HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

 

21 July 2020

 

 

 

Order Paper for Council meeting to be held in the

Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,

on:

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 July 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

 

 

 

Membership

 

 

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer

Cr S Edwards

Cr D Hislop

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw

Cr L Sutton

 

 

 

 

 

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

 

Have your say

You can speak under public comment to items on the agenda to the Mayor and Councillors at this meeting. Please let us know by noon the working day before the meeting. You can do this by emailing DemocraticServicesTeam@huttcity.govt.nz or calling the Democratic Services Team on 04 570 6666 | 0800 HUTT CITY


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES
 

 

 

 


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)

POWER TO (BEING A POWER THAT IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DELEGATED)1:

        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 Local Government Act 2002 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 Local Government Act 1974, 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 for Council employees.

 

DECIDE ON:

Policy issues

       Adoption of all policy required by legislation.

       Adoption of strategies, and policies with a city-wide or strategic focus.

 

District Plan

       Approval to call for submissions on any Proposed District Plan, Plan Changes and Variations.

       Prior to public notification, approval of recommendations of District Plan Hearings Subcommittees on any Proposed Plan, Plan Changes (including private Plan Changes) and Variations, on the recommendation of the Regulatory Committee.

 

1       Work required prior to the making of any of these decisions may be delegated.

       The withdrawal of Plan Changes in accordance with clause 8D, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

       Approval, to make operative, District Plan and Plan Changes (in accordance with clause 17, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).

       Acceptance, adoption or rejection of private Plan Changes.

 

Representation, electoral and governance matters

        The method of voting for the Triennial elections.

        Representation reviews.

        Council’s Code of Conduct for elected members

        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.

        Appointment and discharge of members of committees when not appointed by the Mayor.

        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.

 

Delegations and employment of the Chief Executive

Review and negotiation of the contract, performance agreement and remuneration of the Chief Executive.

 

Meetings and committees

        Standing Orders for Council and its committees.

        Council’s annual meeting schedule.

 

Long Term and Annual Plans

        The adoption of the budgetary parameters for the LTP and Annual Plans.

        Determination of rating levels and policies required as part of the LTP.

        Adoption of Consultation Documents, proposed and final LTPs and proposed and final Annual Plans.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

        The establishment and disposal of any Council Controlled Organisation or Council Controlled Trading Organisation.

        Approval of annual Statements of Corporate Intent for Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

 

Community Engagement and Advocacy

        Receive reports from the Council’s Advisory Groups.

        Monitor engagement with the city’s communities.

 

Operational Matters

        National Emergency Management Agency matters requiring Council’s  input.

        Road closing and road stopping matters.

        Approval of overseas travel for elected members.

        All other matters for which final authority is not delegated.

 

Appoint:

        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.

        The recipients of the annual Civic Honours awards.

 

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Ordinary meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 28 July 2020 commencing at 2.00pm.

 

ORDER PAPER

 

Public Business

 

1.       OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga 

Kia hora te marino

Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

He huarahi mā tātou i te rangi nei

Aroha atu, aroha mai

Tātou i a tātou katoa

Hui e Tāiki e!

May peace be wide spread

May the sea be like greenstone

A pathway for us all this day

Let us show respect for each other

For one another

Bind us together!

 

2.       APOLOGIES 

3.       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.

4.       Mayoral Statement (20/732)

5.       Chief Executive's Statement (20/733)

6.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

7.       Committee Minutes with Recommended Items

a)      Audit and Risk Subcommittee

16 June 2020                                                                                                 16

Recommended Item

Item 5i)     Treasury Risk Management Policy review and update (20/9) 17

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

b)      Traffic Subcommittee

30 June 2020                                                                                                 50

Recommended Items

Item 4i)     Greater Wellington Regional Council Bus Stop Modifications (20/425)        51

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4ii)    Campbell Terrace - Proposed Loading Zone Parking Restriction (20/296)     54

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4iii)   Hebden Crescent - Proposed 'No Stopping At All Times' Parking Restriction (20/300)                                                                                                    55

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4iv)   Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark - Confirmation of Existing Parking Restrictions (20/470)                                                                                                    56

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4v)     London Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/289)  57

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4vi)   Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/290)                                                                                                    58

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 


 

 

Item 4vii)  William Street, Graham Street and North Street - No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/291)                                                                58

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4viii) Trafalgar Street - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (19/1207)          59

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item4ix)    Waddington Drive - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/429)                                                                                     59

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4x)     Market Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/430)                                                                                                    60

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

Item 4xi)   Mills Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/431)    60

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

c)       Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

7 July 2020                                                                                                    84

          PLEASE REFER TO ITEM 8a) Cat Management - responding to requests from Elected Members for further information (20/747)

Memorandum dated 14 July 2020 by the Head of Strategy and Planning 135

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.”

 

Recommended Items

Item 4i)     Management of Cats in Lower Hutt (20/584)                       86

Mayor’s Recommendation:

That Council:

 

i)                   notes the results of the public survey seeking feedback on five options around the management of cats attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

ii)                 notes the legal advice and cost breakdown that has been received subsequent to the recommendations passed by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee on 7 July 2020;

 

iii)               as set out in the legal advice received, Council notes the evidentiary test that is required for developing a new bylaw;

 

iv)               has the view that the evidentiary test for compulsory de-sexing, microchipping and registration of cats would likely be met and should form part of a draft bylaw for consultation;

 

v)                 has the view that the evidentiary test for limiting the number of cats is inconclusive at this stage, and asks that Officers explore this matter further with appropriate local stakeholders, and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support this measure being part of a draft bylaw, as per the required legal tests;

 

vi)               acknowledges a number of legal and practical challenges in developing a bylaw which creates ‘prohibited areas’ for cats within the city, and resolves this not be included as part of a draft bylaw; and

 

vii)          asks officers to consider in preparation of a bylaw, any method (through a bylaw or otherwise) that would assist with challenges like the decimation of dotterels in Eastbourne.

 


 

 

Item 4ii)    District Plan Review Subcommittee (20/648)                      92

Mayor’s Recommendation:

That Council::

(i)            establishes a District Plan Review Subcommittee;

(ii)          delegates to the Mayor the power to appoint members to the District Plan Review Subcommittee; and

(iii)    adopts the Terms of Reference for the District Plan Review Subcommittee, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

 

Item 4iii)   Delegations for deciding remission of rates and economic development grants for economic development (20/655)                                             93

Mayor’s Recommendation:

That the recommendations contained in the minutes be endorsed.”

 

8.       Miscellaneous

a)      Cat Management - responding to requests from Elected Members for further information (20/747)

Memorandum dated 14 July 2020 by the Head of Strategy and Planning 135

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.”

 

b)      Local Government New Zealand - Remits for Annual General Meeting August 2020 (20/723)

Report No. HCC2020/4/156 by the Head of Strategy and Planning    147

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

 


 

c)       Requesting Power of Attorney for Directors (20/581)

Report No. HCC2020/4/155 by the Executive Assistant Transformation and Resources    159

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

9.       Hearing by Independent Commissioner 80 Meremere Street, 25 May 2020 (20/671)

Report No. HCC2020/4/22 by the Head of Democratic Services                   163

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the decision of the Hearing Commissioner held on 25 May 2020 for 80/102 Meremere Street, Wainuiomata be noted and received.”

 

10.     COUNCIL Minutes

26 May 2020                                                                                                         207
18 June 2020                                                                                                         230
30 June 2020                                                                                                         235

11.     Committee Minutes without Recommended Items

a)      Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

29 May 2020                                                                                               245
18 June 2020                                                                                              
255

b)      Community and Environment Committee

8 July 2020                                                                                                  281

12.     Minutes of the Long Term Plan Subcommittee Amendment Working Group dated 13 July 2020 (20/765)

Report No. HCC2020/4/17 by the Head of Democratic Services                   288

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the minutes of the Long Term Plan Subcommittee Amendment Working Goup dated 13 July 2020 be adopted.”

