10 August 2017
Order Paper for Council meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
on:
Tuesday 15 August 2017 commencing at 6.00pm
Membership
Mayor W R Wallace (Chair) |
|
Deputy Mayor D Bassett |
|
Cr G Barratt |
Cr C Barry |
Cr L Bridson |
Cr J Briggs |
Cr M Cousins |
Cr S Edwards |
Cr T Lewis |
Cr M Lulich |
Cr G McDonald |
Cr C Milne |
Cr L Sutton |
|
|
|
For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
![]() |
COUNCIL |
|
Membership: |
13 |
Meeting Cycle: |
Council meets on a six weekly basis (Extraordinary Meetings can be called following a resolution of Council; or on the requisition of the Chair or one third of the total membership of Council) |
• Make a rate.
• Make bylaws.
• Borrow money other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan (LTP).
• Purchase or dispose of assets other than in accordance with the LTP.
• Purchase or dispose of Council land and property other than in accordance with the LTP.
• Adopt the LTP, Annual Plan and Annual Report.
• Adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Act in association with the LTP or developed for the purpose of the Local Governance Statement.
• Appoint the Chief Executive.
• Exercise any powers and duties conferred or imposed on the local authority by the Public Works Act 1981 or the Resource Management Act 1991 that are unable to be delegated.
• Undertake all other actions which are by law not capable of being delegated.
• The power to adopt a Remuneration and Employment Policy.
• Adoption of all policy required by legislation.
• Adoption of policies with a city-wide or strategic focus.
• Promotion of Plan Changes and Variations recommended by the District Plan Committee prior to public notification.
• The withdrawal of Plan Changes in accordance with clause 8D, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
• Approval, to make operative, of District Plan and Plan Changes (in accordance with clause 17, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).
• The method of voting for the Triennial elections.
• Representation reviews.
• Council’s Code of Conduct and Local Governance Statement.
• Elected Members Remuneration.
• The outcome of any extraordinary vacancies on Council.
• Any other matters for which a local authority decision is required under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
• All matters identified in these Terms of Reference as delegated to Council Committees (or otherwise delegated by the Council) and oversee those delegations.
• Council‘s delegations to officers and community boards.
The review and negotiation of the contract, performance agreement and remuneration of the Chief Executive.
• Standing Orders for Council and its committees.
• Council’s annual meeting schedule.
• The establishment and disposal of any Council Controlled Organisation or Council Controlled Trading Organisation and approval of annual Statements of Corporate Intent on the recommendation of the Finance and Performance Committee.
• Civil Defence Emergency Management Group matters requiring Council’s input.
• Road closing and road stopping matters.
• All other matters for which final authority is not delegated.
• The non-elected members of the Standing Committees (including extraordinary vacancies of non-elected representatives).
• The Directors of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.
• Council’s nominee on any Trust.
• Council representatives on any outside organisations (where applicable and time permits, recommendations for the appointment may be sought from the appropriate standing committee and/or outside organisations).
• The Chief Executive of Hutt City Council.
• Council’s Electoral Officer, Principal Rural Fire Officer and any other appointments required by statute.
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Ordinary meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Tuesday 15 August 2017 commencing at 6.00pm.
ORDER PAPER
Public Business
1. APOLOGIES
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.
3. Mayoral Statement (17/1126)
4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
5. Committee Reports with Recommended Items
a) Traffic Subcommittee
3 July 2017 15
Recommended Items
Item 4a) Mason Street, Moera - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/755) 16
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4b) Parkside Road, Seaview - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (17/756) 16
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4c) Seaview Road - Proposed Bus Stop and Associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/775) 16
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4d) Stevens Grove - Council Fleet Car Park Proposed Parking Restrictions (17/913) 17
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
b) Policy and Regulatory Committee
31 July 2017 36
Recommended Items
Item 4a) Parking Policy (17/945) 37
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4b) Review of Traffic Bylaw (17/886) 38
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4c) Naming Policy 2017-2020 (17/610) 39
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed with a new part (iv) to read:
(iv) asks officers to prepare a set of guidelines for the Community Boards around the process for naming.” |
Item 4d) Review of Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2007 (17/855) 39
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4e) Review of Cemeteries Bylaw (17/879) 40
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
Item 4f) Draft Amended Local Alcohol Policy (DALAP) (17/1027) 41
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
c) City Development Committee
1 August 2017 90
Recommended Item
Item 4) Report back on Proposal for Suburban Shopping Centre Revitalisation Budget (17/1047) 91
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
d) Finance and Performance Committee
2 August 2017 99
Recommended Item
Item 4) Treasury Risk Management Policy Changes (17/1039) 100
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
e) Community Services Committee
3 August 2017 140
Recommended Item
Item 4) Council Adoption of Regional Waste Mangement and Minimisation Plan (17/1171) 141
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
6. Miscellaneous
a) Temporary Discharges of Treated Wastewater (17/1092)
Report No. HCC2017/3/195 (3) by the General Manager, City Infrastructure 153
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed with a new part (iii) to read:
(iii) thanks officers for the detailed work undertaken on the project to date.” |
b) Appointment to the Councillor Leadership Group (17/1050)
Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services 162
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.” |
c) Appointment of Trustee to the Louise Bilderbeck Hall Trust (17/1213)
Report No. HCC2017/3/199 (3) by the Solicitor 164
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed and appoints Cr Briggs to the selection panel as the Wainuiomata Ward Councillor.” |
d) Road Stopping and Sale of Service Lane, Tocker Street, Taita (17/1209)
Report No. HCC2017/3/13 (3) by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 196
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
e) Community Panel Delegations (17/1125)
Memorandum dated 18 July 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services 199
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendations contained in the memorandum be endorsed.” |
f) Amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Finance and Performance Committee (17/1224)
Memorandum dated 9 August 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services 206
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.” |
g) Amendment to the Code of Conduct for Elected Members (17/1221)
Memorandum dated 9 August 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services 209
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.” |
h) Catering at Meetings (17/1220)
Memorandum dated 9 August 2017 by the Mayor 211
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.” |
7. Minutes
Meeting minutes Hutt City Council, 23 May 2017 213
Meeting minutes Hutt City Council, 8 June 2017 241
Meeting minutes Extraordinary Meeting of Council, 12 June 2017 243
Meeting minutes Hutt City Council, 29 June 2017 247
8. Committee Reports without Recommended Items
a) Community Plan Committee
16 May 2017 254
8 June 2017 270
b) Hearing by Independent Commissioner
2 May 2017 292
c) District Plan Committee
26 July 2017 338
d) Hutt Valley Services Committee
4 August 2017 343
9. QUESTIONS
With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.
10. Sealing Authority (17/838)
Report No. HCC2017/3/12 (3) by the Executive Assistant - Governance and Regulatory 351
Mayor’s Recommendation:
“It is recommended that Council approve the affixing of the Common Seal to all relevant documents in connection with the items specified in Schedule 1 in accordance with Standing Order 8.2.” |
11. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION:
“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
23 May 2017
12 June 2017
29 June 2017
13. Community Panel Appointments (17/1056)
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
(A) |
(B) |
(C) |
|
|
|
General subject of the matter to be considered. |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter. |
Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 23 May 2017 – Community Representatives for Civic Honours Committee |
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)). |
That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist. |
|
|
|
Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 12 June 2017 – Matters pertaining to RiverLink Project |
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (s7(2)(i)). |
That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist. |
|
|
|
Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 29 June 2017 – Appointment of Trustees to Hutt City Community Facilities Trust |
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). |
That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist. |
|
|
|
Community Panel Appointments. |
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). |
That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist. |
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.”
Kathryn Stannard
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SECRETARIAT SERVICES
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Traffic Subcommittee
Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Monday 3 July 2017 commencing at 3.00pm
PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr Bridson
Cr Briggs Cr Edwards (from 3.02pm)
Cr Lewis Cr Sutton
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager
Mr Z Moodie, Traffic Engineer Network Operations
Mr S Leal, Traffic Engineer
Ms K Glanville, Senior Committee Advisor
Ms R Bowman, Committee Administrator
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Cr Edwards joined the meeting at 3.02pm.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. Recommendations to Council - 15 August 2017
5. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 3.15 pm.
Cr MJ Cousins
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
Seaview Road - Proposed Bus Stop and Associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 11.2017 |
Policy and Regulatory Committee
Report of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Monday 31 July 2017 commencing at 5.30pm
PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr C Barry (until 6.51pm)
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)
Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Mayor Wallace. An apology was received from Cr Barry for early departure.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr B Cato, Solicitor (part meeting)
Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning
Mr J Gloag, Divisional Manager, Road and Traffic (part meeting)
Ms H Oram, Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents (part meeting)
Mr G Stuart, Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services (part meeting)
Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager (part meeting)
Mr G Sewell, Principal Policy Advisor (part meeting)
Mr J Pritchard, Senior Research Policy Advisor (part meeting)
Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor
Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17301 “That the apology from received from Mayor WR Wallace, and the apology for early departure received from Cr Barry be accepted and leave of absence be granted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
Crs Cousins and Bridson declared a conflict of interest in item 4 f) and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.
4. Recommendations to Council - 15 August 2017
Resolved: Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17304 “That the Committee notes that the draft Summary of Proposal, the draft Statement of Proposal and the draft Traffic Bylaw 2017 (subject to legal confirmation) will be included on the agenda for Council, together with the Committee’s recommendations.” |
7. Information Items
8. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.35 pm.
Cr MJ Cousins
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
City Development Committee
Report of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Tuesday 1 August 2017 commencing at 5.30pm
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor D Bassett (Chair) Cr C Barry (from 5.34pm)
Cr G Barratt Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
Mayor WR Wallace
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr G Craig, Divisional Manager, City Development (part meeting)
Ms P Rotherham, Development Liaison Manager (part meeting)
Mr A Hopkinson, Senior Traffic Engineer (part meeting)
Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs
Mr M Curr, Sport and Recreation Programmes Manager (part meeting)
Ms S Simcox, Communications and Marketing Team Leader
Ms K Glanville, Senior Committee Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
Cr Barry joined the meeting at 5.34pm.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. Recommendations to Council - 15 August 2017
Cr Milne requested that his dissenting vote be recorded against the above matter.
7. Information Items
8. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.04pm.
Deputy Mayor D Bassett
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
Finance and Performance Committee
Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers,
2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Wednesday 2 August 2017 commencing at 5.30pm
PRESENT: Cr G Barratt Deputy Mayor D Bassett
Cr J Briggs (from 6pm) Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr M Lulich
Cr C Milne (Chair) Cr L Sutton
Mayor WR Wallace (until 6.49pm)
APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Cr Barry. Apologies were received from Cr Briggs for lateness from Mayor Wallace for early departure.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer
Mr D Newth, Financial Accounting Manager (part meeting)
Ms E Davids, Risk and Assurance Manager (part meeting)
Mrs A Doornebosch, Committee Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17301 “That the apologies received from Cr Barry and for lateness from Cr Briggs and early departure from Mayor Wallace be accepted and leave of absence be granted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
Precedence of business
Resolved: (Cr Milne/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. FPC 17302 “In accordance with Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence of business to item 5, Insurance Update.” |
The item is recorded in the order in which it is listed on the order paper.
9. Information Item
10. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.29pm.
Cr C Milne
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
Community Services Committee
Report of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Thursday 3 August 2017 commencing at 6.00pm
PRESENT: Cr G Barratt (Chair)
Cr J Briggs Cr S Edwards
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne (until 6.42pm) Cr L Sutton
Mayor WR Wallace
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr J Partridge, Environmental Sustainability Manager (part meeting)
Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager (part meeting)
Ms M Laban, Community Projects and Relationship Manager
Mr J Ballantyne, City Safety Manager (part meeting)
Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs
Ms L Knowles, Community Facilitator (part meeting)
Ms S Lytollis, Communications and Marketing Advisor
Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CSC 17301 “That the apology for early departure received from Cr Milne, be accepted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. Recommendation to Council - 15 August 2017
7. |
General Manager's Report (17/974) Report No. CSC2017/3/191 by the General Manager, Community Services |
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr Kevin Goldsbury and Mr Matt Renata on behalf of the Hutt Youth Workers Network (the Network), spoke in relation to Council’s Community Services Division’s support of the Network. Mr Goldsbury explained how Council funding was being used to strengthen the Network across the Hutt Valley. He highlighted the increased collaboration which had occurred as a result of Council’s support including funding. He added that a Trust was being established so the Network could eventually be self sustaining, and that an effective Steering Committee was leading the way. Mr Renata advised that collaboration with the Upper Hutt Youth Network had occurred and was increasing the sphere of influence and connections of the Network. In response to questions from members, Mr Renata said the Network was focussed on decreasing the youth unemployment figures. He noted that youth suicide rates and mental health issues were high. He said the Network was trying to influence early decision making made by youth by having positive role models and mentors available. He agreed that homelessness was affecting the youth of the Hutt Valley. In response to questions from members, Mr Goldsbury agreed that there was a need for additional funding and resourcing of existing organiasations to enable them to be more effective. He said the Network had recently secured funding from the Ministry of Social Development and believed the emphasis for government funding was directed towards intervention programmes. He confirmed he would present to the next Hutt Valley Governance Group meeting.
|
8. Information Item
9. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.04pm.
Cr G Barratt
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
78 15 August 2017
14 July 2017
File: (17/1092)
Report no: HCC2017/3/195 (3)
Temporary Discharges of Treated Wastewater
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the recommended option upon which an application will be made for resource consent for ongoing temporary discharges of treated wastewater, from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Recommendations It is recommended that the Council: (i) notes the detailed information included in this report and appendices; (ii) endorses option 12 as its preferred option for temporary discharges of treated wastewater from the Seaview Treatment Plant, and confirms that an application for a Resource Consent for such discharges should be submitted to Greater Wellington based on this option selection. |
Background
2. Hutt City Council currently has resource consents for two temporary discharges of treated wastewater from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant (Seaview WWTP). The discharges are:
a. Discharges that occur while repair works are undertaken on the Main Outfall Pipeline (MOP). During such works treated wastewater from Seaview WWTP is diverted from the MOP and discharged from an outfall into the lower reach of the Waiwhetu Stream.
b. Discharges during and/or immediately after heavy rain events. If as a result of the rainfall events the flow of effluent through the Seaview WWTP exceeds the capacity of the Main Outfall Pipeline, and the storm tank within the Seaview WWTP is full, treated wastewater is discharged via the same outfall.
3. It should be noted carefully that these consents are for temporary discharges only and that such discharges occur:
a. In extreme wet weather events. While the number of such events each year is an unknown, a reasonable average over the last few years has been 4-5 such events, lasting (again on average) 12 hours per event. It should also be noted that in such events the Waiwhetu Stream and Hutt River are likely in flood, and that in layman’s terms the quality of the treated effluent discharge will be better than that of those rivers in flood. In addition, concerns about mixing/dilution/the possibility of tidal flow back up to the Waiwhetu Stream, and impacts on recreation or amenity in the area, do not apply.
b. When the Main Outfall Pipeline (MOP) is shut down for either planned or unplanned maintenance. Planned maintenance will generally be undertaken in winter to minimize impacts on recreation and amenity, while unplanned maintenance may occur at any time. In the last 2 years, there has been only 1 such event, for which the MOP was off-line for 6 days. In the last 10 years there have been 12 maintenance events.
4. The current consents expire in February 2018, and before applying for continuation of these discharges the current consents have a condition which requires HCC to consider a range of alternative options including:
- Increasing storage capacity at the WWTP
- Moving the outfall for such discharges (currently into the Waiwhetu Stream) to an alternative location
- Upgrade the Treatment Plant to reduce ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations in the discharge
- Full or part replacement of the MOP
5. The Options Asssessment Report and appendices within that report are attached as Appendix 1. That report contains detailed information on each of these investigations.
Discussion
6. Note that each broad alternative category listed above (para. 4) may have a number of options within that category (e.g. there are a number of different alternative locations for an outfall). Work has proceeded in assessing all these options over the last five years, and resulted in developing a “long list” of 18 options. A team of people each with expertise in a relevant area, then trimmed that “long list” to a “short list” of 7 options, and further detailed investigation of these has been the focus of that team over the last 12 months. Those 7 short listed options are:
Option 1 – status quo
Option 2 – Hutt Confluence: a new outfall location at the confluence of the Waiwhetu Stream and the Hutt River
Option 3 – Barnes Street: a new outfall location into the mouth of the Hutt River 100 metres off the end of Barnes Street
Option 5 – Port Road 100 m: a new outfall location into the harbour 100 metres off the end of Port Road
Option 6 – Port Road 600 m: a new outfall location into the harbour 600 metres off the end of Port Road
Option 8 – Hutt Confluence plus treatment
Option 12 – Hutt Confluence plus storage
Further information on each of these options is contained within the report and appendices.
