and support our people. We also believe councillors, rather than community boards, should decide which projects benefit from these grants. Existing criteria already provides for the even allocation of funds across the three wards and the purpose of the fund is to create an economic return for the district. Also, boards can use the local grants scheme to support smaller events.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceNo change

RESULTSRespondents by area to: Which option do you prefer for events funding?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

8a 226 113 55 40 188b 75 34 15 13 13No response 565 320 76 47 122






0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8a. 8b.

Respondents by area to: Who decides events funding?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

Councillors decide

91 46 25 10 10

Community Boards decide

210 101 45 43 21

No response 565 320 76 47 122


Overall responses total Councillors decide Community Boards decide No response866 91 210 565


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Community BoardsCouncillors



9. RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR TE KAO?

Options

9a. Rainwater harvesting to two tanksWith this option households would no longer rely on the private water supply. Instead, each household could collect rainwater from roofs and store it in two 25,000 litre tanks. This is common practice for rural households, except that rainwater harvested at Te Kao would be sterilised using an ultraviolet light treatment. This is the preferred option of Te Kao residents and could be implemented quickly. We estimate the median cost for each household is $16,500 (including GST) to install a rainwater harvesting system, which they would own and be responsible for maintaining at a cost of about $350 a year. Costs could be as high as $32,000 for properties that needed extensive roof and gutter repairs.

Cost

Median cost of $16,500 for Te Kao households

Annual ratepayer impactNo rates increase, but private investment by ratepayer required

9b. Bore supply with one tankCouncil could develop a bore and use the privately-owned pipe network to supply untreated water to households where it could be sterilised using ultraviolet light treatment. Each household could also have one 25,000 litre water tank, so the bore would act as a ‘top-up’ supply. We estimate it would cost each household, on average, $13,500 (including GST) to buy and install a rainwater harvesting system. Council would also need to spend $260,000 developing a bore and water storage and it would need to buy the privately-owned pipe network from the existing owner. Costs and timing would need to be negotiated.

Cost

$13,500 for each household for a rainwater harvesting system $260,000 for bore and water storage for 70 homes. Cost of reticulation purchase unknown

Annual ratepayer impactAn increase of $3.53 in addition to the private investment by the ratepayer

9c. Treatment plantCouncil could develop a bore, new pipe network and a water treatment plant designed to treat water to NZ Drinking Water Standards. This could provide Te Kao with a reliable supply of safe drinking water. We originally estimated this would cost $2.2m (excluding GST) it could be more. About 70 households are connected to the private supply. If they agreed to connect to the new supply, they would face annual capital and operating costs of about $3,000 a year per household, well above the affordability target of $1,200 the working group has been aiming for. Potable water would not be supplied for a number of years.

Cost

$2.2m

Annual ratepayer impactAbout $3,000 for the average household connected to the supply

Our proposed option9a. Option 9a is the fastest and most affordable way of providing Te Kao with safe drinking water. While there would be no costs for Council or ratepayers, funding the purchase and installation of rainwater systems is beyond the reach of the Te Kao community where nearly a third of households earn less than $20,000 a year. We are therefore also proposing four funding options to make this option more affordable for the Te Kao community.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceNo change. Council does not currently provide a level of service to Te Kao residents for water supply

RESULTSDo you live in Te Kao?


YES 1%

NO36%

NO RESPONSE64%



The majority of total (71%) and Te Hiku (83%) responses supported the proposed option of 9a.

Respondents by area to: Rainwater harvesting for Te Kao - which option for supplying water to Te Kao?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

9a 138 54 31 24 299b 24 12 7 2 39c 33 14 10 3 6No response 671 387 98 71 115


Overall responses total 9a 9b 9c No response866 138 24 33 671

Note: There were not sufficient responses to break down by Te Kao residents. Te Hiku residents responses used for source data.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

9a. 9b. 9c.




10. HOW SHOULD WE FUND SAFE DRINKING WATER IN TE KAO?

Options10a. Targeted rateCouncil could raise a loan to pay for the cost of buying and installing rainwater harvesting systems at properties and set a voluntary targeted rate to recover costs from Te Kao households. We estimate this rate would be about $2,343 in the first year for a household with a $16,500 rainwater system if the loan was repayable over 10 years. This rate would fall to about $1,719 in year 10 of the loan (or we could smooth the rates over the loan term). Households would be responsible for meeting annual maintenance costs of about $350 themselves. This rate is well above the working group’s $1,200 affordability target. Households would pay less if we raised a loan with a 20 year repayment period with costs of $1,578 reducing to $860.