 


 

 

13.     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.

 

 

14.     Sealing Authority (20/520)

 

Report No. HCC2020/4/7 by the Executive Assistant Transformation and Resources     291

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

15.     EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION:

 

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

16.     Committee Minutes withOUT Recommended Items

Audit and Risk Subcommittee – 16 June 2020

17.     COUNCIL Minutes

          30 June 2020

18.     Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel (20/750)

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.

 

 

 

Report of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee held on 16 June 2020 – Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel

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 30 June 2020 Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel

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.

 

 

 

Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel.

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.

 

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kathry Stannard

HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

          


21

 

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Audit and Risk Subcommittee

 

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road
Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 16 June 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

PRESENT:

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

 

 

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

 

Cr C Milne (from 2.05pm)

Cr A Mitchell

 

Cr N Shaw[1]

 

 

APOLOGIES:                  There were no apologies.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:       Cr B Dyer
Ms J Miller, Chief Executive

Ms A Blackshaw, Director Strategy and Engagement (part meeting)

Ms H Oram, Director Environmental and Sustainability (part meeting)

Ms A Welanyk, Director Transformation and Resources

Ms J Livschitz, Chief Financial Officer (part meeting)

Mr B Cato, Chief Legal Officer (part meeting)

Mr G Phillips, Treasury Officer (part meeting)

Mr G Craig, Head of City Growth

Mr D Newth, Financial Accounting Manager (part meeting)

Mr D Kerite, Head of Environmental Consents (part meeting)

Mr J Griffiths, Head of Mayor’s Office (part meeting)

Ms T Lealofi, Committee Advisor

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

1.       APOLOGIES 

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Mitchell)                                 Minute No. ARSC 20401

“That the apology for lateness received from Cr Shaw be accepted.”1

2.       PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no public comment.

3.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS 

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

Cr Milne joined the meeting at 2.05pm.

4.

Minutes

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Bassett)                                   Minute No. ARSC 20402

“That the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting held on Thursday 12 March 2020, be received and noted.”

 

Precedence of Business

 

Mayor Barry gave precedence of business to items 6, 7, and 8.

The items were recorded in the order in which they were listed on the order paper.

5.       Recommendation to Council – 28 july 2020

i)

Treasury Risk Management Policy review and update (20/9)

 

The Chief Financial Officer introduced Mr Brett Johanson and Ms Sarah Houston-Eastergaard from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).  The Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report.

Ms Houston-Eastergaard advised there were three main technical provisions within the Treasury Risk Management Policy that PwC had had recommended to be updated.  These were debt profiling, interest rate risk management/risk control and lending to Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

Mr Johanson advised that the recommended changes were consistent with changes recommended to other local authorities.  He added the changes were still within the risk framework as required by the statutory objectives outlined in the Local Government Act.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Johanson elaborated on local government sector thinking around all matters dealing with risk in regard to COVID-19.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Houston-Eastergaard and Mr Johanson elaborated on the policy framework for the management of forecast of debt that local authorities used.

 

ReCOMMENDED: (Mayor Barry/Cr Briggs)         Minute No. ARSC 20403

“That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the updated Treasury Risk Management Policy, attached as Appendix 2 to the report.”

 

 

a)      RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - 30 JUNE 2020

i)

Review of Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel (20/427)

 

The Chief Executive advised that she had commissioned a review of the project shortly after the election at the request of Mayor Barry.   She noted that she had asked Thomas Dewar, Lawyers to undertake an independent review.  She highlighted the review was focused on what had happened, the interface between management and governance and the lessons learnt for the purpose of future projects.

Mr Gerard Dewar, Partner, Thomas Dewar elaborated on the report.  He also elaborated on the lessons learnt which included benchmark preset, benchmark reporting between management and governance and tighter decision-making criteria for the terms of reference for projects.

In response to questions from members, Mr Dewar advised that commercial sensitivity was extremely high when parties were negotiating and there was the need for confidentiality.  He also advised that it was not the role of lawyers to provide advice on the risk of ventures.  He highlighted that the contract that was prepared for the project accurately reflected Council’s decisions made in 2015.   He reiterated the lesson learnt regarding benchmark reporting to Council.

Mayor Barry highlighted that the most important lesson learnt was ensuring that benchmark reporting to Council was in place for future projects.

Cr Milne expressed that no amount of reporting to Council would have saved the situation as contracts, budgets and underwrites were locked in.  He believed that Council needed to employ high quality external experts when entering into business arrangements.  He stated that the learnings should be that Council did not have the ability to run and manage commercial risks, including Fraser Park.

Cr Briggs expressed the need for the sharing of information with all members to ensure members were well informed.  He also expressed the importance of being upfront with members and the community with future projects.

Mayor Barry thanked the officers for providing members and the community with a clear picture of what had happened.  He spoke of the importance of transparency when using ratepayer funds for commercial deals.  He advised that it was important to apply the lessons learnt to projects already underway.

 

RESOLVED: (Mayor Barry/Cr Briggs)                      Minute No. ARSC 20404

“That the Subcommittee:

(i)    notes the independent report of Thomas Dewar, Lawyers entitled Review of Events Centre and Hotel Development Contracts for Hutt City Council dated
3 March 2020 attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii)   notes the conclusions and recommendations and applies the recommendations relating to reporting and review protocols for future projects.”

For the reasons that Council has commissioned an independent review of a series of contracts relating to the development of the Events Centre and Hotel in Lower Hutt.

 

6.

Tax Risk Governance Framework Update (19/492)

Report No. FPC2019/2/51 by the Financial Accounting Manager

 

The Financial Accounting Manager introduced Mr Phil Fisher from PricewaterhouseCoopers.  The Financial Accounting Manager elaborated on the report.

Mr Fisher elaborated on the Tax Governance framework.  He confirmed that Council’s framework was consistent with other local authorities.  He highlighted that Council was at the top end of the level of compliance.  He elaborated on the key tax issues that local authorities were working through which included staff working from home, Three Waters and shared services.  He concluded that Council had a healthy tax position.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Fisher advised that a review of Urban Plus Limited was undertaken in 2019.  He noted that it may be timely to undertake another review.  He highlighted that tax would be a small component of that review.

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Bassett)                                        Minute No. ARSC 20405

“That the Subcommittee:

(i)    notes and receives the report; and

(ii)   approves the Tax Governance Plan in relation to the years ending 30 June 2021 and 2022.”

 

7.

Seismic Performance Register (20/175)

Report No. ARSC2020/2/69 by the Senior Advisor to the Chief Executive

 

The Director Strategy and Engagement elaborated on the report.  She advised that the new rating for the Hutt Recreation Ground grandstand was 45% New Building Standard.

The Chief Executive advised that the reporting of Asset Management Plans to the subcommittee was set down for early 2021.

Mayor Barry thanked and acknowledged officers for their work on the Seismic Performance Register.

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Bassett)                                        Minute No. ARSC 20406

“That the Subcommittee notes and receives the report.”

8.       Information Item

Audit and Risk Subcommittee Work Programme 2020 (20/198)

Report No. ARSC2020/2/33 by the Committee Advisor.

In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive advised that she was reasonably confident the business of the subcommittee would be completed in a timely manner rather than a pre-COVID aspirational basis.

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Mitchell)                                         Minute No. ARSC 20407

“That the work programme be noted and received.”

9.       QUESTIONS   

There were no questions.

10.     EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved:  (Mayor Barry/Cr Mitchell)                               Minute No. ARSC 20408

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

11.     Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel (20/432)

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.

 

 

 

Further Information on Agreement to Lease Events Centre and Develop a Hotel.

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.