7. Those seven options were then screened using a Multi Criteria Analysis process. We engaged experts in the field of understanding the impact of these various options on:
- Human health
- Marine environment
- Maori cultural values
- Recreation
- Amenity and natural character
8. Each of these experts produced a full report on their area of interest, and scored each of the options 1-5; 1 being poor (or having significant adverse effect) and 5 being good (or having less than minor adverse effect). These scores were then aggregated and weighted to give an overall score, and therefore a ranking.
9. Those scores and rankings are shown in Table 1 (attached as Appendix 2), along with capital cost estimates of each option, and other comments about statutory considerations, which have been previously discussed with Councillors at earlier workshops.
10. Table 1 shows the MCA score which gives an overall ranking of the “environmental” outcomes associated with each option, and the capital costs which show the financial impact of each option. In general terms, the higher the MCA score the higher the cost. This is not unexpected, given that better environmental outcomes are (again in general terms) achieved by building longer pipes to deliver the discharge into deeper water and further away from recreation, cultural, amenity or natural character impacts. But how do we then “balance” these competing factors? Or to put that query more simply, does the higher MCA score of option 6 for example, justify an additional $13M compared to say option 3, or does option 3 give a satisfactory environmental outcome at that lower cost?
11. To answer that question, the team then used a “Best Practicable Option” methodology. BPO is defined in the RMA as follows:
In relation to a discharge of a contaminant or an emission of noise, means the best method of preventing or minimizing the adverse effects on the environment having regard, among other things to:
a. The nature of the discharge or emission and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and
b. The financial implications, and the effects on the environment, of that option when compared with other options; and
c. The current state of technical knowledge and the likelihood that the option can be successfully applied.
12. To assess the short listed options in relation to the BPO definition, the team applied a structured decision making framework, and considered information in relation to the following headings:
- The nature of the discharge or emission
- The sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects
The financial implications of that option when compared with other options.
- The effects on the environment of that option when compared with other options.
- The current state of technical knowledge.
- The likelihood that the option can be successfully applied.
13. The information that Hutt City Council considered in relation to these headings is based on the detailed information in the Appendices to this report. It is discussed in the Options Assessment Report (Appendix 1) and further summarized in Table 2 within that report.
What happens next
14. Council is required to lodge an application for new consents, (to replace those expiring in February next year), by November this year. This report asks Council to endorse the recommended option as the basis on which those consent applications would be prepared and lodged.
15. Under the regulations contained within the current Proposed Natural Resources Plan, option 12 is expected to be a Non Complying Activity and therefore it is expected that this application would proceed to a hearing before the Regional Council, and the decision of the Regional Council may be appealed to the Environment Court. The Regional Council hearing would likely occur in the first half of 2018.
16. If the outcome of that hearing was to grant the consent, then it is likely that the consent conditions would specify a timeframe within which Council would be required to complete the works necessary. The consent application will be lodged on the basis that Council will need an extension of the existing consent for a reasonable period of time until the works are complete.
17. If the consent application was declined, then again an extension to the existing consent would be necessary while Council considered the basis on which the application had been declined, and determined a future course of action.
Options
18. Detailed consideration of a wide range of options has been undertaken as outlined in this report and appendices.
Consultation
19. A significant amount of consultation has been undertaken in respect of the project as follows:
20. The Seaview Consultation Working Group, is a group which was formed during the last consenting process (2012) specifically to consider this project. The Group comprises representatives from Friends of the Waiwhetu, the Recreational Marine Fishers Association (RMFA), Regional Public Health, East Harbour Environmental Society, and occasional attendance from GW officers. Regular meetings have been held with this Group over the last 5 years to report progress, as required by condition of the current Resource Consent. The latest such meeting was held early July this year, where the Group was advised of the recommended option. Members of the Group have different views as to which they think is the “best” option, but perhaps with the exception of RMFA, no objection to option 12 was voiced, and it was supported by the RPH officer.
21. Two recent meetings have been held with Iwi Groups. Feedback from the most recent meeting, at which Iwi were informed of the recommended option, was summarised as follows:
- The discharge of treated wastewater is offensive no matter how small the contaminant load is.
- HCC needs to recognise this and the impact on the values held by the Iwi
- Things that are tapu, can be made noa.
- Notification of any overflow event is important to iwi, including the waka ama club.
- Agreed that spending money on untreated wastewater discharges may be a higher priority.
- Issues of community affordability were noted.
- There was interest in the concept of using storage as a means to reduce the number of overflows.
22. The Cultural Impact Assessment Report written as part of the MCA analysis favours options 3, 5, and 6 more highly, but does say in relation to option 12 which is now recommended that “this option would be acceptable to Iwi”.
Annual Plan Feedback
23. Feedback on this project was sought as part of this year’s Annual Plan consultation. In that consultation, only 4 options were put forward for public consideration. That was in recognition of the fact that this is a complex issue, and expert advice was that seven options were too many for the community to sensibly appraise. In making a decision to limit the number of options consulted on, it was understood that what we were seeking was not an absolute option selection, but an indication of the Community’s preference in terms of a balance between environmental outcomes and cost. The results of that consultation are attached as Appendix 3. In summary, when asked to rate the options “not acceptable”, “could live with it”, or “acceptable”, option 12 received the highest “acceptable” rating. When asked to select a number one preference, option 12 had the highest rating.
Peter Glen Research Survey
24. Because this is such a complex issue, and one which was difficult to adequately represent in a brief Annual Plan consultation document, a more detailed and targeted survey was also undertaken by Peter Glen Research, on behalf of Council.
25. In this survey, 300 respondents (selected to cover the usual spread of geography, age, gender and ethnicity) were pre-selected and sent an “information pack” for them to read and understand before undertaking the phone survey. Mr Glen commented on the excellent level of engagement produced by the approach, to the extent of many of the respondents visiting the sites of the proposed discharge to enhance their understanding.
26. The results of this survey are included in the Options Assessment Report (Appendix 1). Mr Glen’s conclusion was that “this analysis indicates that (option 12) may be the most acceptable option overall. Sixty one percent (61%) of respondents ranked it either the first of second in their selection and very few (6%) ranked it as their least preferred option.
Legal Considerations
27. Current consents for temporary discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream, expire in February 2018. Council is required to lodge an application for a new consent by November this year. Lodging an application by 1 November will enable Council to continue to operate the existing discharges while the application is being considered even if this process goes beyond the February 2018 expiry date (as is likely). Endorsing the recommended option (or choosing an alternative) is a necessary step in that process.
28. Paragraph 15 above refers to the difficulties which can be expected in applying for a consent for option 12, when that option is likely to be considered a Non Complying Activity under the Proposed Natural Resources Plan. Barrister Philip Milne has been part of the team assessing this proposal and has acknowledged expertise in this area. His opinion on this matter is attached as Appendix 4. He notes the difficulties likely to be faced through the consenting process and lists a number of actions which can (and will) be taken to mitigate these. Notably he concludes by saying
The NCA status under the PNRP gives rise to moderate to high risks in relation to consenting. Notwithstanding this risk I remain of the view that the significant cost of options which are not NCAs warrants proceeding with the preferred option. I am moderately optimistic that independent commissioners of the Environment Court would take a more reasonable approach than that and that which is currently indicated in the PNRP.
Financial Considerations
Capital Cost
29. Council has for some years been carrying a budget provision for the project in the amount of $13M, currently showing in the Annual Plan in the 20/21 and 21/22 years. The recommended option nominally fits within that budget, although cost estimates at this stage can only be quite preliminary. If a more expensive option was chosen, or if the Consent Application for option 12 was rejected by the Environment Court, the Council has time to adjust future budgets to accommodate other options.
30. It is worth reiterating that the recommended option represents a considerable capital sum, particularly when taking into account the very few number of events each year for which this spend will be utilised. To the extent that Council’s overall finances are not limitless, additional capital spend on the project may limit Council’s ability to address other water and wastewater issues. In this regard there was general concensus amongst Consultation Groups that upstream spend on untreated wastewater overflows during wet weather, was of higher priority.
Longer Term Financial Implications
31. In selecting a preferred option as outlined above, the primary financial consideration has been the upfront capital cost of each option. The team is obviously aware however, that there are ongoing operating cost implications, and depending on the option selected, there may be future Capex implications at some point when the MOP is upgraded, or indeed replaced.
32. Some discussion of that is necessary. There are two broad scenarios. Firstly, that the MOP is totally replaced from Seaview to Burdans Gate, most likely by an underwater pipeline across the harbour. The second scenario is that the MOP is upgraded, either by replacement of all the rubber ring joints, or perhaps by “sleeving” the existing line.
33. If the future scenario was that the MOP was replaced, then options 3, 5 and 6 could potentially form the first stage of that new pipeline, and thus represent some future capital cost savings. Having said that, such a replacement option is currently considered most unlikely, largely on the basis of costs. Such replacement could be expected to cost >$100M, whereas upgrade options would be less than half that, with little difference in performance or other qualitative outcomes.
34. Therefore an upgrade of the MOP is a much more likely scenario. In this scenario, the MOP would need to be shut down for a period of some months while upgrade works were undertaken, and during that time treated effluent would be continuously discharged to the harbour. The outfall locations proposed for options 1, 2, 8 and 12 would not be considered suitable for discharging for such a length of time, and a temporary discharge location would therefore need to be built into deeper water, probably using a barging arrangement. The current estimated cost of this extra work would be in the order of $9.5M.
35. Options 3, 5 and 6 would provide outfall locations which would be suitable for that longer term (albeit temporary) discharge, and thus would avoid that future Capex.
36. As noted above, upfront Capital cost has been the primary financial consideration when selecting the preferred option. But in light of the above, we have also undertaken an NPV analysis of options 3 and 12, taking into account best estimates of future operating and capital costs under each of those options. In brief, option 3 would have slightly higher annual operating costs, but engender no need for additional future Capex. Option 12 has slightly lower operating costs, but would likely require future Capex to build a temporary outfall while the MOP was being upgraded, as described above.
37. An NPV analysis of these options has therefore taken into account these differing cash flows. The analysis assumed that the MOP upgrade (and therefore additional Capex for option 12), would be undertaken in 20 years. A discount rate of 10% has been used, (higher than Council’s average cost of capital which is currently approximately 6%), to represent the uncertainty around future timing, costs, technology, regulation, community meetings etc.
38. The result of that analysis shows an NPV for option 3 of $18.2M, and NPV for option 12 of $12.1M. Given that this analysis does not change the financial rankings of options 3 and 12, and that similar analysis on options 5 and 6 would necessarily produce a similar ranking result, option 12 remains the recommended option.
Other Considerations
39. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the future needs of the Community by providing a controlled and approved methodology for occasional discharges of treated wastewater. Cost effectiveness and efficiency has been ensured by rigorous analysis of a number of options as outlined in this report and appendices.
No. |
Title |
Page |
1⇨ |
Seaview Temporary Discharge: Options Assessment Report (Under Separate Cover) |
|
2 |
Table 1 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
⇨3 |
Annual Plan 2017-18 consultation (Under Separate Cover) |
|
⇨4 |
Legal opinion regarding Waiwhetu Stream (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Author: Bruce Sherlock
General Manager, City Infrastructure
Approved By: Tony Stallinger
Chief Executive
MEMORANDUM 87 15 August 2017
TO: Mayor and Councillors
Hutt City Council
FROM: Kathryn Stannard
DATE: 07 July 2017
SUBJECT: Appointment to the Councillor Leadership Group
It is recommended that Council appoints Cr Cousins as a member of the Councillor Leadership Group, which comes under the umbrella of the Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy, due to her broad policy overview as Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee and Deputy Chair of the District Plan Committee for the remainder of the triennium. |
Purpose of Memorandum
1. To seek approval from Council to appoint Cr Cousins to the Councillor Leadership Group (‘the Group’), under the Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy.
Background
2. The purpose of the Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy (‘the Strategy’) is to help create a region resilient to the impacts from natural hazards. The Strategy sets out a road map for Council co-operation to deliver greater efficiency in hazards research and planning and greater consistency in the management of natural hazards. It provides a coherent regional framework that will allow the development of consistent policy responses in planning documents such as District and Regional Plans, Annual Plans, Long Term Plans and Asset Management Plans.
3. Council, at its meeting held on 14 March 2017, agreed to the following:-
Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy (17/35) |
Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Briggs) Minute No. C 17101(3) “That Council endorses the Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy, attached as Appendix 1 to Report No PRC2017/1/29.” |
4. Greater Wellington Regional Council is now setting up a Councillor Leadership Group, under the Natural Hazards Management Strategy. The idea is that Group would help advocate and maintain momentum for the implementation of the Strategy. The Group would be kept updated on the progress of the Strategy and would provide advice and input to the officer steering group. Representatives of the Group would provide a ‘political presence’ for the implementation programme and present a consistent voice in the media and within Councils. Greater Wellington Regional Council has asked Council to nominate a Councillor to be appointed to the Group.
5. Cr Cousins is the logical person for the appointment because of her broad policy overview as Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee and Deputy Chair of the District Plan Committee. Cr Cousins is happy to accept the appointment.
6. There is no remuneration for representatives on the Group.
There are no appendices for this report.
Author: Kathryn Stannard
Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services
Reviewed By: Andrew Cumming
Divisional Manager Environmental Policy
Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
89 15 August 2017
07 August 2017
File: (17/1213)
Report no: HCC2017/3/199 (3)
Appointment of Trustee to the Louise Bilderbeck Hall Trust
Purpose of Report
1. This report seeks Council’s approval to establish a selection panel to identify, assess and appoint between five to eight independent Trustees to be appointed to the Louise Bilderbeck Hall Trust.
Recommendations That Council: (i) approves the appointment of a selection panel consisting of the Wainuiomata Community Hub Manager and a Wainuiomata Ward Councillor to identify, assess and approve potential candidates for between five to eight independent Trustees on the Louise Bilderbeck Hall Trust (LBHT), in line with the process set out in this report; (ii) approves this process for future appointments to the Board of the LBHT; (iii) delegates to the selection panel the power to appoint Trustees to LBHT; and (iv) delegates to the selection panel members the ability to exercise all the powers of Council under the LBHT Trust Deed (including the amended Trust Deed) on an on-going basis. |
Background
2. The Lions Club of Wainuiomata (the Club) has written to Council and requested we appoint new Trustees to the Board of the Louise Bilderbeck Hall Trust (LBHT). This letter is attached as appendix 1 to this report.
3. The Club advises that all of the current Trustees have either resigned or died and only Council has the power to appoint more, under clause 11 of the amendment to the LBHT Trust Deed dated 2 May 1998. The Trust Deed and Amendment to the Trust Deed are attached as appendix 2 and 3 to this report.
4. The objectives of the LBHT is to administer the Louise Bilderbeck Hall as an amenity for the benefit of Wainuiomata and, in particular:
i) To provide a place of meeting and recreation for Ladies Groups or Institutions or Societies in Wainuiomata; and
ii) To provide a place of meeting and recreation for Service Organisations and other Public Spitied Bodies, Repertory, Cultural, Sporting Societies and Groups within Wainuiomata; and
iii) To distribute net profits, if any, arising each year from the operation of the hall to a reserve.
Discussion and process
5. Because Council has a right to appoint one member of Council staff as a trustee to this Board, the LBHT meets the definition of a ‘council organisation’ (but not a council-controlled organisation) under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). For this reason, Council’s policy on appointing directors or trustees applies (the Policy). This policy follows best practice for governance appointments. The process involves appointing a selection panel which will undertake a selection process. A copy of the policy is attached as Appendix 4 to the report.
6. In this particular instance, officers suggest the selection panel be given a wide discretion to apply or waive elements of the policy, as they see fit. The focus should be on filling the 5 (minimum) to 8 (maximum) Trustee positions, to enable the LBHT to make decisions and operate lawfully.
7. The selection panel should consider:
a. A ‘person specification’ for the positions. Given the nature of the positions, it is suggested this might just be a person who is willing and able to take on the task, depending on the level of interest in the positions.
b. Whether it is necessary to advertise the position in a local paper.
8. The recommendation is that the selection panel should be given the delegation to appoint the Trustees directly, as opposed to having this decision made in full Council.