Cost Up to $1.15m depending on how many households took up the voluntary rate or $106,260 a year

Annual ratepayer impact$2,343 for the average Te Kao household reducing over 10 years. Nil for all other ratepayers

10b. LoanCouncil could provide the Te Kao community with a 10-year or 20-year loan, via a Trust or similar entity, to pay for the cost of buying and installing rainwater harvesting systems. The cost of this to Council would depend on whether the loan was for water tanks only ($371,000), complete rainwater harvesting systems or harvesting systems and all necessary home improvements, include roof and gutter repairs ($1,155,000). Cost of providing the loan would be approximately $100,000 and the Trust would repay the principle and interest. Council would absorb administration costs.

Cost Up to $1.15m or $106,260 a year

Annual ratepayer impactNil. However, the borrower would have to repay the principal and interest

10c. Grant for tanks onlyCouncil could provide the Te Kao community with a one-off grant, via a Trust or similar entity, to fund the cost of buying two water tanks for each household at Te Kao (Estimated cost $371,000 for 70 households). This would increase 2018/19 residential rates in the district by $5.04 for each $100,000 of land value. A farm with a land value of $2.5m would face a rate increase of $125.93, while a commercial property with a land value of $250,000 would pay an extra $34.62.This option recognises that homeowners are responsible for maintaining their own homes.

Cost$371,000

Annual ratepayer impactVariable (see text left)

10d. Grant for all workCouncil could provide the Te Kao community with a one-off grant of $1m, via a Trust or similar entity, to fund the cost of buying rainwater harvest systems for each household at Te Kao. This would cover the cost of providing tanks, plumbing, pumps and water treatment for 70 households and most roof and gutter repairs. Providing a $1m grant to Te Kao would increase 2018/19 residential rates in the district by $13.58 for each $100,000 of land value. A farm with a land value of $2.5m would face a rate increase of $339.54, while a commercial property with a land value of $250,000 would pay an extra $93.37.

Cost $1m

Annual ratepayer impactVariable (see text left)

Our proposed optionCouncil doesn’t have a preferred option at this stage. We recognise that the proposed options would have implications for Te Kao residents and all ratepayers if adopted. We therefore want to consider feedback from the community before making any decision. If we established a good model for small rural communities, we might be able to use it elsewhere. Our financial forecasts do not include any grant or loan to the Te Kao community.

RESULTS

No option for funding safe drinking water was supported by a majority of respondents, with 31.5% of total responses supporting option 10c. and 29.8% supporting option 10a. Te Hiku responses showed a stronger preference for 10c. (39%) than 10a. (25%).



Respondents by area to: How should we fund safe drinking water in Te Kao?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

10a 54 25 13 9 710b 23 8 7 4 410c 57 27 12 14 410d 47 21 10 9 7No response 685 386 104 64 131


Overall responses total 10a 10b 10c 10d No responses866 54 23 57 47 685

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

10a. 10b. 10c. 10d.




11. TOILETS AND SHOWERS FOR THE KAWAKAWA TOURISM HUB?

Options

11a. Four toilets, one pay shower - ward ratedWe could give the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust a $230,000 grant to include four public toilets and one pay shower in Te Hononga. This money would include $30,000 of funds we have already budgeted to renew the Hundertwasser Toilets and we would fund this by increasing the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Ward Rate by $11.87 a year. This would allow us to respond to the demand for toilets and showers in one of our most visited towns. Ratepayers in this ward would bear the cost of the grant for these facilities.

Cost $230,000

Annual ratepayer impactIncrease Bay of Islands /Whangaroa Ward Rate by $11.87

11b. Four toilets, one pay shower - Kawakawa targeted rate We could give the Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust a $230,000 grant to include four public toilets and one pay shower in Te Hononga as in Option 1 and fund the new facilities by setting an annual targeted rate of $39.19 that would be payable by businesses and households on the Kawakawa Roll (roll numbers 400-499), which includes properties in Kawakawa, Moerewa, Opua and Russell. This option would also improve visitor facilities in one of our main tourist towns. Ratepayers in the Kawakawa area would bear the costs of the grant for these facilities.

Cost $230,000

Annual ratepayer impactTargeted rate of $39.19 a year

11c. Six toilets, one pay shower We expect more people to visit Kawakawa in future, so believe there is a need for extra visitor facilities. We want to know if the community supports us giving $347,613 to the Trust for six public toilets and one pay shower at Te Hononga. We would fund this investment by increasing the Ward Rate by $18.85 a year or by setting a targeted rate of $62.24 for businesses and households on the Kawakawa Roll (roll numbers 400-499), which includes properties in Kawakawa, Moerewa, Opua and Russell.

Cost $347,613

Annual ratepayer impactSee text left

How should we fund it?• Ward rate or Kawakawa targeted rate

11d. Twelve toilets, two pay showers We could give the Trust a grant of $695,227 for 12 toilets and 2 pay showers at Te Hononga. This would cater for expected visitor growth and remove the need for Government subsidies. We would fund this investment by increasing the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Ward Rate by $39.48 a year or by setting an annual targeted rate of $130.36 that would be payable by businesses and households on the Kawakawa Roll (roll numbers 400-499), which includes properties in Kawakawa, Moerewa, Opua and Russell.