 

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 Barry/Cr Mitchell)                             Minute No. ARSC 20409

“That Mr Gerard Dewar, Partner, Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts and Mr Kevin Podmore from Cambridge Asset Management Limited 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 the subcommittee in relation to this item.”

 

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 3.20pm and the non-public portion of the meeting closed at 4.26 pm.

 

 

 

 

Mayor C Barry

CHAIR

 

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 28th day of July 2020


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 Revised Policy

 

 

§treasury risk management policy

Including liability management and investment policies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division

Finance

Date created

October 2014

Publication date

October 2014

Review period

October 2015

July 2017

May 2020

Owner

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by

Council

 

Version

Author

Date

Description

V 1.0

Paul Blacker

October 2014

Approved by Council.

V 2.0

Brent Kibblewhite

July 2017

Financial Strategy Changes and Triennial review.

V 3.0

Jenny Livschitz

May 2020

Policy changes and Triennial review

 


 Contents

1.     Introduction. 3

1.1       Policy purpose. 3

2.     Scope and objectives. 3

2.1       Scope. 3

2.2       Treasury management objectives. 3

2.3       Policy setting and Management 5

3.     Governance and management responsibilities. 5

3.1       Overview of management structure. 5

3.2       Delegation of authority and authority limits. 6

4.     Liability management policy. 9

4.1       Introduction. 9

4.2       Borrowing limits. 9

4.3       Asset management plans. 10

4.4       Borrowing mechanisms. 10

4.5       Security. 10

4.6       Debt repayment 11

4.7       Guarantees/contingent liabilities and other financial arrangements. 11

4.8       Internal borrowing. 11

4.9       New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Limited Investment 12

4.10     On-lending to council controlled organisations. 12

5.     Investment policy. 13

5.1       Introduction. 13

5.2       Objectives. 13

5.3       Policy. 13

5.4       Acquisition of new investments. 14

5.5       Investment mix. 14

5.6       Departures from normal Policy. 17

5.7       Investment management and reporting procedures. 17

6.     Risk recognition / identification management 17

6.1       Interest rate risk. 17

6.2       Liquidity risk/funding risk. 20

6.3       Counterparty credit risk. 21

6.4       Foreign currency. 22

6.5       Operational risk. 22

6.6       Legal risk. 23

7.     Measuring treasury performance. 23

8.     Reporting. 24

8.1       Treasury reporting. 24

9.     Policy review.. 25

 


 

1.      Introduction

1.1        Policy purpose

The purpose of the Treasury Risk Management Policy (“Policy”) is to outline the policies in respect of all treasury activity to be undertaken by the Hutt City Council Group (“HCC”) being the Hutt City Council (“Council”) together with its Council Controlled Organisations (“CCO’s”).  The formalisation of such policies will enable treasury risks within HCC to be prudently managed.

As circumstances change, the policies outlined in this Policy will be modified to ensure that treasury risks within HCC continue to be well managed. In addition, regular reviews will be conducted to test the existing Policy against the following criteria:

§ Industry “best practices” for a council the size and type of HCC.

§ The risk bearing ability and tolerance levels of the underlying revenue and cost drivers.

§ The effectiveness and efficiency of the Policy and treasury management function to recognise, measure, control, manage and report on HCC’s financial exposure to market interest rate risks, funding risk, liquidity, investment risks, counterparty credit risks and other associated risks.

§ The operations of a pro-active treasury function in an environment of control and compliance.

§ The robustness of the Policy’s risk control limits and risk spreading mechanisms against normal and abnormal interest rate market movements and conditions.

§ Assistance to HCC in achieving strategic objectives.

2.      Scope and objectives

2.1        Scope

§ This document identifies the policy of HCC in respect of treasury management activities.

§ The Policy has not been prepared to cover other aspects of HCC’s operations, particularly transactional banking management, systems of internal control and financial management.  Other policies and procedures of HCC cover these matters.

§ This Policy should be read in conjunction with the Financial Delegation Policy, which confirms that delegations for Treasury transactions are specifically covered by this Policy.

2.2        Treasury management objectives

The objective of this Policy is to control and manage costs, investment returns and risks associated with treasury management activities.

Statutory objectives

§ All external borrowing, investments and incidental financial arrangements (e.g., use of interest rate hedging financial instruments) will meet requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and incorporate the Liability Management Policy and Investment Policy.

§ HCC is governed by the following relevant legislation:

Local Government Act 2002, in particular Part 6 including sections 101,102, 104 and 105.

Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014, in particular Schedule 4.

Trustee Act 1956. When acting as a trustee or investing money on behalf of others, the Trustee Act highlights that trustees have a duty to invest prudently and that they shall exercise care, diligence and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of others. Details of relevant sections can be found in the Trustee Act 1956 Part ll Investments.

§ All projected external borrowings are to be approved by Council as part of the Annual Plan (AP), the Long Term Planning (LTP) or CCO’s Statement of Corporate Intent (SOI) process, or resolution of Council before the borrowing is affected.

§ All legal documentation in respect to external borrowing and financial instruments will be approved by HCC’s solicitors prior to the transaction being executed.

§ HCC will not enter into any borrowings denominated in a foreign currency.

§ Council will not transact with any Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) on terms more favourable than those achievable by Council itself.

§ A resolution of Council is not required for hire purchase, credit or deferred purchase of goods if:

The period of indebtedness is less than 91 days (including rollovers); or

The goods or services are obtained in the ordinary course of operations on normal terms for amounts not exceeding in aggregate, an amount determined by resolution of Council.

General objectives

§ Minimise HCC’s costs and risks in the management of its external borrowings.

§ Minimise HCC’s exposure to volatility in interest costs.

§ Minimise HCC’s exposure to adverse interest rate movements.

§ Monitor, evaluate and report on treasury performance.

§ Borrow funds and transacts risk management instruments within an environment of control and compliance under HCC approved Policy so as to protect HCC’s financial assets and manage costs.

§ Arrange and structure external long term funding for HCC at a favourable margin and cost from debt lenders. Optimise flexibility and spread of debt maturity terms within the funding risk limits established by this Policy statement.

§ Monitor and report on financing/borrowing covenants and ratios under the obligations of HCC’s lending/security arrangements.

§ Comply with financial ratios and limits stated within this Policy.

§ Monitor HCC’s return on investments. 

§ Ensure the Council, HCC management and relevant officers are kept abreast of the latest treasury products, methodologies, and accounting treatments through training and in-house presentations.

§ Maintain appropriate liquidity levels and manage cash flows within HCC to meet known and reasonable unforeseen funding requirements.

§ To minimise exposure to credit risk by dealing with and investing in credit worthy counterparties.

§ Ensure that all statutory requirements of a financial nature are adhered to.

§ Ensure that financial planning will not impose an unequitable spread of costs/benefits over current and future ratepayers.

§ To ensure adequate internal controls exist to protect HCC’s financial assets and to prevent unauthorised transactions.

§ Develop and maintain relationships with financial institutions, Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), credit rating agencies and investment counterparties.   

§ To maintain Councils AA credit rating.

2.3        Policy setting and Management

The Council approves Policy parameters in relation to its treasury activities. The Council’s Chief Executive has overall financial management responsibility for HCC’s borrowing and investments.

The Council exercises ongoing governance over its subsidiary companies (CCO/CCTO), through the process of approving their Constitutions, SOI’s, and the appointment of Directors/Trustees to these entities.

 

3.      Governance and management responsibilities

3.1        Overview of RESPONSIBILITIES

The following diagram illustrates those individuals and bodies who have treasury responsibilities.  Authority levels, reporting lines and treasury duties and responsibilities are summarised in the section that follows. 

 

3.2        Council

The Council has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that there is an effective policy for the management of its risks.  In this respect the Council decides the level and nature of risks that are acceptable, given the underlying objectives of HCC.

The Council is responsible for approving the Policy. While the Policy can be reviewed and changes recommended by other persons, the authority to make or change Policy cannot be delegated.