Consultation
9. The Club, the Mayor, relevant internal staff and Wainuiomata Ward Councillors have all been advised of this matter.
Legal Considerations
10. In addition to the above, under the LGA, a local authority may only appoint a person to be a director equivalent if the person has in the opinion of the local authority the skills, knowledge or experience to –
i) Guide the organisation given the nature and scope of its activities; and
ii) Contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the organisation.
11. The LGA specifies that the role of a director is to assist the organisation to meet its objectives and any other requirement in its statement of intent.
Other Considerations
12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.
No. |
Title |
Page |
1⇩ |
Lions letter to Council regarding LBHT |
167 |
2⇩ |
LBH Original Trust Deed |
168 |
3⇩ |
LBH Trust Deed Amendment |
185 |
4⇩ |
Appointment and Remuneration of Directors Policy |
191 |
Author: Bradley Cato
Solicitor
Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Appointment and Remuneration of Directors Policy |
APPOINTMENT AND REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Division |
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory |
Date created |
August 2008 |
Publication date |
August 2008 |
Review period |
August 2016 |
Owner |
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory |
Approved by |
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory |
Version |
Author |
Date |
Description |
V 1.0 |
Joycelyn Foo |
25/8/2008 |
Approved by Council |
V 2.0 |
Joycelyn Foo |
22/8/2013 |
Reviewed |
V 3.0 |
Joycelyn Raffills |
11/8/2015 |
Format updates |
Contents
1. Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides:
2. Appointment of Directors
3. Process for making appointments
3.1 Preparation of a person specification
3.2 Advertising the position
3.3 Assessment of candidates
3.4 Exceptions
4. Tenure and reappointment
5. Conflicts of interest
6. Remuneration of directors
7. Terms
1.
Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides:
(1) A local authority must adopt a policy that sets out an objective and transparent process for---
(a) the identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge, and experience required of directors of a council organisation; and
(b) the appointment of directors to a council organisation; and
(c) the remuneration of directors of a council organisation.
(2) A local authority may appoint a person to be a director of a council organisation only if the person has, in the opinion of the local authority, the skills, knowledge, or experience to---
(a) guide the organisation, given the nature and scope of its activities; and
(b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the organisation.
Note: The term Director includes Trustee or Manager of a Council Organisation as per section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.
2. Appointment of Directors
Council is empowered to make appointments to a wide range of organisations.
In all cases the decision as to the appointment will be made at a full Council meeting.
In each case, Council will appoint a person who Council considers to show the following:
§ The skills, knowledge and experience needed to undertake the relevant role;
§ Sound judgement.
§ A high standard of personal integrity.
§ An understanding of the governance requirements for the type of organisation concerned.
§ The ability to work as part of a team.
3. Process for making appointments
Identifying skills, knowledge, and experience required of directors
In each case, the selection and assessment process will involve the following:
3.1 Preparation of a person specification
In each case a person specification will be prepared setting out the skills, knowledge, and experience required of a director/s. In preparing this person specification consideration will be given to the following:
§ The nature and scope of Council organisation, its future direction and requirements in its constitutional documents.
§ The objectives of the organisation and the attributes, skills, knowledge, and experience required to contribute to the achievement of those objectives.
§ The skills of any existing directors.
§ Outstanding skills, knowledge, and experience required.
§ Any future skills, knowledge, and experience required.
3.2 Advertising the position
In most cases, the position will be advertised (at least in the local newspaper) and any potential candidates known to Council may be approached and asked if they would consider applying for the position.
3.3 Assessment of candidates
The assessment process will be as follows:
§ All applications will be assessed by a selection panel comprising an elected member, senior officer/s and if appropriate relevant external people and HR expertise (the panel). The panel will consider all applications received, shortlist, interview and prepare a report on the candidates for Council’s consideration. The panel may make a recommendation if it wishes to do so.
§ The final appointment/s will be made in committee (thus protecting the privacy of natural persons) by resolution of the full Council. Public announcement of the appointment will be made as soon as practicable after Council has made its decision.
§ If an elected member is under consideration to fill a particular vacancy, that elected member cannot take part in the discussion or vote on their appointment or on any other proposed appointees being considered for the same Board at the same meeting.
3.4 Exceptions
Elected member appointments
In the case where Council is considering the appointment of an elected member to a council organisation, there will be no need to advertise the position. This is because the potential pool of applicants for the position will be limited to elected members only. It will remain necessary for the assessment process to be followed in relation to the potential elected member candidates.
Existing pool of potential candidates
There may also be cases where, because of a recent appointment process, Council has a number of potential applicants for a position who have already submitted applications and who have agreed that their personal details could be used for consideration for future appointments. In such a case, the panel may elect not to advertise the position and may recommend to Council a potential appointee from this group of potential applicants. In such a case, the panel will include in its report to Council, for Council’s consideration, an explanation of the reasons that the advertising process was not followed. Where Council makes an appointment without advertising the position, Council will record that fact and the reasons for not advertising the position in the minutes of the relevant meeting.
Other situations where advertising not required
There may also be other situations where it is considered appropriate not to follow a full public advertising process in selecting potential applicants for appointment to Council organisations. In all cases where the decision is made not to advertise the vacancy publicly, the panel must include in its report to Council the reasons that a public advertising process was not followed. Where Council makes an appointment without advertising the position, Council will record that fact and the reasons for not advertising the position in the minutes of the relevant meeting.
4. Tenure and reappointment
All appointments will specify the term of the appointment. Council may decide that, to prevent unwanted vacancies occurring during an election period, an appointment will be specified to extend beyond the end of a local government triennium. In such a case, it is prudent to specify that the appointment will last until the first ordinary meeting of the new triennium.
Where an elected member is appointed to a Board because one of the conditions is that the director be an elected member, the term of the appointment will cease on the same date the elected member ceases to be an elected member, if that date is prior to the expiry date of the term of the appointment.
In relation to a Council Controlled Organisation, directors may be reappointed to a Board for a second term and, where there is a compelling reason, a director may be appointed for further periods. Second and third terms are not automatic, and Council will make its decision based on the company’s business needs, the availability of candidates for the role (including the incumbent), the incumbent’s performance and the make-up of the Board.
If a reappointment is made without having first completed the process outlined above, Council will record in the minutes of the meeting at which the appointment is made the reasons for not having followed that process.
5. Conflicts of interest
Hutt City Council expects that directors of council organisations will avoid situations where their actions could give rise to a conflict of interest. To minimise situations of conflict arising:
Council requires directors to be guided by the Institute of Directors in New Zealand’s Ethics (2003/1) and Conflicts of Interest (1996/3): Statements of Best Practice for New Zealand Directors.
Unless otherwise stated in the organisation’s constitutional documents, all directors are appointed at the pleasure of Council and may be dismissed for disregarding those guidelines.
6. Remuneration of directors
The remuneration of directors of a council organisation will be determined by the nature of the business of the organisation and the financial situation of the organisation.
Where Council is the sole shareholder in a particular organisation Council will set the directors’ remuneration either by resolution at the annual general meeting or resolution of Council. The resolution will state whether the remuneration is set as a fixed cap for Board remuneration, to be allocated by the Board, or specifying the salaries to be paid for directors and the Chairperson.
Remuneration for directors of council-controlled organisations will be determined by an analysis of market rates for comparable positions at the commencement of every triennium.[2]
Remuneration for directors of other council organisations (if any) will be determined on a case by case basis taking into account the form and purpose of the organisation and any previous level of fees paid by the shareholder.
7. Terms
The terms used in this policy have the meaning set out in section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.
04 August 2017
File: (17/1209)
Report no: HCC2017/3/13 (3)
Road Stopping and Sale of Service Lane, Tocker Street, Taita
Purpose
1. This brief report seeks Council agreement to amend an earlier resolution made in 2011, so that the service lane in Tocker Street, Taita, once stopped, can be sold to any adjoining owner.
That Council agrees that the service lane of Tocker Street in Taita be stopped and sold to any adjoining owner, subject to any offer back requirements under the Public Works Act 1981. |
Background
2. In December 2011 Council resolved to stop the service land in Tocker Street, Taita and sell to the adjoining owner at 23 Tocker Street. The service lane was no longer deemed to be required for roading purposes.
3. Since then UrbanPlus, on behalf of Council, has been negotiating with the adjoining property owner at 23 Tocker Street, but has not been able to reach agreement. A tenant of this property has since fenced off the service lane and is using the land for his car dismantling business.
4. Another adjoining owner has since expressed an interest in acquiring the service lane, once stopped. The land has been valued at $90,000.
5. This brief report seeks Council agreement to amend its earlier resolution so that the service lane, once stopped, can be sold to any adjoining owner, subject to any offer back requirements under the Public Works Act 1981.
6. A plan showing the service lane is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
No. |
Title |
Page |
1⇩ |
Tocker Street Service Lane Plan |
198 |
Author: Bruce Hodgins
Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens
Approved By: Bruce Sherlock
TO: Mayor and Councillors
Hutt City Council
FROM: Kathryn Stannard
DATE: 18 July 2017
SUBJECT: Community Panel Delegations
That the Council:
(i) notes that at its meeting held on 23 May of this year Council approved the establishment of four Community Panels;
(ii) notes that the new Community Panel delegations have been reviewed by Council’s Solicitor;
(iii) notes that guidelines and criteria have been developed to assist Community Panels to allocate their funding and form part of the formal delegations;
(iv) adopts the new delegations for Community Panels for the remainder of the triennium, as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the memorandum;
(v) agrees that the new delegations come into effect on 15 August 2017; and
(vi) agrees, if part (iv) above is adopted, to amend the Community Services Committee Terms of Reference by deleting the following wording under the heading ‘Determine and monitor’:
Community Engagement Fund (Central, Eastern, Western and Northern Wards only). |
Purpose of Memorandum
1. The purpose of this memorandum is to seek Council’s endorsement of the Community Panels proposed new delegations, set out in Appendix 1 attached to the memorandum, including the guidelines and criteria for allocation of the Local Community Projects Fund and the Community Engagement Fund.
Background
2. At its meeting held on 23 May 2017 Council agreed the following:-
Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr McDonald) Minute No. C 17225 “That Council: (i) approves the establishment of four Community Panels; and (ii) notes
the new Community Panel approach would be reviewed after |
Training/Professional Development
3. Each panel will be allocated $2,000 per annum for training/professional development. In terms of training, officers are planning to hold a training session with Community Panel Chairs to discuss their new responsibilities.
Administration Budget
4. Each panel will be allocated $2,000 per annum to cover meeting related costs.
Honorarium
5. Each community representative will receive $750 per annum.
Financial Considerations
6. Expenditure for the Community Panels will fall inside existing budgets.
Publicity
7. A press release, as well as targeted messages, will be issued advising the Community Panels new delegations. Individual Community Panels may also wish to advise their communities of their new delegations including the new Local Community Projects Fund and can seek advice of Council’s Communications and Marketing Team Leader.
No. |
Title |
Page |
1⇩ |
Community Panels Delegations Guidelines Criteria |
202 |
Author: Kathryn Stannard
Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services
Reviewed By: Matt Reid
General Manager Community Services
Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Attachment 1 |
Community Panels Delegations Guidelines Criteria |
Membership: 7
5 community representatives and 2 Ward Councillors
Quorum: 4 (to include one Ward Councillor)
Meeting Cycle: When required
Reports to: Community Services Committee (yearly)
This document records the delegation of Council functions, responsibilities, duties and powers to Community Panels (‘the Panels’). The delegations are expressed in general terms. The delegations shall be exercised with proper regard for the Council’s strategic direction, policies, plans and Standing Orders.
Note: Community Panels are a new concept for Hutt City. Council has deliberately kept the guidelines and rules broad and at a high level. Panels are encouraged to help shape themselves and evolve in order to best meet their key responsibilities.
PURPOSE:
The Panels were established by Council at its meeting held on 23 May 2017. The purpose of the Panels is outlined in the general functions listed below. The role of the Panels is to represent and act as an advocate for the interests of their communities.
GENERAL FUNCTIONS:
· Representation – discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting.
· Allocate and manage a Local Community Projects Fund.
· Allocate and manage the local Community Engagement Fund for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western Wards to assist and support local community events and initiatives.
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS FUNDS:
· To be used to fund one or more local community projects per triennium.
· Projects are to develop community assets that are not able to be funded in Council’s Long Term Plan and/or Annual Plan.
· Community assets include, but are not limited to, playgrounds, street furniture, public art, tree planting, lighting, safety improvements, way finding, signage, improvements to existing public places and facilities. These community assets should be in public spaces.
· The development of new assets needs to be in accordance with Council strategies, policies and plans.
· Where on-going maintenance and or other costs are required after completion, these need to be provided for. This may be by way of formal agreement with the relevant division of Council.
· Approval of spending must be by resolution of the Panels.
· A report must be submitted, at the end of each financial year, to the Community Services Committee, detailing expenditure over the year.
CRITERIA FOR THE PANELS TO MANAGE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS FUND:
· See attached Appendix 1 for the internal process that must be followed to ensure appropriate officers receive information on projects and can provide feedback.
· Projects must be supported by officers if there are on-going maintenance or other costs post completion.
· Each Panel will agree and determine a process for determining how projects will be identified and how funding decisions will be made.
CRITERIA FOR THE PANELS TO MANAGE THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND
· The fund is for local activities and events that directly benefit the communities concerned.
· To be eligible for funding the organisation must be a charitable trust or an incorporated society and the activity must take place within the Hutt.
· Panels may choose to allocate the entire fund in one funding round or they can have two funding rounds per annum. An appropriate assessment sheet is used by members when determining which organisation(s) should receive funding.
· The funds can be used towards the hireage of equipment, advertising costs, purchasing food for a specific event. Operational costs cannot be applied for.
· Organisations that are granted funding are responsible for completing an accountability form to report on the funds spent.
· Council’s Community Funding Advisor is available to support and assist community groups when making applications through the Council’s online grants system.
STANDING ORDERS:
The Hutt City Council’s Standing Orders apply, subject to the provisions for meeting quorum and decision making as set out in these delegations.
INFORMAL MEETINGS AND ADMINISTRATION:
· Where funding decisions are not being made, the Panels are encouraged to meet informally.
· Council’s Secretariat Services Division will support each Panel by way of formal meeting administration, co-ordination and governance advice.
· A senior member of Council’s Community Services Division will support each Panel.
CHAIRS
Chairs will be recommended to Council at the beginning of the triennium, for a 12 month period. At which point, the Panel will elect its Chair for the remaining term. It is preferred that Ward Councillors are not Chairs, although this is possible should no other panel member be able to commit to the role.
Appendix 1 - Checklist for Local Community Projects Fund
Attach project description/application to this checklist and email to relevant Manager(s).
Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens
Divisional Manager Road and Traffic
City Safety Manager
Divisional Manager Leisure Active
Divisional Manager Museums
Divisional Manager Environmental Consents
Divisional Manager Regulatory Services
Council Managers to complete:
1. Do you support this project? Yes or No (please circle)
2. Do you have any initial concerns with this project?
3. What needs to be taken into account when the panel is considering this project for funding? (bylaws, consents):
4. Do you deem this to be a new asset? Yes or No (please circle)
If yes, does it align with Council’s strategic, policies or plans?
If no, why not?
5. Is there budget set aside for this project? Yes or No (please circle)
If yes, please state what year this funding will be made available:
Can you liaise with this group in your planning
stages of this project, for their input
Yes or No (please circle)
If no, why not?
6. Can this project be funded through Council’s Long Term Plan? Yes or No (please circle)
If no, why not:
7. Will there be a maintenance budget or other costs post completed that need to be factored into this project? Yes or No (please circle)
If yes, please advise the amount required:
TO: Mayor and Councillors
Hutt City Council
FROM: Kathryn Stannard
DATE: 09 August 2017
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Finance and Performance Committee
That Council approves the proposed amendment (as strike out) to the Finance and Performance Committee’s terms of reference as attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum. |
Purpose of Memorandum
1. As an administrative matter to seek Council’s agreement to amend the Finance and Performance Committee’s terms of reference.
Background
2. At its meeting held on 1 March 2017, the Finance and Performance Committee asked officers to report back on whether the Chief Executive could be given delegated authority to approve overseas travel for staff, or have a cost limit for this delegation, within Council’s current Travel Policy.