Cost $695,227

Annual ratepayer impactSee text left

How should we fund it?• Ward rate or Kawakawa targeted rate

Our proposed option11a. We need to cater for expected visitor growth in Kawakawa, so we propose to give the Trust a grant of $230,000 for four toilets and one pay shower at Te Hononga. We recognise that Kawakawa is a gateway town to the District, especially the Bay of Islands, and propose to fund this grant by increasing the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Ward Rate by $11.87 this will ensure that Kawakawa ratepayers don’t have to bear the cost of this investment alone. We will assist the Trust to find external funding.

RESULTSDo you live in Kawakawa?


YES 3%

NO36%

NO RESPONSE61%



The majority of Total (53.7%) and Kawakawa (62%) responses were in favour of the proposed option of 11a. for funding the Kawakwa Tourism hub. Most Kawakawa responses (86%) and a majority of total responses (70%) chose options that paid for the Tourism Hub with a ward targeted rate.

Respondents by area to: Toilets and shows for the Kawakawa Tourism Hub - which option?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

11a 132 61 33 27 1111b 49 30 9 6 411c 37 21 9 1 611d 28 14 6 4 4No response 620 341 89 62 128


Overall total responses 11a 11b 11c 11d No response866 132 49 37 28 620

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

11a. 11b. 11c. 11d.


Respondents by area to: How should we fund it?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

Ward Targeted Rate

175 83 43 32 17

Kawakawa Targeted Rate

71 43 14 6 8

No response 620 341 89 62 128


Overall responses total Ward Targeted Rate Kawakawa Targeted Rate No response866 175 71 620



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Ward Targeted Rate Kawakawa Targeted Rate




12. FUNDS TO CREATE A KAWAKAWA SQUARE?

Options

12a. Helping outCouncil could give the Trust a grant of $160,000 in 2018/19 to offset $290,000 costs associated with this work. The Trust, which cleans the Hundertwasser Toilets under a service contract ($40,000) with Council, would no longer receive the $40,000 from 2019/20, effectively offsetting the grant. This option facilitates the development of a Hundertwasser Square in Kawakawa without imposing additional costs on ratepayers. It is also a good fit with the Tai Tokerau Regional Economic Action Plan and community and business development initiatives.

Cost $160,000

Annual ratepayer impactCost neutral

12b. Leaving it to the TrustThe alternative is that Council does not give the Trust a grant of $160,000 to offset $290,000 costs associated with this work, forcing the Trust to secure all of the $290,000 from other funders. This could put this important part of the Hundertwasser Park Centre Project at risk and make it more difficult for the Trust and the Kawakawa community to fully realise the economic and social benefits of this project.

Cost Nil

Annual ratepayer impactNil

Our proposed option12a. We propose to grant the Trust $160,000 because this will facilitate the creation of a vibrant public space in Kawakawa, without imposing costs on ratepayers. This option also supports the aspirations of the Trust and partner organisations promoting Te Hononga. These include Te Runanga o Ngati Hine, the Kawakawa Business and Community Association and the Northland Regional Council.

Impact on debtNil

Level of ServiceFNHL will increase the Levels of Service through improved facilities

RESULTS

The proposed option, 12a. for funding to create a Hundertwasser Square was supported by 58% of Total and 75% of Kawakawa responses.

Which option for funding to create a Hundertwasser Square do you prefer?

QuestionTotal

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

12a 145 85 29 14 13112b 107 47 31 21 86No response 614 335 86 65 549





0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

12a. 12b.




OTHER ITEMS WE CONSULTED ON

LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE

Respondents by area to: Are you in favour of modernising our libraries and making them more accessible?

Total responses

BOI / Whangaroa

Kaikohe / Hokianga

Te Hiku

Other areas

315 154 70 59 32

Totals for each optionOverall responses total Yes No No response

866 256 59 551

Yes

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

100%

Total Other BOI /Whangaroa

Kaikohe /Hokianga

Te Hiku

No

FEES AND CHARGES

Respondents by area to: Fees and Charges - do you agree with our proposed changes?Total

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

259 128 57 47 27


866 189 70 607

Yes

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

100%

Total Other Kaikohe /Hokianga

Te Hiku

No

BOI /Whangaroa



RATING POLICIES

Respondents by area to: Rating Policies - do you agree with our proposed changes?Total

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

254 116 62 43 33


866 178 76 612

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

100%


Te Hiku

NoYes

BOI /Whangaroa

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY

Respondents by area to: Significance and Engagement Policy - do you agree with our proposed changes?Total

responsesBOI /


Te Hiku

Other areas

226 103 59 38 26


866 172 54 640

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

100%


Te Hiku

NoYes

BOI /Whangaroa


agenda council ltp deliberations · my daughter works at makana café outside of school hours. my...

Documents