In this respect, the Council has responsibility for:

§ Approving the long-term financial position, financial strategy and rating levels of HCC through the adoption of the LTP and  AP

§ Approval of annual Statements of Intent for CCOs and CCTOs

§ Approve and adopt the Liability Management and Investment Policies.

§ Adoption of the annual report for HCC.

§ Approving the Policy  and incorporating the following delegated authorities:

Borrowing, investment and dealing limits and the respective authority levels delegated to the Chief Executive (CE), Chief Finanical Officer (CFO) and other HCC officers.

Counterparties and credit limits.

Risk management methodologies and benchmarks.

Guidelines for the use of financial instruments.

Receiving a triennial review report on the Policy.

§ Approval for one-off transactions falling outside Policy. These will include:

Additional borrowings other than in accordance with the LTP, AP or CCO’s SOI.

Purchase or disposal of assets other than in accordance with the LTP, AP or CCO’s SOI,

The establishment and disposal of any CCO and the appointment of their directors or trustees.

3.3        POLICY, Finance and STRATEGY Committee (PFS)

Under delegation from Council:

§ Evaluate and recommend amendments to Policy.

§ Reviewing debt levels for compliance with Councils Annual Plan, Long Term Plan or specific Council resolution and this Policy.

§ Review treasury activity and oversee compliance with this Policy.

3.4        Audit and Risk Subcommittee (AR)

Under delegation from Council:

§ Providing objective advice and recommendations to Council around the sufficiency, quality and results of assurance over HCC’s financial management practices, risk management, internal control systems and governance frameworks.

3.5        Chief Executive (CE)

While the Council has final responsibility for the Policy governing the management of Council’s risks, it delegates overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of such risks to the Chief Executive.

In respect of treasury management activities, the Chief Executive’s responsibilities include:

§ Ensuring the policies comply with existing and new legislation.

§ Approving the delegated authorities in line with the Financial Delegations Policy.

§ Approving new counterparties and counterparty limits.

§ Approving new external borrowing undertaken in line with Council resolution and approved borrowing strategy.

§ In conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), approving the opening and closing of bank accounts.

§ Receiving advice of non-compliance of Policy and significant treasury events from the CFO.

3.6        Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

The CFO’s responsibilities are as follows:

§ Management responsibility for all external borrowing and investment activities as delegated by the CE.

§ Recommending Policy changes for approval.

§ Managing the long-term financial position of Council as outlined in the LTP.

§ Ongoing risk assessment of borrowing and investment activity including procedures and controls.

§ Approving treasury transactions in accordance with delegated authority.

§ Authorising the use of approved interest rate management instruments within discretionary authority.

§ Recommending financial delegated authorities in respect of all treasury activities.

§ Review all delegated authorities annually to ensure that they are still appropriate and current.

§ Proposing new funding requirements to the CE, and if required submission to the Council.

§ Reviewing and making recommendations on all aspects of the Policy to the CE, including dealing limits, approved instruments, counterparties, and general guidelines for the use of financial instruments.

§ Conducting a review, at least triennially, of the Policy, treasury procedures and counterparty limits.

§ Monitoring and reviewing the performance of the treasury function in terms of achieving the objectives.

§ Monitoring treasury exposures on a regular basis, including current and forecast cash position, interest rate exposures and borrowings.

§ Authorising external borrowing, investing, interest rate, cash management transactions with bank counterparties.  Approving all amendments to Council records arising from checks to counterparty confirmations - with any two authorised signatories.

§ Reviewing and approving treasury spreadsheet reconciliation to internal records.

§ The CFO has oversight, and approves actions undertaken by the Treasury Officer and Financial Accounting Manager per delegated authority.

3.7        Financial AccountING Manager (FAM)

The Financial Accounting Manager’s responsibilities are as follows:

§ Responsible for overseeing the day to day treasury function as delegated by the CFO.

§ Account for all treasury transactions in accordance with legislation and generally accepted accounting principles, Council’s accounting and funding and financial policies.

§ Ensuring management procedures and policies are implemented in accordance with this Treasury Risk Management Policy.

§ Check all treasury deal confirmations against the treasury spreadsheet/deal ticket and report any irregularities immediately to the CFO.

§ Complete general ledger reconciliations to treasury spreadsheet.

§ Review and approve monthly bank reconciliations.

§ Reconcile monthly summaries of outstanding financial contracts from bank counterparties to internal records.

§ Ensuring all financial instruments are valued and accounted for correctly in accordance with current best practice standards.

3.8        Treasury Officer (TO)

The Treasury Officer’s responsibilities are as follows:

§ Execution of external borrowing, investment, and interest rate management transactions in accordance with set limits.  Investigate financing alternatives to minimise borrowing costs, margins and interest rates, making recommendations to the CFO as appropriate.

§ Carry out the day to day cash and short term cash management activities.

§ Co-ordinate the compilation of cash flow forecasts and day-to-day cash management responsibilities.

§ Update treasury spreadsheets for all new, re-negotiated and maturing transactions.

§ Monitor and update credit ratings of approved counterparties.

§ Settlement of external borrowing, investment, cash management, and interest rate management transactions, after approval from CFO/CE and signed-off.

§ Complete monthly reconciliations of On-Call, Investment and Loan Balance Accounts.

§ Handle all administrative aspects of bank counterparty agreements and documentation such as loan agreements and ISDA documents.  Prepare treasury reports.

§ Check compliance against limits and prepare report on an exceptions basis.

§ Foreign exchange transaction processing, ensuring the best rate available.

3.9        Finance and Treasury Committee (FTC)

This is an internal committee of Officers, comprising the CFO, FAM and TO, and is supported by external specialist treasury advisors as required. The committee considers HCC’s cash flow forecast, current and forward looking debt position, interest rate hedging, upcoming debt issuance requirements, compliance with this Policy and formulates and agrees strategy in those regards.

3.10      Delegation of authority and authority limits

Treasury transactions entered into without the proper authority are difficult to cancel given the legal doctrine of “apparent authority”.  Also, insufficient authorities for a given bank account or facility may prevent the execution of certain transactions (or at least cause unnecessary delays).

To prevent these types of situations, the following procedures must be complied with:

§ All delegated authorities and signatories must be reviewed at least annually to ensure that they are still appropriate and current.

§ A comprehensive letter must be sent to all bank counterparties at least annually to confirm details of all relevant current delegated authorities empowered to bind Council. This letter will also provide each counterparty Councils standard settlement instructions.

Whenever a person with delegated authority on any account or facility leaves Council, all relevant banks and other counterparties must be advised in writing in a timely manner to ensure that no unauthorised instructions are to be accepted from such persons.

Council has the following responsibilities, either directly itself, or via the following stated delegated authorities:

Activity

Delegated Authority

Limit

Approving and changing Policy

Council

Unlimited

Approve external borrowing for year as set out in the AP/LTP.

Council

Unlimited (subject to legislative and other regulatory limitations)

Acquisition and disposition of investments other than financial investments

Council

Unlimited

Approval for charging assets as security over borrowings as set out in the AP/LTP.

CE (delegated by Council)

 

Subject to Policy

Approving new and reviewing re-financed bank facilities.

CE (delegated by Council)

 

Subject to Policy

Approving transactions outside Policy

PFS (delegated by Council)

Unlimited

Overall day-to-day treasury  management

CE (delegated by Council)

CFO (delegated by CE)

Subject to Policy

Re-financing existing debt

CE (delegated by Council)

CFO (delegated by CE)

Subject to Policy

Approve new external borrowing in accordance with Council resolution or through the adoption of the AP/LTP.

CFO (delegated by CE)

Per Council approved AP/LTP.