3. At its meeting held on 23 May 2017, Council made the following resolution in relation to overseas travel for staff:-
Overseas Travel Approval - Policy Change (17/651) |
Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 17207 “That Council: (i) approves the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to approve overseas travel for staff; and (ii) approves the ‘tracked’ changes in the Sensitive Expenditure Policy attached as Appendix 1 to Report PRC2017/2/110.” |
4. Currently the Finance and Performance Committee has as its terms of reference the following:
Determine and monitor:
• Approval of overseas travel for both elected members and officers.
5. This memorandum is asking Council to amend the terms of reference for the Finance and Performance Committee to reflect the amendment as follows:-
Determine and monitor:
· Approval of overseas travel for elected members.
No. |
Title |
Page |
1⇩ |
Amended TOR Finance and Performance |
208 |
Author: Kathryn Stannard
Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services
Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills
General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Attachment 1 |
Amended TOR Finance and Performance |
![]() |
FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE |
|
Membership: |
10 |
Meeting Cycle: |
Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the requisition of the Chair |
Quorum: |
Half of the members |
Reports to: |
Council |
PURPOSE
To assist the Council execute its financial and performance monitoring obligations and associated risk, control and governance frameworks and processes.
Determine and monitor:
• Maintain an overview of work programmes carried out by the Council’s organisational activities (excluding strategy and policy development).
• Progress towards achievement of the Council’s objectives as set out in the LTP and Annual Plans.
• Revenue and expenditure targets of key City Development Projects.
• The effectiveness of the internal audit, risk management and internal control processes and programmes for the Council for each financial year.
• The integrity of reported performance information, both financial and non-financial information at the completion of Council’s Annual Report and external accountability reporting requirements.
• Oversight of external auditor engagement and outputs.
• Compliance with Council’s Treasury Risk Management Policy,
• Requests for rates remissions.
• Approval
of overseas travel for both elected members and officers.
• Requests for loan guarantees from qualifying community organisations where the applications are within the approved guidelines and policy limits.
Consider and make recommendations to Council:
• The adoption of the budgetary parameters for the LTP and Annual Plans.
• The approval of The Statements of Intent for Council Controlled Organisations, and Council Controlled Trading Organisations, and monitoring progress against the Statements of Intent.
• The adoption of the Council’s Annual Report.
General Matters
· Any other matters delegated to the Committee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.
· Approval and forwarding of submissions on matters related to the Committee’s area of responsibility.
TO: Mayor and Councillors
Hutt City Council
FROM: Kathryn Stannard
DATE: 09 August 2017
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Code of Conduct for Elected Members
That Council amends the current Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) to reflect that the first initial step in any complaint made under the Code is referred to the Mayor to determine if the complaint can be resolved prior to any further action. |
Purpose of Memorandum
1. The purpose of the memorandum is ask Council to amend the current Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) to reflect that the first initial step in any complaint made under the Code is that the complaint is referred to the Mayor. The Mayor will then determine if the complaint can be resolved, prior to any further action.
Background and discussion
2. The process Council has been using for complaints made under the Code has resulted in costs that are unacceptable to the Mayor and Chief Executive.
3. The Mayor and Chief Executive have agreed to review the process and it is recommended the Mayor reverts back to being the first point of contact for any complaint made under the Code before further action is pursued.
4. In the event the Mayor cannot resolve the complaint or is a party to the complaint, the complainant will maintain the right to forward the complaint to the Chief Executive.
Proposed Amendments
5. Clause 12.2 of the Code would be amended to read:
12.2 Complaints
All complaints under this Code must be made in writing and forwarded to the Mayor, unless the Mayor is a party to the complaint. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Mayor will attempt to resolve the complaint through informal dispute resolution.
If the Mayor is a party to a complaint, or fails to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant within a reasonable time, the complainant has the right to forward the complaint to the Chief Executive.
On receipt of a complaint, the Chief Executive must forward that complaint to an independent investigator for a preliminary assessment to determine whether the issue is sufficiently serious to warrant a full investigation.
6. Appendix B: Process for the Determination and Investigation of Complaints would be amended to read:
Step 1: Mayor Receives Complaint
On receipt of a complaint under this Code, the Mayor will attempt to resolve the complaint through informal dispute resolution, within a reasonable time.
If the complainant is not satisfied with the proposed resolution or the complaint has not been resolved within a reasonable time, the complaint has the right to forward the complaint to the Chief Executive.
7. The numbering for the remaining steps would then be changed in Appendix B, to reflect the added first step. Where the Mayor is a party to the complaint, the complaint will start at Step 2.
There are no appendices for this report.
Author: Kathryn Stannard
Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services
Reviewed By: Bradley Cato
Solicitor
Approved By: Tony Stallinger
Chief Executive
MEMORANDUM 128 15 August 2017
TO: Mayor and Councillors
Hutt City Council
FROM: Ray Wallace
DATE: 09 August 2017
SUBJECT: Catering at Meetings
Councillors will bring their own meal or pay for a meal to be provided at meetings of Council, committees, subcommittees, workshops and hearings.
|
Purpose of the Memorandum
1. To ask Councillors to either bring their own meal or pay for their portion of catering for Council meetings themselves.
Background
2. Council as an organisation provides catering for a range of occasions. They include such events as citizenship ceremonies, civic and community awards as well as meetings with external organisations and Council meetings, workshops and hearings.
3. The rationale for providing catering for Council meetings is that the majority of Council meetings last longer than two hours; Councillors are on-site before the meeting commences to ensure there is a quorum and it can be ideal networking opportunities.
Community Feedback
4. The matter of catering for Council meetings has gained a great deal of attention with feedback from the community and the overwhelming majority did not support the catering.
Catering Recommendation
5. Being conscious of the concerns raised and listening to the concerns of the community, as Mayor and being a proactive Council, I am recommending there be no ratepayer-funded catering at all Council meetings.
There are no appendices for this report.
Author: Ray Wallace
Mayor
129 23 May 2017
Minutes of an ordinary meeting of The Hutt City Council held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Tuesday 23 May 2017 commencing at 6.00pm
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Cr G Barratt Cr C Barry
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure
Ms J Raffills, General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer
Mr B Cato, Solicitor (part meeting)
Ms J Beck, Manager, Human Resources (part meeting)
Mr A Cumming, Manager, Environmental Policy (part meeting)
Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager (part meeting)
Ms S Simcox, Team Leader Communications and Marketing
Mr P Healy, General Manager, Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (part meeting)
Mr S Keatley, Huia Pool Manager (part meeting)
Ms C Tessendorf, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst (part meeting)
Mr N Geard, Environmental Policy Analyst (part meeting)
Mr D Bradley, Facilities Manager (part meeting)
Ms K Stannard, Divisional Manager Secretariat Services
Mrs A Doornebosch, Committee Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. |
The Mayor delivered his Mayoral Statement.
|
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17201 “That the Mayoral Statement be noted and
received.” |
4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 5 e) 4a) (UrbanPlus Limited) and took no part in discussions or voting on the matter.
Cr Milne declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 5 e), 4a) (Seaview Marina Limited) and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.
Cr Cousins declared a conflict of interest in relation to items 5 e) 4b) and 12 b) 9 and took no part in discussion or voting on the matters.
Cr Lewis declared a conflict of interest in relation to items 5 d) 4a) and 5 d) 4b and took no part in discussion or voting on the matters.
5. Committee Reports with Recommended Items
a) Traffic Subcommittee
b) District Plan Committee
Recommended Item
Cr Barry and Cr Briggs requested that their dissenting votes be recorded
against the above matter.
c) Policy and Regulatory Committee
|
|
|
“That the report of the meeting held on 01 May 2017 with the exception of item 4a) Overseas Travel Approval – Policy Change, item 4b) Redrafted Gift Policy for Elected Members, item 4c) Reserve Reclassification – Wainuiomata, item 4d) Future of Molesworth Street Reserve Pomare, item 4e) Proposed Road Stopping and Sale of Legal Road on the corner of Knights Road and Birch Street Waterloo, item 4f) Dog Controls for Avalon Park and item 4g) Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy be adopted.” |
Recommended Items
d) City Development Committee
e) Finance and Performance Committee
Recommended Items
f) Community Services Committee
Recommended Items
The meeting adjourned at 7.40pm and recommenced at 7.50pm.
c) |
Changes to Terms of Reference and Subcommittee Membership (17/740) Memorandum dated 2 May 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr McDonald) Minute No. C 17230 “That Council:
(i) approves the proposed amendment (as strike out) to the City Development Committee’s terms of reference as attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum;
(ii) approves the amendment (as underlined) to the Community Boards’ delegations as attached as Appendix 2 to the memorandum;
(iii) approves the amendments to the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Joint Committee’s (WMMP) terms of reference to reflect the following:
(a) that territorial authorities can appoint an alternate member to attend and vote at its meetings in the appointed member’s absence; and
(b) that the WMMP Joint Committee will agree at the beginning of each triennium where meetings are to be held; and
(iv) appoints Cr Lewis as an alternate to the WMMP Joint Committee; and
(v) appoints Cr Bridson
as a sitting member of the Traffic Subcommittee and |
d) |
Alteration of Part of a Previous Council Resolution - Delaney Park (17/769) Memorandum dated 9 May 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Bridson) Minute No. C 17231 “That Council:
(i) notes its original resolution dated 15 December 2016 (Minute No. C 16506(3)) as follows:
“That Council agrees to provide for the following alcohol free areas within the city…part (f) Stokes Valley shopping centre and Speldhurst Park, Stokes Valley to be alcohol free zones at all times”…; and
(ii) agrees to alter part (f) of the resolution to include Delaney Park to be alcohol free zone at all times as follows:
Stokes Valley shopping centre, Delaney Park and Speldhurst Park, Stokes Valley to be alcohol free zones at all times as attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum.” |
7. Minutes
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17232 “That the minutes of the meeting of the Hutt City Council held on Tuesday, 14 March 2017, be confirmed as a true and correct record.” |
8. Committee Reports without Recommended Items
a) Community Plan Committee
|
|
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17233 “That the report of the meeting held on 21 February 2017 be adopted.” |
|
|
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17234 “That the report of the meeting held on 14 March 2017 be adopted.” |
b) Hutt Valley Services Committee
|
5 May 2017
|
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17235 “That the report of the meeting held on 5 May 2017 be adopted.” |
9. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
10. |
Report No. HCC2017/2/11 by the Committee Administrator |
||
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17236 “That Council:
(i) approves the affixing of the Common Seal to all relevant documents in connection with the items set out in Schedule 1 contained in the report; and (ii) approves the deeds executed under Power of Attorney set out in Schedule 2 contained in the report.
SCHEDULE 1 - General Sealing Authority
Agreement for Sale and Purchase a) The Hutt City Council and
Premans Limited Agreement with Another Organisation b) The Hutt City Council and
Greater Wellington Regional Council Authority and Instruction for Deed of Nomination and Land Transfer Tax Statement – Sale or Purchase c) The Hutt City Council and
Urban Plus Limited (nominator) and Fairfield Ltd Partnership (nominee) Cancel Consent Conditions Legal 2.7 d) The Hutt City Council Compensation Certificate under Section 19 of the Public Works Act 1981 e) The Hutt City Council and DG
Hall, P Hall and JD Hall Easement f) The Hutt City Council and
Yu’s Development Limited g) The Hutt City Council and KB Roil
and BD Makwana-Roil Encumbrance h) The
Hutt City Council and Urban Plus Ltd Memorandum of Encumbrance – No. B437677.1 i) The Hutt City Council Removal of Encumbrance j) The Hutt City Council Warrants Approved
SCHEDULE 2 Deed of Lease a) The
Hutt City Council |
11. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely: 12. Committee Reports with Recommended Items a) City Development Committee - 2 May 2017 b) Finance and Performance Committee - 3 May 2017 c) Community Services Committee - 4 May 2017 13. Minutes HUTT CITY COUNCIL - 14 March 2017 14. Community Representatives for the Civic Honours Committee (17/647) The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.” |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 17238 “That Mr Alister Skene and Mr Peter Healy of the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust be permitted to remain after the public during consideration of item 12b) ‘Response to Hutt City Community Facilities Trust Funding Proposal’ as they have knowledge of the matter to be discussed that will assist Council in relation to this item.” |
WR Wallace
MAYOR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
157 8 June 2017
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of an ordinary meeting of The Hutt City Council held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Thursday 8 June 2017 commencing at 6.55pm
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Cr G Barratt Cr C Barry
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson (until 6.57pm)
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: An apology for early departure was received from Cr Bridson.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer
Mr P Benseman, Budgeting and Reporting Manager
Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker
Ms K Stannard, Manager Secretariat Services
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Briggs) Minute No. C 17301 “That the apology received from Cr Bridson for early departure be accepted.”. |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. |
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 8 JUNE 2017 Annual Plan 2017-2018 |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17302 “That Council: (i) adopts the Annual Plan 2017-2018 incorporating the budget and any other changes agreed by the Community Plan Committee; and (ii) authorises the Annual Plan Subcommittee comprising Mayor Wallace, Deputy Mayor Bassett and Councillors Barry, Cousins and Milne to sign off the typeset document.” |
5. |
Granting of Easements over Local Purpose Reserve (Road), Wise Street, Wainuiomata (17/851) Report No. HCC2017/3/79 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Briggs) Minute No. C 17303 “That Council grants easements for rights of way, rights to drain water and sewage, and rights to convey water, gas, electricity and telecommunications over the Hutt City Council owned Local Purpose Reserve (Road), being Lot 10, DP 336174, situated at the end of Wise Street, Wainuiomata, in favour of Lots 1 and 6 DP 302320.” |
6. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7pm.
WR Wallace
MAYOR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017.
159 12 June 2017
Minutes of an
extraordinary meeting of The Hutt City Council held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Monday 12 June 2017 commencing at 6.00pm
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Cr G Barratt Cr C Barry
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure
Ms J Raffills, General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer
Mr B Cato, Solicitor
Mr G Craig, City Development Manager
Mr C Walton, Chief Executive, UrbanPlus Ltd
Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager
Ms S Simcox, Communications and Marketing Team Leader
Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor
Ms K Stannard, Divisional Manager Secretariat Services
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflicts of interest.
4. |
Report No. HCC2017/3/82 by the Councillor Speaking under public comment, Mr Shierlaw
commended Cr Barry for raising the matter. He believed Mayor Wallace
had made misleading comments relating to meetings where tea, coffee and
biscuits were provided for members. He advised that the
Maungaraki Residents Association held evening meetings and did not provide
catering for its members. He reminded members that they were
self-employed and should be covering their own costs including their own
meals. Mayor Wallace highlighted that he had received advice from officers that tea, coffee and biscuits were provided at a number of meetings where agendas were light. MOVED: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs) "That Council require elected members to provide their own meals prior to, during, or after Full Council and Council Committee meetings. If an elected member wishes for Council to arrange catering for them, then they shall be invoiced a set amount to fully cover the cost of that catering.” Cr Barry elaborated on the reasons for the notice of motion. He advised that Council had recently agreed to a ‘sham’ of a policy where Council had agreed to pay the living wage to its employees on a case on case basis when it was the most cost effective way. He believed that Council had not considered the most cost effective way with any other criteria Council used for its decision making including free meals paid for by the ratepayer. Cr Lulich spoke in support of the motion. He believed that the living wage should be controlled by central government. He elaborated on the way MPs and Parliamentary Services treated employees and the benefits that the MPs received. He advised that from now on he would be bringing his own meals to meetings. Cr Edwards spoke in support of the motion. He acknowledged that the cost of catering was a small amount taking everything else into account. He advised that he was uncomfortable eating meals paid for by the ratepayers when, during the annual plan process, there was not enough funding for community groups. He considered that day meetings were not a solution as that prevented certain people standing for Council and prevented certain members of the public participating in day meetings. Mayor Wallace spoke against the motion. He expressed disappointment that the matter had been handled in the first instance through the media with no attempt to correct misinformation. He advised that guidelines were in place for the catering of meetings. He highlighted that tea, coffee and biscuits were provided to members when meetings were scheduled to finish within the hour. Cr Briggs spoke in support of the motion., He clarified that members received an email from Cr Barry before the media was alerted to the matter and that a discussion on catering had taken place with half of the members. He highlighted that ratepayers were paying for the meals that they were eating. He stated that he would be bringing his own meals to meetings. |
In his right of reply, Cr Barry expressed concern that members were missing the point. He advised that he had not attended any meetings where the catering was just tea, coffee and biscuits. He advised that he was disappointed that Mayor Wallace was not supporting the motion. He considered that members were required to do business in the most cost effective way.
The motion was declared LOST by Division with the voting as follows:-
For
Cr Barry Cr Lulich Cr Lewis Cr Briggs Cr Bridson Cr Edwards |
Against
Mayor Wallace Deputy Mayor Bassett Cr Barratt Cr Cousins Cr Milne Cr McDonald Cr Sutton |
Total: 6 |
Total: 7 |
Cr Barry left the meeting at 6.15pm and rejoined the meeting at 6.45pm
5. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
6. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Resolved: Minute No. C 17301(2) “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely: 7. Matters Pertaining to RiverLink Project (17/888) The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.”
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17302(2) “That Mr David Allen and Ms Libby Cowper of Buddle Findlay and Mr Craig Walton, Chief Executive of UrbanPlus Ltd be permitted to remain after the public during consideration of the item as they have knowledge of the matter to be discussed that will assist Council in relation to this item.” |
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.25pm and the non public portion of the meeting finished at 7.45pm
WR Wallace
MAYOR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
163 29 June 2017
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of an ordinary meeting of The Hutt City Council held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Thursday 29 June 2017 commencing at 6.00pm
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Cr G Barratt Cr C Barry
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Cr Milne.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer (part meeting)
Ms S Simcox, Communications and Marketing Team leader (part meeting)
Mr A Cumming, Divisional Manager Environmental
Policy (part meeting)
Ms K Stannard, Divisional Manager Secretariat Services
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17301(3) “That the apology received from Cr C Milne be accepted and leave of absence be granted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. |
Setting Rates for the year ending 30th June 2018 (17/904) Report No. HCC2017/3/148 (2) by the Chief Financial Officer |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17302(3) “That Council resolves to set rates and add penalties to unpaid rates during the 2017/18 rating year by passing the following resolution: 1.
SETTING THE RATES
(a) A General Rate set and assessed under sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on every rating unit in the district, differentially on those categories of rateable land as defined in the Hutt City Council Funding Impact Statement as follows:
The General rates in the dollar calculated on the capital value of each rating unit shall be:
(c) A Targeted Rate (Wastewater Rate) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $435.00, on the first water closet or urinal connected to the wastewater system from each rating unit, and a charge of $217.50 for the second and each subsequent water closet or urinal from each rating unit so connected, provided that each household is charged for no more than one water closet.
(d) A Targeted Rate (Recycling Charge) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $40.50 on every separately used or inhabited portion of a rating unit in the Residential differential category to which the recycling collection service is provided, or is available to be provided. (e) A Targeted Rate (Jackson Street Programme Rate) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of .079403 cents in the dollar on the capital value of every rating unit in a Business differential category which is situated within that area of the former Petone Borough with a frontage on Jackson Street between the Hutt Road and Cuba Street.
The above rates for the financial year ending 30 June 2018 are all inclusive of GST at the prevailing rate and are payable by six instalments by the following due dates:
2. AUTHORISING PENALTY CHARGES
AND pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council further resolves for the period from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 to:
(a) Authorise a penalty charge of 10% to be added to the amount of rates remaining unpaid for each instalment after the due date. The dates upon which the 10% penalty charge will be added to any rates remaining unpaid for each instalment will be the day after the date each instalment is due;
(b) Authorise a further penalty charge of 10% to be added to rates levied prior to 1 July 2017 and which remain unpaid after the 20 August 2017 instalment has been processed. This penalty will be added to the amount of unpaid rates the day after the 20 August 2017 instalment has been processed;
(c) Authorise a further penalty charge of 10% to be added to rates levied prior to 1 July 2017 and which remain unpaid after the 20 February 2018 instalment has been processed. This penalty will be added to the amount of unpaid rates the day after the 20 February 2018 instalment has been processed.”
|
5. |
Private Plan Change 45 - Rule Amendments and Rezoning of Land at
1N and 57N Mandel Mews Report No. HCC2017/3/147 (2) by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst |
|
The Divisional Manager Environmental Policy elaborated on the report. |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Cousins) Minute No. C 17303(3) “That Council: (i) resolves, pursuant to clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, to approve Plan Change 45 to the City of Lower Hutt District Plan, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) approves the affixing of the Common Seal to Plan Change 45 in accordance with Standing Order 8.2, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report; and (iii) notes that a public notice will be included in the Hutt News on 4 July 2017 advising the operative date of Plan Change 45.” |
6. |
Appointment of Deputy Chair of Lower Hutt District Licensing Committee (17/964) Report No. HCC2017/3/97 (2) by the Senior Committee Advisor |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. C 17304(3) “That Council:
(i) approves the appointment of Cr Simon Edwards as Deputy Chair and a list member of the Lower Hutt District Licensing Committee effective from 1 August 2017 for the remainder of his term of office; and
(ii) notes that Cr Bridson will be resigning as Deputy Chair and a list member of the Lower Hutt District Licensing Committee on 31 July 2017.” |
7. |
Local Government New Zealand - Remit Proposals (17/912) Report No. HCC2017/3/51 (2) by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services |
|
The Chief Executive elaborated on the memorandum. Cr Bridson elaborated on the problems facing the City with feral cats. She considered that Councils should be given the power to encourage cat owners to microchip or de-sex their cats. Crs Lewis, Briggs and Barry supported Cr Bridson’s comments. They believed it was a good approach especially with the impact cats had on wildlife. Cr Cousins raised the issue that could occur on the day of the Annual General Meeting of Local Government New Zealand where additional information came to light regarding any of the proposed remits. She highlighted that Mayor Wallace did not have the ability to amend Council’s decision. Cr Cousins advised that she did not support the remit suggesting that all Councils should consider the development of a Sugar Sweetened Beverages Policy. |
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. C 17305(3) “That Council notes the following remits being submitted to Local Government New Zealand for consideration at the 2017 Annual General Meeting and: (a) supports the remit to amend the Litter Act 1979 to enable Councils to legally issue infringement notices where there is evidence of an offence, attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum; (b) supports the remit to use the appropriate mechanisms to enable a proportion of the 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST) be returned to the regions it was generated in so that Councils can use this money to pay for the servicing of visitor infrastructure, attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum; (c) supports the remit to take legislative action as a matter of urgency to develop national legislation to manage cats with the proviso that legislation includes provision for cost recovery for cat management, attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum; and (d) supports the remit ( attached as Appendix 1 to the memorandum) suggesting that all Councils should consider the development of a Sugar Sweetened Beverages Policy for their respective workplaces and facilities noting that Councils have the power to develop and adopt their own policies.” |
|
Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson) Minute No. C 17306(3) “That Mayor Wallace be given the power to cast his vote appropriately, bearing in mind Council’s discussion on the development of national legislation to manage cats, if additional information is raised at the Local Government New Zealand 2017 Annual General Meeting.” |
|
Mayor Wallace elaborated on the two nominations received for President of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ). He advised that the election for President would be held at the upcoming Annual General Meeting of LGNZ. Members discussed the nominations and provided feedback on each of the nominations. In response to a question from a member, Mayor Wallace advised that the Vice President role will be filled by Bay of Plenty Regional Councillor Stuart Crosby who was elected unopposed. |
|
Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 17307(3) “That Council nominates Nelson Mayor Rachel Reese for President of Local Government New Zealand.” |
8. QUESTIONS
There
were no questions.
8. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. C 17308(3) “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely: 9. Appointment of Trustees to the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (17/923) The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.” |
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.30pm and the non public portion of the meeting finished at 6.45pm
WR Wallace
MAYOR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Community Plan Committee
Report of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Tuesday 16 May 2017 commencing at 9.30am and reconvening on
Wednesday 17 May 2017 commencing at 9.30am
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Cr G Barratt Cr C Barry
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive (part meeting)
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer (part meeting)
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services (part meeting)
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure (part meeting)
Ms J Raffills, General Manager, Governance and Regulatory (part meeting)
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services (part meeting)
Mrs J Stevens, Corporate Planner (part meeting)
Mr B Hodgins, Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens (part meeting)
Mr G Craig, Divisional Manager, City Development (part meeting)
Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning (part meeting)
Mr M Sherwood, Divisional Manager, Leisure Active (part meeting)
Mr S Keatley, Community Facilities Manager (part meeting)
Ms M Laban, Community Projects and Relationship Manager (part meeting)
Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs (part meeting)
M A Yip, Manager Strategic Projects (part meeting)
Ms C Christensen, CBD Development Manager (part meeting)
Mr A Marsh, Parks Asset Manager (part meeting)
Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager (part meeting)
Mr S Cager, Senior Project Engineer
Ms S Simcox, Communications and Marketing Team Leader (part meeting)
Mr B Monaghan, Divisional Manager, City Promotions (part meeting)
Ms S Beath-Croft, Environmental Sustainability Advisor (part meeting)
Ms S Lytollis, Communications and Marketing Advisor (part meeting)
Ms L Knowles, Community Facilitator (part meeting)
Ms H Stewart, Youth Council Facilitator (part meeting)
Mr C McKenzie, Marketing Advisor (part meeting)
Ms J Randall, Administrative Support Officer (part meeting)
Ms K Glanville, Senior Committee Advisor (part meeting)
Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor (part meeting)
Mrs H Clegg, Minute Taker (part meeting)
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Briggs) Minute No. CPC 17201 “That the apology received from Cr Barry for lateness on Wednesday, 17 May 2017, be accepted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. |
Hearing of Submission on the Draft Annual Plan 2017/18 Tuesday 16 May 2017
Mr Joseph Wyse presented submission DAP17/125. He expressed concern at the cost of overruns with the tender process and believed that monies should be spent on affordable housing. He expressed further concern with the poor state of footpaths and vegetation in the City.
Mr Stuart Reid presented submission DAP17/210. He asked members to encourage innovative architecture with urban designers.
In response to questions from members, Mr Reid believed that coatings could be applied to the glass flood barriers to help prevent etched graffitti. He said he had not undertaken engineering investigative works as to how much land could be saved by not building stopbanks. He explained that the glass flood barriers were not a constant wall, as access points would be provided. He added the glass flood barriers were a cheaper, more effective alternative to stopbanks and that there were many engineering solutions to flood protection. Mr Paul Duffin presented submissions DAP17/721 and DAP17/730. He explained the good work that the student exchange programme undertook, and the positive publicity it produced for the city.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Duffin advised that if full funding was reinstated, it would provide an opportunity for more students to apply and experience the programme. Mr Bob Moffat presented submission DAP17/902.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Moffat supported the digitisation of the Dowse Art Museum items. Dr David Tripp presented submission DAP17/1029.
Ms Elaine Richardson presented submission DAP17/1105. She expressed concern with the lack of maintenance of cycle accessways, particularly in the Western Hills.
Mr Rhys Jones on behalf of survivors and rescuers during the Wahine disaster and their families presented submission DAP17/871.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Jones said the confirmed numbers to attend proposed ceremonies had yet to be determined but up to 50 survivors had so far indicated they wished to be involved. Ms Candace Williams, Mr Ewert Anderson and Mr David Percy representing Wingate Business Group presented submission DAP17/1131. Mr Anderson advised that the Wingate area experienced a high number of boy racers.
In response to questions from members, Ms Williams said they were currently assessing a security proposal where the monitoring company would monitor the cameras, and contact the police if appropriate. She noted that the Seaview security system worked well and opined the problems may have shifted to Wingate. She advised they had not discussed the issue of rubbish, vandalism and tagging in the area with Council officers. She stated the Business Group was not seeking full funding for the security cameras as the businesses in the area would cover the ongoing maintenance of the system. She was receptive to meeting with officers to discuss youth initiatives. Mr Anderson agreed it would be advantageous to have discussions with Council’s City Safety Manager regarding community patrols in the area. Mr Phil Gibbons and Ms Nicky Sherriff presented submission DAP 17/962. Mr Gibbons explained Sport Wellington was developing a regional strategy to enable all key stake holders in health, sport and recreation areas to work together. In response to questions from members, Mr Gibbons said that nationwide evidence showed sports hubs were the way forward for many clubs. He considered a regional approach to leisure facilities was required, to enable sustainable funding to be used in the best possible way. The meeting adjourned at 11.07am and reconvened at 11.25am.
Mr Glen Todd and Ms Julie Thomson representing Volunteer Hutt presented submission DAP17/960.
In response to questions from members, Ms Thompson acknowledged that Volunteer Hutt received funding from other funding streams. She said for the organisation to continue having a significant impact in the Hutt and to be sustainable it required continued funding. Mr Steven Winyard presented submission DAP17/73.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Winyard suggested more recycling facilities should be available at Seaview. Mr Trevor Mitchell presented submission DAP17/1011.
Ms Dana Carter and Ms Micheline Evans representing Enviroschools presented submission DAP17/946. They highlighted the collaborative proposal for Enviroschools to work with Council on a long term basis. The regional programme supported youth education and the engagement of residents.
In response to a question from a member, Ms Carter and Ms Evans explained that on a national scale, Hutt City did not perform well in the waste and recycling efforts. The following action points were agreed: ·
DAP17/902 Bob Moffat – officers to advise on the Dowse
building maintenance and report back to the relevant committee regarding
digitising the Dowse collection; · DAP 17/125 Joseph Wyse – officers to follow up to ensure work undertaken by contractors was standardised; · DAP 17/1029 Dr David Tripp – officers to report back regarding progress about the cycleways; · DAP17/1105 Elaine Richardson – officers to investigate the maintenance programme for the Riverlink project to include the maintenance of the Western Hills cycle access; · DAP17/1131 Wingate Business Group – officers to investigate community patrols in the Wingate area and other options to assist with issues in the area egboy racers; · DAP17/946 Enviroschools – officers to provide a progress update regarding waste minimisation; · DAP 17/871 Rhys Jones - officers to report on Wahine commemorations; · Members asked that officers report back on the wharves in particular; the possible impact on the aquifer and the types of timber proposed for the refurbishments; · DAP17/210 Stuart Reid – officers to write to Greater Wellington Regional Council for an official response regarding glass flood protection barriers. Mr Colin Kelly presented submission DAP17/460.
Mr Neville Hyde and Mr Mark Futter representing Hutt Chamber of Commerce presented submission DAP17/949. They expressed support for the stimulation initiatives, the rates differentials, the revised incentives, and a rates freeze.
Mr Paul Caygill representing Normandale Residents’ Association presented submission DAP17/1167.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Caygill asked Council to investigate ways to improve recycling collections taking into account the windy conditions. The meeting adjourned at 12.42pm and reconvened at 1.30pm.
Ms Virginia Horrocks and Mr Murray Gibbons representing Eastbourne Community Board presented submission DAP17/404. They thanked the officers for their work and consultation to date on the wharves issue.
In response to questions from members, Ms Horrocks advised most users of the Point Howard wharf were fishers from outside the region and were unlikely to make a submission to Council’s Annual Plan. She considered that as a result of climate change research, Eastbourne would have access problems in the future, and that re-planning for the whole of the city was required. Mr Graeme Hall presented submission DAP17/1123. He said refurbishment rather than renewal of the wharves was the preferred option.
In response to questions from members, Mr Hall agreed wharves were utilised by people in the Wellington region and were a regional asset. He considered that opening up Rona Bay and Point Howard wharves to ferries would ease road traffic congestion. Mr Graeme Hall representing Great Harbour Way Te Aranui O Poneke Trust presented submission DAP17/1124. He explained that funding had already been allocated for the shared pathway, and he stressed the project was vital. Mr Gavin Wallace representing Wainuiomata Historical Museum Society presented submission DAP17/1.
In response to questions from members, Mr Wallace explained that the Wainuiomata Museum was open for two hours on a Sunday, or by appointment. He said that visitor numbers varied between 0-20 a day (between 500 and 600 per year). Mr Jeremy Winter representing Muritai Yacht Club presented submission DAP17/898 662 and DAP17/933. He said that removal of the Rona Bay wharf would increase storm damage to the area.
Barry Wilson and Finbar Kiddle representing Heritage New Zealand presented submission DAP17/662. Mr Kiddle advised that Rona Bay and Days Bay wharves both had Category 2 classifications, and that along with the Petone Wharf, they were all Scheduled Heritage sites in various plans (District and Regional). He added he was unaware of any heritage aspects of the Point Howard Wharf. He stated Heritage NZ’s preference was for Australian hardwoods to be used. He noted this was used when the wharves were originally built and was more durable than pine.
Mr Arthur Bush presented submission DAP17/107. He considered Council had shown a lack of attention to stormwater reticulation in Stokes Valley.
The Mayor asked officers to investigate the stormwater issues at Horoeka Street, Stokes Valley.