Negotiate bank facilities

CFO

N/A

Manage borrowing and interest rate strategy

CFO

N/A

Adjust interest rate risk profile

CFO

Per risk control limits

Managing funding and investment maturities

CFO

Per risk control limits

Maximum daily transaction amount (borrowing, investing, interest rate risk management and cash management) excludes roll-overs on debt and interest rate swaps.

Council

CE

CFO

TO

Unlimited

$50 million

$35 million

$10 million

Manage cash/liquidity requirements

CFO

Per risk control limits

Authorising list of signatories

CE

Unlimited

Opening/closing bank accounts

CFO

Unlimited

Triennial review of Policy

CFO

N/A

Ensuring compliance with Policy

CFO

N/A

All management delegated limits are authorised by the CE.

 


 

4.      Liability management policy

4.1        Introduction

Council’s liabilities comprise of borrowings (external/internal) and various other liabilities. Council maintains external borrowings in order to:

§ Raise specific debt associated with projects and capital expenditures.

§ Fund the balance sheet as a whole, including working capital requirements and targeted funding for on-lending to CCOs/CCTOs.

§ Fund assets whose useful lives extend over several generations of ratepayers.

Borrowing provides a basis to achieve inter-generational equity by aligning long-term assets with long-term funding sources, and ensure that the cost are met by those ratepayers benefiting from the investment.

4.2        Borrowing limits 

Debt will be managed within the following limits:

Item

Borrowing Limit

Net Interest on External Debt / Total Revenue

<10%

Liquidity (External debt + committed loan facilities + available liquid investments to existing external debt)

>110%

Net external debt

<150% of Total Revenue in years 1-3

<130% of Total Revenue in years 4-6

<110% of Total Revenue in years 7-12

< 90% of Total Revenue in years 13+

§ Total Revenue is defined as cash earnings from rates, government capital grants and subsidies, user charges, interest, dividends, financial and other revenue and excludes non-government capital contributions (e.g., developer contributions and vested assets).

§ Net external debt is defined as total external debt less liquid financial assets and investments.

§ Liquidity is defined as external term debt plus committed loan facilities plus liquid investments divided by external debt.

§ Liquid investments are defined as: Overnight bank cash deposits, Wholesale/retail bank term deposits no greater than 30 days, Bank issued RCDs less than 181 days.

§ Net interest on external debt is defined as the amount equal to all interest and financing costs (on external debt) less interest income for the relevant period.

§ Annual Rates Income is defined as the amount equal to the total revenue from any funding mechanism authorised by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (including volumetric water charges levied) together with any revenue received from other local authorities for services provided (and for which the other local authorities rate).

§ Financial covenants are measured on Council only not consolidated group.

§ Disaster recovery requirements are to be met through the liquidity ratio and special funds.

4.3        Asset management plans

In approving new debt Council considers the impact on its external borrowing limits as well as the economic life of the asset that is being funded and its overall consistency with Council’s LTP and Financial Strategy.

4.4        Borrowing mechanisms

Council is able to externally borrow through a variety of market mechanisms including issuing stock/bonds, commercial paper (CP) and debentures, direct bank borrowing, LGFA, accessing the short and long-term wholesale/retail debt capital markets directly or indirectly, or internal borrowing of reserve and special funds. In evaluating strategies for new borrowing (in relation to source, term, size and pricing) the following is taken into account:

§ Available terms from banks, LGFA, debt capital markets and loan stock issuance.

§ Council’s overall debt maturity profile, to ensure concentration of debt is avoided at reissue/rollover time.

§ Prevailing interest rates and margins relative to term for loan stock issuance, LGFA, debt capital markets and bank borrowing.

§ The market’s outlook on future credit margin and interest rate movements as well as its own.

§ Legal documentation and financial covenants together with security and credit rating considerations.

§ For internally funded projects, to ensure that finance terms for those projects are at least as equitable with those terms from external borrowing.

§ Alternative funding mechanisms such as leasing should be evaluated with financial analysis in conjunction with traditional on-balance sheet funding. The evaluation should take into consideration, ownership, redemption value and effective cost of funds.

Council’s ability to readily attract cost effective borrowing is largely driven by its ability to rate, maintain a strong financial standing and manage its relationships with its investors, LGFA, and financial institutions/brokers and maintain a long term credit rating of at least AA. 

4.5        Security

Council’s external borrowings and interest rate management instruments will generally be secured by way of a charge over rates and rates revenue offered through a Debenture Trust Deed.  Under a Debenture Trust Deed, Council’s borrowing is secured by a floating charge over all Council rates levied under the Local Government Rating Act.  The security offered by Council ranks equally or pari passu with other lenders.

From time to time, and with Council approval, security may be offered by providing a charge over one or more of Councils assets.

Physical assets will be charged only where:

§ There is a direct relationship between the debt and the purchase or construction of the asset, which it funds (e.g., project finance).

§ Council considers a charge over physical assets to be appropriate.

§ Any pledging of physical assets must comply with the terms and conditions contained within the security arrangement.

4.6        Debt repayment

The nature of Council’s debt is primarily, but not exclusively, related to the purchase or creation of long term assets. Debt repayments will be in accordance with long term and annual plans.  Additional repayments may be made from surplus funds generated by asset sales or operating surpluses.

The funds from all asset sales, operating surpluses, grants and subsidies will be applied to specific projects or the reduction of debt and/or a reduction in borrowing requirements, unless the Council specifically directs that the funds will be put to another use.

Debt will be repaid as it falls due in accordance with the applicable borrowing arrangement.  Subject to the appropriate approval and debt limits, a loan may be rolled over or re-negotiated as and when appropriate.

Council will manage debt on a net portfolio basis and will only externally borrow when it is commercially prudent to do so.

4.7        Guarantees/contingent liabilities and other financial arrangements

Council may act as guarantor to financial institutions on loans or enter into incidental arrangements for organisations, clubs, Trusts, or Business Units, when the purposes of the loan are in line with Council’s strategic objectives.

Council is not permitted to provide any guarantee of indebtedness in favour of any loans to Council Controlled Trading Organisations that are set up under Section 62 of the Local Government Act. Council may act as a financial guarantor to Council Controlled Organisation.

CCO’s are not permitted to provide any guarantee of indebtedness in favour of any loans to third parties.

Council will ensure that sufficient funds or lines of credit exist to meet amounts guaranteed. Guarantees given will not exceed NZ$2.0 million in aggregate.

Conditions to financial arrangements, such as loan advances, are specified in section 5.5.5.

4.8        Internal borrowing

As Council manages all funding and liquidity as a centralised function, ensuring cash and borrowing resources are used in an optimal manner, there is an element of funding per activity which at times is effectively borrowed as excess reserve funds are sometimes used instead of external borrowing.

The capital charge mechanism is applied to activities in the same manner for both internal and external borrowings.

4.9        New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Limited Investment

Despite anything earlier in this Policy, the Council may borrow from the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA) and, in connection with that borrowing, may enter into the following related transactions to the extent it considers necessary or desirable:

§ Contribute a portion of its borrowing back to the LGFA as an equity contribution to the LGFA, e.g., borrower notes.

§ Provide guarantees of the indebtedness of other local authorities to the LGFA and of the indebtedness of the LGFA itself.

§ Commit to contributing additional equity (or subordinated debt) to the LGFA if required.

§ Secure its borrowing from the LGFA and the performance of other obligations to the LGFA or its creditors with a charge over the Council's rates and rates revenue.

§ Subscribe for shares and uncalled capital in the LGFA.

4.10      On-lending to council controlled organisations

To better achieve its strategic and commercial objectives, Council may provide financial support in the form of debt funding directly or indirectly to CCO/CCTOs. 

Guarantees of financial indebtedness to CCTOs are prohibited, but financial support may be provided by subscribing for shares as called or uncalled capital.  

Any on-lending arrangement to a CCO or CCTO must be approved by Council.  In recommending an arrangement for approval the CFO considers the following:

§ Credit risk profile of the borrowing entity, and the ability to repay interest and principal amount outstanding on due date.