Mr Stephen Malcolm presented submission DAP17/713.
Bharat Ratanpal (Chair) and several members representing Wainuiomata Sportsville presented submission DAP17/980. Mr Ratanpal stressed there was an urgent requirement for a modern sports facility for the Wainuiomata suburb to ensure all codes remained viable. He explained that all codes would be responsible for their own club and would pool resources.
In response to questions from members, Mr Ratanpal explained the clubs understood fundraising would need to be undertaken. He noted that no club had yet committed any funds to the project. He added it was the intention to not request further funds from Council. He acknowledged Wainuiomata Rugby had not endorsed the draft, and that Cricket Wainuiomata had agreed in principle. Mayor Wallace requested officers to prepare an urgent update around costings and what was required to assist in operational planning for the Wainuiomata Sportsville proposal. The meeting was adjourned at 3.13pm and reconvened at 3.23pm.
Ms Pam Hanna representing Petone Community Board presented submission DAP17/741. She expressed concern regarding stormwater pipes discharging into the newly restored sand dunes at the end of Queen Street, Petone.
In response to a question from a member, Ms Hanna expressed concern at a possible conflict of the future use of North Park as Petone 2040 required it for access and Sportsville required it for a building. Ms Sandy Nimmo representing Rimutaka Inline Hockey Club Inc presented submission DAP17/2 and introduced supporters from the Avalon Club. She requested Council assistance in the creation of a new outdoor skating facility, as the current facility was unusable. She said she had conducted initial discussions with Council officers. Mayor Wallace requested additional information from officers regarding the Club’s request.
In response to questions from members, Ms Nimmo said a new rink would be compatiable with other sports, including cycling, miniature racing and all forms of skating. She stated that the Club would be willing to work with the Fraser Park Sports Hub. Mr Warren Thessman presented submission DAP17/979. He expressed concern regarding the safety of the road to Eastbourne, due to its narrowness, and questioned the installation of a shared pathway alongside it.
The Senior Project Engineer advised there were two width options for the proposed shared pathway - 2.5m and 3.5m. He said that due to the terrain around the Eastern Bays, the pathway would vary in width. Mr Sigurd Magnusson presented submission DAP17/1008.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Magnusson said that a regional approach to electric vehicles was being promoted through a Working Group across the nine councils in the Wellington region. The Chief Executive advised that Council replaced one fleet vehicle per year with an electric vehicle. Mr Don Manning representing Sailability Wellington Trust presented submission DAP17/190. He said he had spoken with the Manager from Seaview Marina who was receptive to the idea of a Mariner’s Shed. He requested Council funding in the interim, and considered that after approximately six years the enterprise would be self-funding.
In response to questions from members, Mr Manning advised he had not yet approached other organisations for funding as he required a guarantor. He added that since the Trust had begun, it had raised over $1M for various projects. Mr Derek Richardson presented submission DAP17/1128. He reiterated the importance of an overall strategy and plan for the Urban Cycleway Strategy to raise awareness amongst citizens and to integrate all infrastructure.
Mr Daryl Green and members representing Hutt City Youth Council presented submission DAP17/947. He believed that as well as Sportsville, ‘Creativevilles’ should also be built to cater for those who are not sports minded. He asked that the Naenae Hub be brought forward.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Green confirmed the Hutt City Youth Council would provide Council with feedback on a number of issues, including the Local Authoriy Plan. The following action points were agreed: · DAP17/404 Eastbourne Community Board – officers to provide information regarding climate change and Council’s future planning; · DAP17/979 Warren Thessman – officers to provide an update regarding the Eastern Bays Shared Walkway; · DAP17/1 Wainuiomata Historical Society – officers to follow up with submitter regarding the amount of funding being requested; · DAP17/107 Arthur Bush – officers to provide an update regarding the Horoeka Street, Stokes Valley stormwater issues raised by the submitter; · DAP17/980 Sportsville Wainuiomata – officers to provide an update about the costings of the project and the operational plan; · Members requested additional information regarding the Petone Grandstand; · DAP17/741 Petone Community Board – officers to follow up regarding stormwater from Queen Street, Petone discharging into sand dunes; · DAP17/2 Rimutaka Inline Hockey Club Inc – officers to report back to the relevant Committee regarding the Avalon Inline Rink; · DAP17/947 Hutt City Youth Council – officers to provide an update regarding the possible impact of the Melling interchange project on the Melling Skateboard Park; · Cr Cousins requested an update about the greening of Queens Drive; and · DAP17/1008 Sigurd Magnusson - officers to provide an update regarding electric vehicles and charging stations around the City. Dido Dunlop presented submission DAP17/1037. She said that building projects needed to be sited further from current water lines and extensive public education was required on climate change issues.
Ms Esther Venning representing Love Wainuiomata presented submission DAP17/1034.
In response to a question from a member, Ms Venning explained the second stage of the Love Wainiuomata vision was ‘Tourism Wainui’. The following action points were agreed: · Members asked officers for additional information about the rates differential and freeze. The Chief Executive advised that it would be appropriate to review this when the Revenue and Financing Policy was reviewed in late 2017; · Members asked officers for additional information concerning the aquifer and whether Rona Bay wharf helped prevent coastal erosion; · DAP17/1034 Love Wainuiomata – officers were asked to assist the submitter’s request for assistance; and · Members asked officers to investigate if there were any resources to assist the Naenae community. The meeting adjourned at 5.13pm and reconvened at 6.00pm.
Mr Gareth Edwards representing Lowry Bay Yacht Club presented submission DAP17/918.
In response to questions from members, Mr Edwards agreed that a starter boat could provide a solution. He noted that the boat would require a minimum of three crew, maintenance, mooring and compliance costs.
Mr Terrance Poynter presented submission DAP17/1001. Cr Barry left the meeting at 6.14pm. Mr Carl Bakker representing Petone Urban Environmental Association presented submission DAP17/920.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Bakker agreed that major Petone projects should be completed through Petone 2040, with proper consultation and resourcing. Ms Jan Milne and Ms Anna Brownlee representing Hutt Valley Tennis (HVT) presented submission DAP17/1116. Ms Milne said that HVT’s financial situation had occurred due to Council’s proposed Fraser Sportsville and asked that Council treat all sports in an equitable manner.
Cr Barry rejoined the meeting at 6.30pm.
Mr David Syms, Mr Allan Hewson, Mr Gerry Salmon representing Petone Sportsville Board (PSB) presented submission DAP17/753. Mr Hewson advised that bringing $300,000 forward to the 2017/18 budget would enable a funding plan to be developed, full consultation to occur, final plans to be approved and a staged development plan developed.
In response to questions from members, Mr Syms advised they had the support of eight sports clubs. He confirmed that the PSB had held discussions with the Petone 2040 Group. He acknowledged the Petone Working Men’s Club submission and agreed that the two organisations could be working closer together. He stated the clubs were committed to moving forward.
Anita Mansell representing the Multicultural Council presented submission DAP17/875.
Casey Diver presented submission DAP17/919.
Mr Ron Beernink presented submmission DAP17/352. Mr Timon Bakker representing Hutt Cycle Network presented submission DAP17/1117. In response to a question from a member, Mr Bakker explained a paradigm shift was required towards cycling. Ms Merran Bakker presented submission DAP17/724. In response to questions from members, Ms Bakker agreed that while the Naenae Bowling Centre upgrade was an asset, it was not the type of facility required in the area. She considered investment in housing and retail facilities would be more advantageous for the Naenae suburb. Ms Laura Skilton presented submission DAP17/655. Tute Porter-Samuels presented submission DAP17/1033. She queried the engagement process for the Annual Plan and expressed concern that few in the Pacifika and Maori community had made submissions. Mr James Beban presented submission DAP17/733. He said the Rates Remissions Policy had promoted four additional residential developments in the Hutt Valley. He suggested there was scope to provide for larger developments with possibly a second tier of remissions. Mr Zinny McCormick presented submission DAP17/909. He cautioned forcing sporstvilles on to sports clubs. He asked Council to undertake a robust due diligence process. Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 8.47pm. Deputy Mayor Bassett assumed the chair. Mr Gerald Davidson representing Lower Hutt Historical Society presented submission DAP17/691. Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 8.52pm and resumed the chair for the duration of business. Mr Jim Hogg representing the Petone Working Men’s Club (PWMC) presented submission DAP17/981. He expressed concern about the amount of consultation undertaken to date. He said that while PWMC supported the sportsville concept in general, at present it did not support Petone Sportsville. In response to questions from members, Mr Hogg agreed additional consultation was required. He considered that the Fraser Park Sportsville should be completed prior to other sportsvilles being developed. He said that Petone 2040 should be in consultation talks with the Sportsville Committee. The following action points were agreed: · DAP17/352 Ron Beernik – officers to advise on the state of the pedestrian access around the new Rebel Sports/Briscoes building in Petone and investigate where the building fits within design guidelines; · DAP17/733 James Beban – officers to advise when the Rates Remission Policy was due for review; · Members asked officers to provide a detailed report to the Community Plan Committee meeting on 8 June 2017 regarding Sportsvilles; · Cr Briggs asked officers to include ethnicity details in the statistical analysis of Annual Plan submissions in the future; · Members asked officers to provide a detailed report to the Community Plan Committee meeting on 8 June 2017 regarding the Wharves; · DAP17/919 Casey Diver – officers to provide an update from Healthy Families about the state of mental health of youth; and · DAP17/655 Laura Skilton – the Chief Financial Officer to respond to the rate issue queries raised by the submitter.
The meeting adjourned at 9.10 pm. Wednesday 17 May 2017 9.30 am Ms Tracy Coleman and Mr Max Shierlaw representing Maungaraki Community Association presented submission DAP17/735. Ms Coleman advised that the Association supported the projects occurring on the valley floor. It was noted there was no current investment in Maungaraki.
In response to questions from members, Ms Coleman advised that there were public toilets in the community centre, but unfortunately they were accessed by walking through meeting rooms. She noted the Association’s support for upgrading sports fields on the Western Hills. Ms Claire Allan and Mr Wayne Rogers (Bulk Storage) representing Seaview Business Association (SBA), presented submission DAP17/1232.
In response to questions from members, Ms Allan advised that since the installation of CCTV cameras in the area, the boy racer issue had moved to other areas in the City. She said SBA was currently in discussions with the Police to install additional cameras, as they also aided in stopping crime and vandalism. She informed members that SBA had been advised that there would be no Heavy Traffic Bylaw for the Seaview area. Mr Dave Grant presented submission DAP17/912. He believed up to 40 residential properties would be affected by the Petone Sportsville proposal and that parking in the area would be placed under future strain. He expressed opposition regarding Petone Sportsville.
Cr Barry joined the meeting at 10.05am. Ms Jo Clendon presented submission DAP17/477. She requested that the Walking and Cycling Strategy be reviewed.
Ms Alison Black (Youth Inspire), Ms Karen Morgan (Principal of Taita College) and supporters representing Youth Inspire presented submission DAP17/1222. Ms Morgan advised that Youth Inspire worked to provide college leavers with viable options for their future. Ms Black detailed the success of the youth involved in the programme in Wainuiomata, and that in order to expand to Naenae and Taita, resourcing and funding were required.
In response to a question from a member, Ms Black confirmed the systems were in place to begin an expansion of the Youth Inspire programme in the Naenae and Taita areas, once funding was obtained.
Ms Sarah Crawford presented submission DAP 17/1202. She believed the wharves were an integral part of the harbour, were easily accessible and had no financial barriers for people to enjoy their use.
Mr Matt Claridge presented submissions DAP17/758 and DAP17/1125.
Mr Norman Wilkins presented submission DAP17/416. He said that the Petone wharf should be used for commuters, and that the wider section should be retained to enable shelters to be built for patrons using a ferry service.
Mr Richard Sinnott representing Wainuiomata Community Board presented submission DAP17/968. He stated the Board’s support for Wainuiomata Sportsville. He considered Council had a role to play in the provision of housing and requested Council’s continued support for the number of residential developments currently occurring in Wainuiomata. He also requested Council continue to support the Wainuiomata Mall revelopment. The meeting adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.20am.
Ms Sue Lafrentz presented submission DAP17/844. She noted that some residents were struggling to pay their rates. She said Council spending should either be spread over a 10-20 year period or cut now.
Mr John and Elisa Mendzela presented submission DAP17/543. In response to questions from members, Mr Mendzela considered that not all projects in the Annual Plan 2017/18 were necessary. He said it was important to focus on the core functions of Council and then investigate complementary functions when assessing projects. Mr Mike Fisher presented submission DAP17/1065 and DAP17/1140.
In response to a question from a member, Mr Fisher advised that parking issues in Petone impacted on residents, commuters and workers of the area. Mr John Russell representing Naenae College presented submission DAP17/805.
Mr Mike Mellor representing Living
Streets Aotearoa presented submission DAP17/810. Mr Gabriel Tupou presented submission DAP17/1171. He advised that there was an affordable housing shortage in Wainuiomata and the wider City. The following action points were agreed: · DAP17/810 Living Streets Aotearoa – officers to provide a street audit; · DAP17/1222 Youth Inspire – officers to report back on what the funding would look like; · DAP17/477 Jo Clendon – officers to provide a report on the delivery of the Cycling Strategy; · DAP17/1232 Seaview Business Association – officers to report back on: 1. Gracefield proposal for parking; 2. Heavy Vehicle Bylaw to assist moving boy racers out of the Seaview and Wingate areas; and 3. Parking outside the Seaview Marina entrance; · DAP17/735 Maungaraki Community Association – officers to provide costings for toilets and water fountains; and · Cr Milne asked that requests for $10,000-$20,000 be assessed for community grant criteria. The meeting adjourned at 12.40pm and reconvened at 1.30pm. Ms Diane Livingstone and Helen Carter representing Wellington Free Ambulance (WFA) presented submission DAP17/607. In response to questions from members, Ms Livingstone advised that central government had announced further funding for ambulance services from 73% to 78%. She said that Council funding was the only regular funding received within the 4.2% fundraised by WFA. She noted that when funding was locked in it took the pressure off the organisation. Ms Libby Wilson and Ms Christine Wakefield representing Team Naenae Trust presented submission DAP17/1225. Ms Wilson said that Naenae needed to see investment in the area to plant hope in the community from Council. Mr Allan Sainsbury representing Citizens Advice Bureau Lower Hutt (CAB Lower Hutt) presented submission DAP17/608. In response to questions from members, Mr Sainsbury advised that CAB Lower Hutt did not usually apply for funding through community engagement funds. He noted that it was highly competitive to obtain funding. He said that a CAB could be sited within a community hub however it was important that it be close to a transport hub and in a discreet position. Cr Barry rejoined the meeting at 1.58pm. Mr Jamie Marment and students representing Wilford School presented submissions DAP17/951, DAP17/953, DAP17/955, DAP17/972, DAP17/975, DAP17/976. Mr Frank Sviatko representing Petone Planning Action Group presented submission DAP17/861. He said that the Petone Sporstville Group should be asked to liaise with the P2040 Group to incorporate the proposal into the P2040 vision. Mr Graeme Ross representing Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful presented submission DAP17/983. Mr Peter Chrisp representing Summerset Group Holdings Limited presented submission DAP17/938. In response to questions from members, Mr Chrisp advised that the Boulcott Street and High Street intersection was already listed on the deficiency database and he did not consider it possible to impose an upgrade of the intersection as part of a resource consent. He said that Summerset Group Holdings Limited was open to further discussions regarding the matter. The following actions were agreed: · Members asked for an update in regard to the future needs and demands of parking in the Central Business District and Petone; and · DAP17/608 Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) Lower Hutt – officers to report back on community funding options for CAB Lower Hutt including Hubs and libraries. Mr Tom Bennion presented submission DAP17/1127. Mr Alan Webb presented submission DAP17/1087. He expressed concern regarding the possible closing of the Riverbank car park. He considered that the CBD would suffer from the closure. Mr Phil Benge presented submission DAP17/1204. In response to a question from a member, Mr Benge asked that the entranceway at Greenwood Park, Eastbourne be upgraded. Cr Cousins asked that the maintenance of the entranceway to Greenwood Park, Eastbourne be investigated and the gift of the park be acknowledged. Mr Michael Gray presented submission DAP17/1066. Mayor Wallace noted that Council’s CBD Taskforce Group met with business and building owners and asked that Mr Gray be added to the Group’s list. The meeting adjourned at 3.23pm and reconvened at 3.45pm. Ms Keri Brown presented submission DAP17/1224. She said that homelessness in the City was a problem and people were living in cars, garages and illegally in churches. She asked that Urban Plus Ltd be more involved in housing rentals. Ms Ginny Andersen, Labour Candidate Hutt South presented submissions DAP17/813-1 and DAP17/813-2. She said that the wharves were an iconic part of the City’s history and the majority of people would like them retained. She advised that there was a lack of housing and increased house prices in the City. She further said that the Labour Party had promised to develop 400 houses in the City. She considered that there should be a closer relationship between central government and local government with regard to housing issues. Mr Chris Hay presented submission DAP/774. He asked Council to improve its project management for future projects, such as Riverlink, to avoid cost over-runs. He further asked that Council review the drainage infrastructure with respect to pressure from infill housing. Ms Evelyn Richter presented submission DAP17/1023. She said that Council needed to invest in roading infrastructure for earthquake preparedness. Deputy Mayor Bassett left the meeting at 4.30pm. Ms Sally Nicholl and Ms Dina Awarau representing Hutt Union and Community Health Service (HUCHS) presented submission DAP17/982. They said that HUCHS was a living wage employer and asked Council to also support the living wage. Ms Muriel Tunoho representing Hutt Valley Living Wage presented submission DAP17/220. She asked Council to become a living wage employer and asked Council’s Chief Executive to work with Living Wage Hutt Valley. Ms Margot Fry and Ms Michelle Caldwell representing Wainuiomata Rural Community Association presented submission DAP17/812. They asked Council to fund a trial in Wainuiomata for a diverter which would divert floating rubbish out of water ways. Deputy Mayor Bassett rejoined the meeting at 4.55pm. Mr Ian Dallas representing Wellington Rugby Referees Association presented submission DAP17/969. He asked for funding to support volunteer rugby referees. Deputy Mayor Bassett and Cr Milne left the meeting at 5.10pm. Ms Gwen Isaac representing Residents for a Safe Korokoro Road presented submission DAP17/150. She asked Council to provide a safe footpath with a barrier for a 1.5km stretch of Korokoro Road, similar to the footpath in Wairere Road. Mr John Welch presented submission DAP17/1130. He advised that the community had a strong desire to either keep the Point Howard wharf in its present state or to refurbish it. He noted that demolition of the Point Howard wharf had been discussed in 1999 and had been considered to be problematic as the piles were drilled into the aquifer and removal could cause leakage in the artesian water supply. The following actions were agreed: · DAP17/1224 Keri Brown – officers to investigate developing a coordinated approach to homelessness with regard to policy and community services and to provide an update on housing data in Wainuiomata; · DAP17/813-1 and DAP17/813-2 Ms Ginny Anderson – officers to investigate tiny homes for affordable housing; · DAP17/220 Hutt Valley Living Wage – the Chief Executive to work with the Living Wage movement; · DAP17/812 Wainuiomata Rural Community – Mayor Wallace asked officers to discuss a trial of waterways cross channel invention which clears rubbish from waterways and to consult with residents of Fitzherbert Road, Wainuiomata if Council was considering the development of in-flow research; and · DAP17/150 Gwen Isaac – Mayor Wallace requested a report on the walkways in Korokoro Road and on substandard roads. |
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 5.44 pm.
WR Wallace
MAYOR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 15th day of August 2017
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
Community Plan Committee
Report of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Thursday 8 June 2017 commencing at 9.30am
PRESENT: Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr C Barry (from 10.26am)
Cr G Barratt Cr L Bridson
Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins
Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis
Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald
Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton
APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness from Cr C Barry was received.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, Strategic Services
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure (part meeting)
Ms J Raffills, General Manager, Governance and Regulatory
Mr M Reid, General Manager, Community Services
Mr P Benseman, Budgeting and Report Manager (part meeting)
Mr M Sherwood, Divisional Manager, Leisure Active (part meeting)
Mr B Hodgins, Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens (part meeting)
Mr G Craig, Divisional Manager, City Development (part meeting)
Mr S Keatley, Huia Pool Manager (part meeting)
Mr P Maaka, Urban Designer Manager (part meeting)
Mr A Yip, Strategic Projects Manager (part meeting)
Mr B Monaghan, Divisional Manager, City Promotions (part meeting)
Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs (part meeting)
Ms M Laban, Community Projects and Relationship Manager (part meeting)
Ms S Lytollis, Communications and Marketing Advisor (part meeting)
Ms P Rotherham, Development Liaison Manager (part meeting)
Mr J Partridge, Environmental Sustainability Manager (part meeting)
Mr J Lamb, Visitor Market Development Manager (part meeting)
Mrs J Stevens, Corporate Planner
Ms K Stannard, Manager Secretariat Services (part meeting)
Ms K Glanville, Senior Committee Advisor (part meeting)
Ms A Doornebosch, Committee Advisor (part meeting)
Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor (part meeting)
Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. CPC 17301(2) “That the apology for lateness received from Cr Barry be accepted.” |
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms Leonie Dobbs representing the Jackson Street Programme (JSP) presented submission DAP17/941. She highlighted the support JSP was providing to building owners and Council regarding new earthquake legislative requirements, and to Petone 2040. Ms Dobbs noted parking and traffic management issues in Petone, and asked Council to conduct a traffic management survey and update the Traffic Management Plan. She further noted the impact from large trucks using Jackson Street during peak hour traffic rather than The Esplanade. She requested the heritage light poles be re-installed along Jackson Street.
In response to questions from members, Ms Dodds considered parking was exacerbated by the new “Big Box” retailers and the increased number of apartment inhabitants. She believed there was a traffic bylaw prohibiting vehicles of a certain weight using Jackson Street.
Mr Edward Heslin (DAP17/470) elaborated on his submission. He requested the paving at Hillary Court be completed, and the cricket nets at the Naenae Cricket Club be re-positioned.
Other public comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. |
SETTING THE SCENE BY MAYOR WALLACE AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE Mayor Wallace thanked officers for their contribution to the Annual Plan (‘the Plan’). He noted the public consultation showed submitters were supportive of Council’s direction, the projects proposed and the new Financial Strategy. He advised that although Council was looking to deliver the lowest overall average rates increase for the region, many residential properties within Hutt City had experienced unprecedented increases in their valuations. He considered the proposed plan required a balance between growth, development and affordability. He urged members to focus on the aim of the plan and to grow Hutt City while ensuring infrastructure was maintained and improved. He noted that this would require a level of constraint. The Chief Executive highlighted the positive community feedback. He noted the new community funding model would provide one framework to ensure funding was allocated fairly. He supported the new Financial Strategy, but noted expenditure decisions needed to be treated with due care. Cr Barry joined the meeting at 10.26am. In response to questions from the members, the General Manager, Community Services said guidelines were being formulated for the new community funding strategy. |
4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
Cr Lulich declared that he was a honorary member of a sports club involved in Petone Sportsville.
Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest in regard to Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.
Cr Milne declared a conflict of interest in regard Hutt Valley Tennis and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.
Deputy Mayor Basset declared a conflict of interest in regard to UrbanPlus Limited’s involvement in social housing and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.
5. |
Consultation Results - Proposed Annual Plan 2017-2018 (17/817) Report No. CPC2017/3/137 by the Corporate Planner |
|
Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest concerning Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. Cr Milne declared a conflict of interest concerning Hutt Valley Tennis and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. Deputy Mayor Basset declared a conflict of interest concerningUrbanPlus Limited’s involvement in social housing and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. The Corporate Planner elaborated on the report. She noted the high number of submissions received and that the transition from paper to on-line responses was improving. She highlighted the large numbers of neutral responses received. She noted in future, submitters would be informed of key decisions made and supplied with a summary of the consultation results. She said officers would ensure specific requests were addressed. In response to questions from the members, the Corporate Planner confirmed results from the Ctizen’s Panel and the general respondents were similar. She explained that results were in line with the previous year’s telephone survey response numbers. She agreed some results were difficult to interpret as responses to follow up questions may not have followed in a logical manner She said officers would review this in the future. Members considered the document “Requests for Funding and agreed the following action points: · DAP17/2: Ms Sandy Nimmo – that officers assist in talks with the Fraser Park Sportsville team about the request for funding to improve the old outdoor skating rink and small banked track at the corner of Percy Cameron Street and Harcourt Werry Drive; · DAP17/190: Sailability Wellington Trust Inc – that officers provide a report regarding a Mariner’s Shed near Seaview Marina; · DAP17/607: Wellington Free Ambulance – the members approved funding for the next two years as follows; an increase to $0.75 per person in 2017/18; an additional increase to $1.00 per person in 2018/19; · DAP17/663 and DAP17/664: Ms Barbara Hay, Stokes Valley Community House - that officers meet with the submitter to further discuss an outdoor basketball court in Stokes Valley, following the removal of the community house and plunket rooms; · DAP17/721: Mr Paul Duffin, The Hutt Sister City Foundation (HSCF) - that officers provide a report regarding recognising the work undertaken by the HSCF in the form of public art; · DAP17/735: Maungaraki Community Association (‘the Association’) – asked officers to reprioritise funding from Point Howard; that there be no increase to the budget other than $5,000 to the operating costs; and work with the Association on the location of a public toilet and drinking fountain at the Maungaraki Community Centre; · DAP17/805: Mr John Russell, Naenae College - that officers assist Naenae College in obtaining funding through appropriate funding agencies; · DAP17/810: Ms Ellen Blake, Living Streets Aotearoa - that members approve $50,000 per year for five years to continue footpath audits and provide wheelchair friendly footpath routes; · DAP17/871: Mr Rhys Jones, The Wahine 50 Charitable Trust – that members approve $20,000 for the Wahine 50-year commemorations; · DAP17/941: Ms Hellen Swales, Jackson Street Programme Inc – that officers report back about the traffic issues on Jackson Street, specifically whether large trucks using Jackson Street were breaching the bylaw; · DAP17/960: Ms Julie Thomson, Volunteer Hutt – that members approve funding $10,000 to Volunteer Hutt and ask officers to assist the organisation in obtaining the additional funding required through appropriate funding agencies; · DAP17/969: Mr Ian Dallas, Wellington Rugby Referees Association - asked officers to further consider the request for funding to assist with operational running costs; · DAP17/983: Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful – asked officers to consider the request for funding to reinstate the Riddiford Gardens flower beds by Queens Drive; Mayor Wallace left the meeting and Deputy Mayor Bassett assumed the Chair. · DAP17/1116: Mrs Jan Milne, Hutt Valley Tennis – that members approve the removal of $200,000 in 2017/18 and replacement with $250,000 in 2018/19; Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting and assumed the Chair. · DAP17/1124: Mr Graeme Hall, Great Harbour Way Te Aranui O Poneke Trust – members noted that funding had been allocated for the Eastern Bays shared path; · DAP17/1131: Ms Candace Williams, Wingate Business Group – that officers report back to the City Development Committee regarding a street camera proposal for Peterkin Street and large parts of the Eastern Hutt Road; · DAP17/1222: Ms Alison Black, YOUth Inspire Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs - members asked that the submitter apply for funding through the Youth Partnership Fund for 2017/18 and the Community Funding Strategy from 1 July 2018. · DAP17/1029: Dr David Tripp – that officers establish an active transportation guideline for new developments and develop a shift in culture to consider cycling with new projects; · DAP17/865: Mr and Mrs Mackay – that officers report back to the City Development Committee regarding the greening of Queens Drive; · Approve funding of $100,000 per annum for the next three years to revitalise suburban shopping centres. o officers to report back to the City Development Committee regarding the status of the suburban shopping centre upgrades; o officers to report back to the City Development Committee regarding recommendations for how the revitalisation fund for suburban shopping centres could be used; · DAP17/150: Mr Brian Cross and Ms Gwen Isaac, Residents for a Safer Korokoro Road – that officers report back to the City Development Committee regarding the walkways in Korokoro Road and substandard roads; · DAP17/1224: Keri Brown – that officers report on housing support for people with mental health issues; · DAP17/1224: Keri Brown – that officers provide the KPMG report about social housing to Cr Briggs; · DAP17/813: Keri Brown – that officers investigate tiny homes as a form of affordable housing and report back to the appropriate committee; · Officers to provide an update on the Waste Minimisation Strategy; · Officers to report back regarding a review of the green recycling buckets to the appropriate committee. · Officers to investigate limiting the proliferation of junk shops in Stokes Valley; · Officers to report back about paving at Hillary Court and the cricket nets at the Naenae Cricket Club issues in relation to submission DAP17/470 Mr Edward Heslin; · Officers to prepare guidelines for the new community funding process and clarify how this would be communicated to the community; · Officers to investigate improved live-streaming equipment and technology for the Council Chambers; · Members agreed that both the Naenae and Wainuiomata Community Hubs be brought forward for consideration in the 2018 Long Term Plan; · Officers to report back on prohibiting the use of plastic bags at the Riverbank market. The General Manager, City Infrastructure elaborated on the Seaview Treatment Plan resource consent process. He advised that the results of the public consultation process were inconclusive and that the matter would ultimately be decided in the Environment Court. He further advised that several of the options being considered did not comply with the Resource Management Act and that officers were currently working to see if an agreement could be reached. In response to questions from members, the General Manager, City Infrastructure confirmed the $12M provisionally allocated to the project was a fair and reasonable amount given that final costings were not able to be determined until the preferred option was agreed upon. He highlighted that the funding would not be required for at least five years. Technology Valley (STEMM Festival) Members approved $160,000 for 2017/18 including $40,000 in carryover for Technology Valley and the STEMM Festival. Mayor Wallace asked officers for a detailed report for the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, explaining the approach for the STEMM Fesitval. Hutt Multicultural Council In response to a question from a member, the General Manager Community Services advised that the Hutt Multicultural Council had secured funding for this year. Members asked that officers report back to the Long Term Plan 2018/2028 about how the funding was utilised, with a view to Council being supportive of future funding requests. Members discussed that a funding application for next year needed to come through the approriate committee. It was noted funding was provided for the Tangata Whenua. Members asked officers to report back regarding the Safe City Patrols to the approriate committee. In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive assured members that there were sufficient resources to cover all projects currently underway. |
|
Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CPC 17302(2) “That the Committee approves a budget increase of $15,000 per annum from 2017/18 for International Relations to support local secondary schools attracting more international students.”
|
|
Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. CPC 17303(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes that 1,236 submissions were received on the proposed Annual Plan 2017-2018 (including one submission with 322 attachments from supporters of the Living Wage), 15 late submissions were received and 87 individuals or groups presented their submissions in person; (ii) notes the results of the consultation attached as Appendices 1 - 3 to the report, including a table of funding requests; (iii) notes that the Committee, at its meetings held on 16 and 17 May 2017, requested additional information to assist with decision-making, and this information is attached as Appendix 4 to the report; and (iv) considers the information presented in these reports as part of the Committee’s decision-making on the Annual Plan 2017-2018.” |
6. 6. |
Report No. CPC2017/3/143 by the Chief Financial Officer |
|
The Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. He highlighted that changes to the proposed Financial Strategy would provide greater budget flexibility and enable Council to continue rejuvenation projects while limiting rate increases. He said it would provide for borrowing to be linked to affordability and some contingency for natural disasters. He advised that the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) was the appropriate measure for Council to use to benchmark rate increases. He noted the consultation results showed support for the proposed strategy. He highlighted if Council decided not to support the recommendation, some capital projects would need to be reconsidered under alternative funding proposals. In response to questions from members, the Chief Financial Officer said the proposed Annual Plan consultation document was prefaced with a note that there would be a change to the Financial Strategy. He noted officers considered the growth factor over the next 20 years at a net annual growth rate of 1%. He said this was reviewed on a year by year basis. He advised Council did not have a written guarantee that any increase in debt would not change Council’s credit rating. He further noted Council’s credit rating agency, Standard and Poors, would provide a credit rating review for Council in August 2017. He highlighted that Treasury Advisors did not believe a change in Council’s Financial Strategy or forecast would result in a change to Council’s credit rating. Cr Milne considered the proposed Financial Strategy would provide certainty to the community and a framework to plan over the long term. He noted it allowed for additional capacity but cautioned the use of debt limits. |
|
resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr McDonald) Minute No. CPC 17304(2) “That the Committee: (i) approves changing the Financial Strategy, to: (a) rates increases limited to the Local Government Cost Index after allowing for estimated growth of 1%; (b) net debt to be no more than: (aa) 150% of Total Revenue in years 1-3 of the plan; (bb) 130% of Total Revenue in years 4-6 of the plan; (cc) 110% of Total Revenue in years 7-9 of the plan; (dd) 90% of Total Revenue in year 10 of the plan and beyond; (c) net Debt can be increased to 170% of Total Revenue should the need arise following a significant natural disaster; (ii) approves the marked up changes contained in the revised Financial Strategy attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and (iii) notes an additional 1% rates increase in 2017/18 was approved in the 2016/17 Annual Plan to fund rejuvenation projects.” Cr Cousins requested that her dissenting vote be recorded against part (i) (b) above.