§ Impact on Council’s credit standing, debt cap amount (where applied), lending covenants with the LGFA and other lenders and Council’s future borrowing capacity.

§ The form and quality of security arrangements provided.

§ The lending rate given factors such as; CCO or CCTO credit profile, external Council borrowing rates, borrower note and liquidity buffer requirements, term etc.

§ Lending arrangements to CCTO must be documented on a commercial arm's length basis. A term sheet, including matters such as borrowing costs, interest payment dates, principal payment dates, security and expiry date is agreed between the parties.

§ Accounting and taxation impact of on-lending arrangement.

All on-lending arrangements must be executed under legal documentation (e.g. loan agreement) reviewed and approved by Council’s independent legal counsel.

 

5.      Investment policy

5.1        Introduction

HCC generally holds investments for strategic reasons where there is some community, social, physical or economic benefit accruing from the investment activity.  Generating a commercial return on strategic investments is considered a secondary objective.  Investments and associated risks are monitored and managed, and regularly reported to Council.  Specific purposes for maintaining investments include:

§ For strategic purposes consistent with Council’s LTP, AP and CCO’s Statements of Intent.

§ To reduce ratepayer burden.

§ The retention of vested land.

§ Holding short term investments for working capital requirements.

§ Holding investments that are necessary to carry out Council operations consistent with LTP, AP and CCO’s SOI, to implement strategic initiatives, or to support inter-generational allocations.

§ Holding assets (such as property) for commercial returns.

§ Provide ready cash in the event of a natural disaster.  The use of which is intended to bridge the gap between the disaster and the reinstatement of normal income streams and assets.

§ Invest amounts allocated to accumulated surplus, HCC created restricted reserves and general reserves.

§ Invest proceeds from the sale of assets.

HCC recognises that as a responsible public authority group all investments held should be low risk.  HCC also recognises that low risk investments generally mean lower returns.

Council can internally borrow from reserve funds in the first instance to meet future capital expenditure requirements, unless there is a compelling reason for establishing external debt.

5.2        Objectives

In its financial investment activity, HCC’s primary objective when investing is the protection of its investment capital and that a prudent approach to risk/ return is always applied within the confines of this policy.  Accordingly, only approved creditworthy counterparties are acceptable.  HCC will act effectively and appropriately to:

§ Protect the HCC’s investments.

§ Ensure the investments benefit the HCC’s ratepayers.

§ Maintain a prudent level of liquidity and flexibility to meet both planned and reasonably unforeseen cash requirements.

 

 

5.3        Policy

The HCC’s general policy on investments is that:

§ The HCC may hold financial, property, forestry, and equity investments if there are strategic, commercial, economic or other valid reasons (e.g., where it is the most appropriate way to administer a HCC function).

§ The HCC will keep under review its approach to all major investments and the credit rating of approved financial institutions.

§ The HCC will review its policies on holding investments at least once every three years.

5.4        Acquisition of new investments

With the exception of financial investments, new investments are acquired if an opportunity arises and approval is given by Council, based on advice and recommendations from HCC officers.  Before approving any new investments, HCC officers give due consideration to the contribution the investment will make in fulfilling HCC’s strategic objectives, and the financial risks of owning the investment.

The authority to acquire financial investments is delegated to the CFO.

5.5        Investment mix

5.5.1     Equity investments

Equity investments, includes investments held in CCO/CCTO and other shareholdings.

HCC maintains equity investments and other minor shareholdings.  HCC’s equity investments fulfil various strategic, economic development and financial objectives as outlined in the LTP, AL and CCO’s SOI.  Equity investments may be held where HCC considers there to be strategic community value.

HCC seeks to achieve an acceptable rate of return on all its equity investments consistent with the nature of the investment and their stated philosophy on investments.

Any purchase or disposition of equity investments requires Council approval.  Council may also acquire shares that are gifted or are a result of restructuring.

Dividends received from CCO’s/CCTO’s, and unlisted companies not controlled by Council, are used firstly to repay debt in relation to that investment, then, unless otherwise directed by Council, used to reduce other Council debt. 

Any dividends received, and/or profit or loss arising from the sale of these investments must be recorded in accordance with appropriate accounting standards.  Unless otherwise directed by Council, the proceeds from the disposition of equity investments will be used firstly to repay any debt relating to the investment and then utilised to reduce other debt.  HCC recognises that there are risks associated with holding equity investments and to minimise these risks HCC, through the relevant Council committee, monitors the performance of its equity investments on a twice yearly basis to ensure that the stated objectives are being achieved.  HCC seeks professional advice regarding its equity investments when it considers this appropriate.

5.5.2.    New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited investment

Despite anything earlier in this Policy, in conjunction with their borrowing activity, HCC may enter into the following transactions with the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA):

·      Contribute a portion of its borrowing back to the LGFA as an equity contribution to the LGFA. For example borrower notes.

·      Provide guarantees of the indebtedness of other local authorities to the LGFA and of the indebtedness of the LGFA itself.

·      Commit to contributing additional equity (or subordinated debt) to the LGFA if required.

·      Secure its borrowing from the LGFA and the performance of other obligations to the LGFA or its creditors with a charge over the Council's rates and rates revenue.

·      Subscribe for shares and uncalled capital in the LGFA.

and may borrow to fund that investment.

HCC's objective in making any such investment will be to:

§ Obtain a return on the investment.

§ Ensure that the LGFA has sufficient capital to remain viable, meaning that it continues as a source of debt funding for HCC.

Because of these dual objectives, HCC may invest in LGFA shares in circumstances in which the return on that investment is potentially lower than the return it could achieve with alternative investments.  In connection with the investment, Council subscribes for uncalled capital in the LGFA and is a Guarantor.

5.5.3     Property investments

HCC owns property investments for strategic and commercial purposes.  HCC reviews ownership through assessing the benefits including financial returns, in comparison to other arrangements that could deliver similar results. 

Surpluses generated from commercial and semi commercial property investments are treated as an internal dividend to HCC.  Other surpluses from property are treated as income in the related HCC activity. 

Property disposals are managed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and where appropriate consultation with Community Boards, Committees and Board of Directors/Trustees.

Property purchases are supported by registered valuations and where appropriate a full business case analysis.  HCC will not purchase properties on a speculative basis.

5.5.4     Financial investments

Objectives

HCC’s primary objectives when investing is the protection of its investment capital.  Accordingly, HCC may only invest in approved creditworthy counterparties.  Creditworthy counterparties and investment restrictions are covered in section 6.3.  Credit ratings are monitored and reported quarterly to Council.

HCC may invest in approved financial instruments as set out in section 6.1.3.  These investments are aligned with HCC’s objective of investing in high credit quality and highly liquid assets

HCC’s investment portfolio will be arranged to provide sufficient funds for planned expenditures and allow for the payment of obligations as they fall due.  HCC prudently manages liquid financial investments as follows:

§ Any liquid investments must be restricted to a term that meets future cash flow and capital expenditure projections.

§ HCC may choose to hold specific reserves in cash and direct what happens to that investment income.  In effect the income from financial investments will be an interest income stream into the treasury activity.  The treasury activity pays interest on special funds and reserves.

§ Internal borrowing will be used wherever possible to avoid external borrowing.

§ Financial investments do not include shares.

Special funds and reserve funds 

Liquid assets are not required to be held against special funds and reserve funds.  Instead HCC will internally borrow or utilise these funds wherever possible.

Trust funds

Where HCC hold funds as a trustee, or manages funds for a Trust then such funds must be invested on the terms provided within the Trust.  If the Trust’s investment policy is not specified then this policy should apply.