|
7. |
Proposed Budget Changes for Final 2017/18 Annual Plan (17/833) Report No. CPC2017/3/142 by the Chief Financial Officer |
|
The Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. He highlighted the large amount of carry-over items was not expected to continue after 2018. He said that because of the abnormal impact to residential ratepayers from the three yearly revaluations, that the residential and business rates transition would be frozen for one year. He noted this would reduce the rate increase from 5.1% to 4.3%. In response to questions from members, the Chief Financial Officer explained the Local Government Cost Index rates were published once a year and that the most recent rate was used in all calculations. He said officers would scrutinise carryover projects for the coming year to ensure Council’s ability to deliver on those projects. He noted additional funding for the Silverstream Landfill was included in the budget if the proposed Financial Strategy was adopted. In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive explained the higher than usual amount of carry-over projects was the result of optimistic time planning rather than capacity issues. In response to a question from a member, Mayor Wallace advised that a working group would assess the live streaming equipment for Council Chambers and report back to Council in due course. In response to questions from the members, the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens explained the wharves maintenance budget had been committed, a contract signed and work had commenced. He highlighted the Rona Bay Wharf comments made by officers 12 months ago was based on information that ‘gravel slug’ movement in the bay had stabilised. The meeting adjourned at 11.35am and reconvened at 11.49am. In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens explained the Delaney Park works had been deferred due to the timetable of the contractor. He further explained the works were first on the sportsground maintenance and were required due to the poor state of the grounds. He said the entire project would be carried out at the same time. |
|
RESOLVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barry) Minute No. CPC 17305(2) “That the Committee approves the list of projects being carried over from 2016/17 to 2017/18 attached as Appendix 1 to the report.” |
|
In response to further questions from members, the Chief Financial Officer confirmed the amount of $20,000 was for the Wainuiomata and Petone Sportsvilles. He said the amount of $7,507,000 under the heading ‘CFT Sportsville and Artificial Surfaces’ was for Fraser Park Sportsville. |
|
MOVED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Barry) “That the Committee recommends that Council agrees to not allocate funding to the Promenade aspect of the Riverlink Project.” Cr Briggs considered there were too many unknowns with the Promenade project. He expressed support for the Riverlink Project and flood management in general but not the Promenade project aspect of it. Cr Barry believed the CBD had already had significant amounts of investment and that the Promenade budget could be better spent in suburban centres. He clarified he supported the Promenade project in principle but not as a priority. Members noted the Promenade project had to be designed and constructed in conjunction with the whole Riverlink Project and that the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) had altered the design of the stopbanks to take into account the Promenade project. Mayor Wallace advised that there had been widespread consultation concerning the Promenade project, with the public showing support for the concept. He noted that Council had already agreed that the total project would be a key project for the City. The Chief Executive highlighted that the exact amount of funding required for the entire project had yet to be determined and that spending in the CBD area was benefiting all residents of Hutt City. |
|
The motion was declared LOST by Division with the voting as follows:
|
||||||
|
MOVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) “That the Committee agrees to bring forward $7M of the total $39M currently staged from 2019/20 to 2033/34 into the 2017/18 budget to provide for Council to have the ability to purchase any property that may become available and is relevant for the Riverlink Project.” |
||||||
|
resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) (BY DIVISION) Minute No. CPC 17306(2) “That the Committee agrees to bring forward $7M of the total $3M currently staged from 2019/20 to 2033/34 into the 2017/18 budget to provide for Council to have the ability to purchase any property that may become available and is relevant for the Riverlink Project.” |
||||||
|
The motion was declared CARRIED by Division with the voting as follows:
|
||||||
|
Community Panels |
||||||
|
MOVED: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs) “That the Committee agrees to increase the Community Panels budget to $304,000 per annum.” The motion was declared LOST by Division with the voting as follows:
|
||||||
|
Cr Milne considered that the current rates differential transition system did not address the underlying issues of how costs and benefits were allocated. He considered that a review was required following the one year freeze. |
||||||
|
resolved: Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. CPC 17307(2) “That the Committee: (i) approves the proposed budget changes highlighted in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the officer’s report; (ii) approves a general rates increase of 2.3 percent in 2017/18; and (iii) approves a one year freeze of the current rates differential transition.” |
||||||
|
The motion was put to the vote in three parts. Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) were declared CARRIED on the voices. |
||||||
8. |
Future of HCC Wharves (17/832) Report No. CPC2017/3/138 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens |
||||||
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr Chris Hay believed that reasons now being advanced for the retention of the Rona Wharf may have merit but the essential issue was that due to future tidal changes, the Rona Bay Wharf would become a wharf structure on dry land.
The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. He reiterated that the recommendations had been made on a strategic basis, with the wharves being treated as a set of assets. He explained a number of factors were involved in the assessments, including heritage, useage, sustainability and cost. He said that this had resulted in the officer’s recommendations not necessarily reflecting the majority of submissions. With regard to any potential effects on the aquifer, he advised Tonkin and Taylor had been commissioned to investigate the issue. In response to questions from the members, the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens advised Petone Wharf would remain closed for up to one year, while studies, design works, sourcing of materials and construction works were carried out. He further advised that if Point Howard Wharf was demolished, there was adequate room for fishing on the remaining three wharves and that officers would investigate fishing platforms off the Seaview Marina breakwater. He confirmed Point Howard Wharf required funding for maintenance every three to five years, and that, barring any major storms, the wharf could remain for approximately five years. He added should the wharf be demolished, timber would be salvaged for use in the refurbishment of the other wharves. In response to further questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens said that the amount of the Petone Wharf proposed to be demolished was 1/8th of the total length of the wharf. He noted that the original shipping purpose of the wharf end was no longer required. He explained the operating costs of the newly refurbished wharves had not been detailed as yet and that these costs would not become apparent for eight years. He estimated these would be approximately $200,000 every four years. He advised that there was no information supporting the statement that Rona Wharf would become a wharf structure on dry land. The meeting was adjourned at 1.07pm and resumed at 1.50pm.
|
||||||
|
MOVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CPC 17308(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes the summary of responses to the consultation on the future of the wharves; (ii) notes that officers are seeking further specialist advice regarding the possible effect of piling works, including the removal of piles, on the Waiwhetu aquifer; (iii) agrees in principle to implement the following options, subject to the specialist advice on the aquifer; (a) Days Bay Wharf – fully refurbish (b) Rona Bay Wharf – fully refurbish (c) Petone Wharf – partially remove approximately 50 metres of the 393 metre wharf and fully refurbish the rest (d) Point Howard Wharf – demolish and don’t replace (iv) agrees that the funding in the draft budget be amended to reflect the recommended options and likely timing of works as follows: (a) 2017/18 $1.4M (b) 2018/19 $2.5M (c) 2019/20 $3.4M” AMENDMENT MOVED:(Cr Barry/Cr Lulich) “(iii) (c) That the Committee agrees to fully refurbish the Petone Wharf.” Cr Barry believed the Petone Wharf was currently under utilised due to its run down state, and that if fully restored, more users would be attracted to it. He considered removing part of the wharf would restrict opportunities for the future. Mayor Wallace noted that Heritage New Zealand was supportive of the officer’s recommendations and that the funding saved by not refurbishing the entire Petone Wharf would be used for the Rona Bay Wharf refurbishment. |
||||||
|
The motion was declared LOST by Division with the voting as follows:
|
||||||
|
RESOLVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CPC 17309(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes the summary of responses to the consultation on the future of the wharves; (ii) notes that officers are seeking further specialist advice regarding the possible effect of piling works, including the removal of piles, on the Waiwhetu aquifer; (iii) agrees in principle to implement the following options, subject to the specialist advice on the aquifer; (a) Days Bay Wharf – fully refurbish (b) Rona Bay Wharf – fully refurbish (c) Petone Wharf – partially remove approximately 50 metres of the 393 metre wharf and fully refurbish the rest (d) Point Howard Wharf – demolish and don’t replace (iv) agrees that the funding in the draft budget be amended to reflect the recommended options and likely timing of works as follows: (a) 2017/18 $1.4M (b) 2018/19 $2.5M (c) 2019/20 $3.4M” |
||||||
|
The motion was put to the vote in four parts. Parts (i), (ii) and (iv) were declared CARRIED on the voices and part (iii) was declared CARRIED by Division with the voting as follows:
|
9. |
Report No. CPC2017/3/139 by the Divisional Manager, Leisure Active |
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr Dave Head representing Wainuiomata Sportsville, requested that Council support Wainuiomata Sportsville to enable them to proceed with future planning and fundraising for the project.
In response to questions from the members, Mr Head noted Wainuiomata Sportsville supported the officer’s recommendations as long as the project progressed. He said costings for the project had been discussed at Board level and preliminary approaches had been made to possible funders. He advised that Wainuiomata Sportsville would prefer that they be a separate entity to Petone Sportsville.
Speaking under public comment, Mr Zinny McCormick reiterated his initial request that the four recommendations from the feasibility study be adhered to and that full public consultation occur. He suggested that Fraser Park Sportsville be operational before any further Sportsvilles were considered. He questioned why sports clubs from the Hutt Recreation Ground had been advised they would be required to form a Sportsville within two years.
In response to questions from members, Mr McCormick considered the Sportsville Strategic Plan should be considered for future Sportsville developments in Hutt City. He said Hutt City needed new facilities to attract high level athletes and that the use of the new Fraser Park turf was in question. |
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr Alan Hewson representing Petone Sportsville, expressed support for the officer’s recommendations regarding Sportsville. He explained the Board wanted to move forward with the project and considered there was a lot of mis-information in the public arena. He stressed the need for Council approval over the next 12 months to allow the next steps in the process to continue and Council commitment going forward.
In response to questions from the members, Mr Hewson confirmed the Board understood Council would only release funds upon receipt of a sustainable business case and approval of the project. He said the Board would conduct further consultation over the next 12 months, with a view to having design drawings completed in this period. He said initial concept plans had been completed for the North Park development and further consultation would also be undertaken for this project.
Speaking under public comment, Mr Jay Waters representing Petone Sportsville expressed support for the officer’s recommendations regarding Sportsville. He considered that if the project was not able to move forward then other options should be considered for the community. He noted the Board would not commit to spending funds without a way forward.
In response to questions from members, Mr Waters said Petone Sportsville had consulted extensively with the community. He considered the hub model was the best way forward for the clubs and the community. He said if Council funding was not forthcoming then some clubs would cease to exist whilst others would be forced to move to other areas.
Cr Lulich declared that he was a honorary member of a sports club involved in Petone Sportsville. The General Manager, Community Services and the Divisional Manager, Leisure Active elaborated on the report. The General Manager, Community Services reiterated that Sportsvilles would only proceed if a robust business case was presented. In response to questions from the members, the General Manager, Community Services responded to the issues raised by submitters as follows: the Petone Sportsville currently had a partial operating model; that Sport New Zealand was using Council’s Sportsville model as an example; that public consultation was ongoing; that Stage 1 of Fraser Park Sportsville had been a success; that Hutt Park Recreation club users had been approached by officers to undertake a collabarative approach; that a regional approach to sport was being taken and no additional running track in the region was required and that the assessment of both Petone and Wainuiomata Sportsvilles together was being undertaken to achieve economies of scale in the procurement and project management processes. In response to questions from members, the General Manager, Community Services advised that considerable work had been completed by all Sportsvilles to reach the stages they were now at. He confirmed if funding was not forthcoming in this year’s budget, momentum would be lost and many clubs could pull out, bringing the total concept into doubt. He explained the fundraising efforts over the next 12 months would be directed towards Fraser Park Sportsville. He noted that Gymsports New Zealand had provided a letter of support for the Petone Sportsville. He also explained that should funding be approved to progress to design stages, officers would assist the Sportsville Boards in producing detailed business cases. Cr Cousins declared she was the Council representative on the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT). Mayor Wallace noted this and agreed that the matter was not directly related to CFT. He advised that he did not consider Cr Cousins had a conflict of interest. In response to further questions from members, the General Manager, Community Services advised Fraser Park was classified as the main regional facility with Petone and Wainuiomata Sportsvilles being more suburban facilities. He further clarified the efficiencies to be gained by assessing Petone and Wainuiomata Sportsvilles together included using the same consultants, similar capital fundraising plans, ability to submit joint applications and other cost efficiencies. He stated the main reason for having three Sportsvilles was to get all sports clubs communicating with each other and to provide for the continuation of sports and recreation within Hutt City. In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Leisure Active advised that Petone Sportsville had consulted with the Petone Working Men’s Club in the past. He agreed public consultation was vital to the success of both Sportsvilles and that the funding requested would enable more details to be finalised so that meaningful consultation could occur. In response to additional questions from members, the General Manager, Community Services confirmed that the funding amounts referred to in part (viii) of the officer’s recommendations were already budgeted for in the Long Term Plan. He advised that if progress on one of the Sportsvilles was delayed then the progress for the other Sportsville would not be compromised. He noted that if strict conditions were not met over the coming year, then reports would be presented to the relevant Council committee for consideration. He said all figures shown were regarded as good estimates and that after one year Council would be in a much better position to assess the projects. Members discussed the releasing of funding for the project versus the number of uncertainties. It was noted that if no long term provision was made, investors and the community could question Council’s commitment to the projects. Members acknowledged Petone 2040 was a visionary project and that all other projects proposed for the area should adhere to this vision. Members agreed that to grow Hutt City wisely, all parties needed to work collaboratively and there needed to be widespread public consultation. Mayor Wallace suggested the recommendations reflect that while the projects were separate, synergies could be achieved through the procurement process and that the delay of one sportsville would not impact on the progress of the other. Cr Bridson asked that the matter be considered following an assessment of all proposed projects. The meeting adjourned at 3.35pm and resumed at 3.45pm. |
|
MOVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) That the Committee recommends that Council agrees that the Naenae and Wainuiomata Community Hubs be brought forward for consideration in the 2018 Long Term Plan. |
|
resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CPC 17310(2) “That the Committee agrees that the Naenae and Wainuiomata Community Hubs be brought forward for consideration in the 2018 Long Term Plan.” |
|
resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. CPC 17311(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes the information contained in the officer’s report attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the report; (ii) notes that Petone and Wainuiomata Sportsvilles have been working in a voluntary capacity with Council since 2009; (iii) notes that Council has endorsed sportsville developments in the Long Term Integrated Community Facilities Strategy; (iv) notes that Petone Sportsville has requested funding be brought forward for capital development at North Park; (v) agrees to include capital funding of $300k in 2017/18 to enable Council officers to work with Petone Sportsville to: (a) advance design work (including community consultation) and that Petone Sportsville be obliged to consult with Petone2040 and address wider policy outcomes in finalising the design; (b) complete a business case analysis of the proposal; and (c) fully develop an operational model; (vi) agrees that any alteration to capital funding for this project will be considered by the Community Plan Committee in 2018; (vii) agrees to reduce capital funding for Wainuiomata Sportsville in 2017/18 from $500k to $300k as a joint procurement process will be used for both sportsvilles, understanding both projects, Petone and Wainuiomata, are separate projects but synergies are achieved through the procurement process; (viii) agrees that Council capital funding for construction for both sportsvilles will only be released conditional on: (a) a sustainable operational business case – clearly demonstrating a sustainable operating model that does not rely on Council operational funding; and (b) all capital funding being confirmed; and (ix) notes that any delay in one sportsville will not affect the progress of another sportsville.” |
|
The motion was put to the vote in three parts. Parts (i) to (iv) and parts (vi) to (ix) were declared CARRIED on the voices and part (v) was declared CARRIED by Division with the voting as follows:
For Against Mayor Wallace Cr Lewis Deputy Mayor Bassett Cr Lulich Cr Barratt Cr Barry Cr Bridson Cr Briggs Cr Cousins Cr Edwards Cr McDonald Cr Milne Cr Sutton Total: 11 Total: 2 |
10. |
Report back on Consultation Results of Review of Rates and Development Charges Remissions Policies (17/824) |