5.5.5     Loan Advances

Council may provide advances to CCOs, CCTOs, charitable trusts and community organisations for strategic and commercial purposes.  New loan advances are by Council resolution only.  Council does not lend money, or provide any other financial accommodation, to a CCO or CCTO on terms and conditions that are more favourable than those that would apply if Council were borrowing the money or obtaining the financial accommodation.

Council does not lend to CCTOs on more favourable terms than what it can achieve itself, without charging any rate or rate revenue as security.

Advances to charitable trusts, and community organisations do not have to be on a fully commercial basis.  Where advances are made to charitable trusts and community organisations at below Councils cost of borrowing, the additional cost is treated as an annual grant to the organisation.

Council reviews performance of its loan advances on a regular basis to ensure strategic and economic objectives are being achieved.  

5.6        Departures from normal Policy

The Council may, in its discretion, depart from the Investment Policies where is considers that the departure would advance its broader social or other policy objectives.  Any resolution authorising an investment under this provision shall note that it departs from the Council’s ordinary policy and the reasons justifying that departure.

5.7        Investment management and reporting procedures

HCC’s investments are managed on a regular basis, with sufficient minimum immediate cash reserves and a cash buffer maintained.  The daily cash position is monitored and managed through the Daily Cash Flow Forecast, and long-term cash flow through the annual Cash flow Forecast.  To best manage funding gaps, HCC’s financial investment maturities are matched with HCC’s forecast cash flow requirements.

The performance of HCC investments is regularly reviewed to ensure HCC’s strategic objectives are being met.  Both performance and policy compliance are reviewed through regular reporting.

6.      Risk recognition / identification management

The definition and recognition of liquidity, funding, interest rate, counterparty credit, operational and legal risk of HCC is detailed below and applies to both the Liability Management Policy and Investment Policy.

6.1        Interest rate risk

6.1.1     Risk recognition

Interest rate risk is the risk that funding costs (due to adverse movements in market wholesale interest rates), will materially exceed or fall short of projections included in the LTP, AP or CCO’s SOI so as to adversely impact revenue projections, cost control and capital investment decisions/returns/feasibilities.

The primary objective of interest rate risk management is to reduce uncertainty relating to interest rate movements through fixing/hedging of interest costs.  Certainty around interest costs is to be achieved through the active management of underlying interest rate exposures.

6.1.2     Interest rate risk control limits

Exposure to interest rate risk is managed and mitigated through the risk control limits below.  HCC’s gross external debt should be within the following fixed/floating interest rate risk control limit.

 

Forecast gross external debt is the amount of total external debt for a given period. This allows for pre-hedging in advance of projected physical drawdown of new debt. When approved forecasts are changed (signed off by the CFO or equivalent), the amount of interest rate fixing in place may have to be adjusted to ensure compliance with the Policy minimum and maximum limits.

This allows for pre-hedging in advance of projected physical drawdown of new debt.  When approved forecasts are changed, the amount of fixed rate cover in place may have to be adjusted to ensure compliance with the Policy minimums and maximums.

Debt Interest Rate Policy Parameters (calculated on rolling monthly basis)

Debt Period Ending

Debt Amount

Minimum Fixed

Maximum Fixed

Actual Fixed

Compliant (Y/N)

Current

 

40%

95%

 

 

Year 1

 

40%

95%

 

 

Year 2

 

35%

90%

 

 

Year 3

 

30%

85%

 

 

Year 4

 

25%

80%

 

 

Year 5

 

20%

75%

 

 

Year 6

 

0%

70%

 

 

Year 7

 

0%

65%

 

 

Year 8

 

0%

60%

 

 

Year 9

 

0%

55%

 

 

Year 10

 

0%

50%

 

 

Year 11 plus

 

0%

25%

 

 

A fixed rate maturity profile that is outside the above limits, but self corrects in less than 90-days is not in breach of this Policy.  However, maintaining a maturity profile beyond 90-days requires specific approval by the PFS.

§ “Fixed Rate” is defined as all known interest rate obligations on forecast gross external debt, including where hedging instruments have fixed movements in the applicable reset rate. 

§ “Floating Rate” is defined as any interest rate obligation subject to movements in the applicable reset rate.

§ Fixed interest rate percentages are calculated based on the average amount of fixed interest rate obligations relative to the average forecast gross external debt amounts for the given period (as defined in the table above).

§ Interest rate swap maturities beyond the maximum LGFA bond maturity must be approved by Council/PFS through a specific approval. 

§ Hedging outside the above risk parameters must be approved by the PFS.

§ Interest rate options must not be sold outright.  However, one for one collar option structures is allowable, whereby the sold option is matched precisely by amount and maturity to the simultaneously purchased option.  During the term of the option, only the sold side of the collar can be closed out (i.e. repurchased) otherwise, both sides must be closed simultaneously.  The sold option leg of the collar structure must not have a strike rate “in-the-money”.

§ Purchased borrower swaptions mature within 18 months.

§ Interest rate options with a maturity date beyond 12 months that have a strike rate (exercise rate) higher than 2.00% above the appropriate swap rate, cannot be counted as part of the fixed rate hedge percentage calculation (i.e. an ineffective hedge).

§ The forward start period on swap/collar strategies to be no more than 36 months, unless the forward start swap/collar starts on the expiry date of an existing swap/collar and has a notional amount which is no more than that of the existing swap/collar.

6.1.3     Approved financial instruments

Approved financial instruments (which do not include shares or equities) are as follows:

Category

Instrument

Cash management and borrowing (from LGFA and approved banking institutions)

Bank overdraft

Committed cash advance and bank accepted bill facilities (short term and long term loan facilities)

Committed Standby facilities (where offered)

Loan stock /bond issuance

§ Floating Rate Note (FRN)

§ Fixed Rate Note (Medium Term Note/Bond)

Commercial paper (CP) / Promissory notes

Deferred Settlement committed debt

Investments

Bank deposits

Bank certificates of deposit (RCDs)

LGFA borrower notes

Interest rate risk management

Forward rate agreements (“FRAs”) on:

§ Bank bills

Interest rate swaps including:

§ Forward start swaps/collars. Start date <36 months, unless linked to existing maturing swaps/collars

§ Swap extensions and shortenings

Interest rate options on:

§ Bank bills (purchased caps and one for one collars)

§ Interest rate swaptions (purchased  swaptions and one for one collars only)

Any other financial instrument must be specifically approved by the Council on a case-by-case basis and only be applied to the one singular transaction being approved.

All unsecured investment securities must be senior in ranking.  The following types of investment instruments are expressly excluded;

§ Structured debt where issuing entities are not a primary borrower/ issuer

§ Subordinated debt (other than Borrower Notes subscribed from the LGFA), junior debt, perpetual notes and debt/equity hybrid notes such as convertibles.

6.2        Liquidity risk/funding risk

6.2.1     Risk recognition

Cash flow deficits in various future periods based on long term financial forecasts are reliant on the maturity structure of cash, short-term financial investments, loans and bank facilities.  Liquidity risk management focuses on the ability to access committed funding at that future time to fund the gaps.  Funding risk management centres on the ability to re-finance or raise new debt at a future time at the same or more favourable pricing (fees and borrowing margins) and maturity terms of existing loans and facilities.

The management of HCC’s funding risks is important as several risk factors can arise to cause an adverse movement in borrowing margins, term availability and general flexibility including:

§ Local Government risk is priced to a higher fee and margin level.

§ HCC’s own credit standing or financial strength as a borrower deteriorates due to financial, regulatory or other reasons.

§ A large individual lender to HCC experiences its own financial/exposure difficulties resulting in HCC not being able to manage their debt portfolio as optimally as desired.

§ New Zealand investment community experiences a substantial “over supply” of Council investment assets.

§ Financial market shocks from domestic or global events.

A key factor of funding risk management is to spread and control the risk to reduce the concentration of risk at one point in time so that if any of the above events occur, the overall borrowing cost is not materially unnecessarily increased and desired maturity profile compromised due to market conditions.

6.2.2     Liquidity/funding risk control limits

§ External term loans and committed debt facilities together with available liquid investments must be maintained at an amount of 110% over existing external debt.

§ HCC has the ability to pre-fund up to 18 months forecast debt requirements including re-financings.  Debt re-financings that have been prefunded will remain included within the funding maturity profile until their maturity date.

§ The CFO has the discretionary authority to re-finance existing external debt on more acceptable terms.  Such action is to be reported to the CE and the PFS at the earliest opportunity.

The maturity profile of the total committed funding in respect to all external debt / loans and committed debt facilities, is to be controlled by the following system:

 

 

Period

Minimum %

Maximum %

0 to 3 years

15%

60%

3 to 7 years

25%

60%

7 years plus

0%

60%

A maturity schedule outside these limits will require specific Council approval.

§ A funding maturity profile that is outside the above limits, but self corrects itself within 90-days is not in breach of policy.  However, maintaining a maturity profile beyond 90 days requires specific approval by the PFS.

§ To minimise concentration risk the LGFA require that no more than the greater of NZD 100 million or 33% of a councils borrowings from the LGFA will mature in any 12 month period.

6.3        Counterparty credit risk

Counterparty credit risk is the risk of losses (realised or unrealised) arising from a counterparty defaulting on a financial instrument where HCC is a party.  The credit risk to HCC in a default event will be weighted differently depending on the type of instrument entered into.

Credit risk will be regularly reviewed by the PFS.  Treasury related transactions would only be entered into with organisations specifically approved by the Council.

Counterparties and limits can only be approved on the basis of long-term Standard & Poor’s, (S&P) credit ratings (or equivalent Fitch or Moody’s rating) being A and above and/or short term rating of A-1 or above.

Limits should be spread amongst a number of counterparties to avoid concentrations of credit exposure.

The following matrix guide will determine limits:


Counterparty/Issuer

Minimum S&P long term / short term credit rating

Total maximum per counterparty

($m)

NZ Government

N/A

Unlimited

Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA)

N/A

Unlimited

NZ Registered Bank (minimum rating)

AA- / A-1

50.0

NZ Registered Bank (minimum rating)

A / A-1

25.0

In determining the usage of the above gross limits, the following product weightings will be used:

§ Investments (e.g., Bank Deposits) – Transaction Principal ´ Weighting 100% (unless a legal right of set-off exists).

§ Interest Rate Risk Management (e.g., swaps, FRAs) – Transaction Notional ´ Maturity (years) ´ 3%.

Each transaction should be entered into a treasury spreadsheet and a monthly report prepared to show assessed counterparty actual exposure versus limits.

Individual counterparty limits are kept in a spreadsheet by management and updated on a day to day basis.  Credit ratings should be reviewed by the Treasury Officer on an ongoing basis and in the event of material credit downgrades should be immediately reported to the CFO and assessed against exposure limits.  Counterparties exceeding limits should be reported to the PFS.

Risk management

To avoid undue concentration of exposures, financial instruments should be used with as wide a range of approved counterparties as possible.  Maturities should be well spread.  The approval process must take into account the liquidity of the market and prevailing market conditions the instrument is traded in and repriced from.

6.4        Foreign currency

HCC has minor foreign exchange exposure through the occasional purchase of foreign exchange denominated services, plant and equipment.

Generally, all significant commitments for foreign exchange are hedged using foreign exchange contracts, once expenditure is approved and legally committed.  Both spot and forward foreign exchange contracts can be used by HCC.

HCC shall not borrow or enter into incidental arrangements, within or outside New Zealand, in currency other than New Zealand currency.  HCC does not hold investments denominated in foreign currency.

6.5        Operational risk

Operational risk is the risk of loss as a result of human error (or fraud), system failures and inadequate procedures and controls.

Operational risk is very relevant when dealing with financial instruments given that:

§ Financial instruments may not be fully understood.

§ Too much reliance is often placed on the specialised skills of one or two people.

§ Most treasury instruments are executed over the phone.

§ Operational risk is minimised through the adoption of all requirements of this Policy.

Dealing authorities and limits

Transactions will only be executed by those persons and within limits approved by the Council. 

Segregation of duties

As there are a small number of people involved in the treasury activities, adequate segregation of duties among the core functions of deal execution, confirmation, settling and accounting/reporting is not strictly achievable.  The risk will be minimised by the following process:

§ The CFO reports directly to the CE.

§ The FAM will report directly to the CFO to control the transactional activities of the TO.

§ There is a documented approval and reporting process for borrowing, interest rate and liquidity management activity.

6.6        Legal risk

Legal risks relate to the unenforceability of a transaction due to an organisation not having the legal capacity or power to enter into the transaction usually because of prohibitions contained in legislation.  While legal risks are more relevant for banks, HCC may be exposed to such risks.

HCC will seek to minimise this risk by adopting policy regarding:

§ The use of standing dealing and settlement instructions (including bank accounts, authorised persons, standard deal confirmations, contacts for disputed transactions) to be sent to counterparties.

§ The matching of third party confirmations and the immediate follow-up of anomalies.

§ The use of expert advice.

6.6.1     Agreements

Financial instruments can only be entered into with banks that have in place an executed ISDA Master Agreement with HCC. 

HCC’s internal/appointed legal counsel must sign off on all documentation.

6.6.2     Financial covenants and other obligations

HCC must not enter into any transactions where it would cause a breach of financial covenants under existing contractual arrangements.

HCC must comply with all obligations and reporting requirements under existing funding facilities and legislative requirements.

7.      Measuring treasury performance

In order to determine the success of HCC’s treasury management function, the following benchmarks and performance measures have been prescribed.

Those performance measures that provide a direct measure of the performance of the Treasury function (operational performance and management of debt and interest rate risk) are to be reported to Council or an appropriate sub-committee of Council on a quarterly basis.

 

Management

Performance

Operational performance

§ All policy limits must be complied with, including (but not limited to) counterparty credit limits, control limits and exposure limits.

§ All treasury deadlines are to be met, including reporting deadlines.

Management of debt and interest rate risk (borrowing costs)

§ The actual borrowing cost (taking into consideration any costs/benefits of entering into interest rate management transactions) should be below the budgeted YTD/annual interest cost amount.

§ Actual wholesale interest costs must be benchmarked to market interest rates.  The applicable market interest rate is determined by finding the mid-point policy benchmark rate.

§ HCC policy mid-point represents an average duration of 5-years. The market benchmark rate will be calculated every month and represent the 5-year swap rate monthly rolling average over a 5-year period.

8.      Reporting

When budgeting interest costs, the actual physical position of existing loans and interest rate instruments must be taken into account.

8.1        Treasury reporting

The following reports are produced:

Report Name

Frequency

Prepared by

Reviewed by

Recipient

Daily Cash Flow Forecast

 

Daily

TO

FAM

CFO

Treasury Exceptions Report

Daily

TO

FAM

CFO

Treasury Report

§ Policy limit compliance

§ Borrowing limits

§ Funding and Interest Position

§ Funding facility

§ New treasury transactions

§ Cost of funds vs budget

§ Cash flow forecast report

§ Liquidity risk position

§ Counterparty credit

§ Treasury performance

§ Debt maturity profile

§ Treasury investments

§ Revaluation of financial instruments

Monthly

TO

CFO / FAM

FTC

Treasury Report (Sample attached)

Quarterly

CFO

P FS

Council

Credit ratings update

 

CCO/CCTO loans and guarantees, financial arrangements

Monthly

TO

FAM

CFO

Trustee Report

As required by the  Trustee

TO

CFO

Trustee company

Compliance Certificate

Annually

TO

CFO

LGFA

9.      Policy review

The Policy is to be formally reviewed on a triennial basis, and annually for internal purposes.

The CFO has the responsibility to prepare the annual review report that is presented to the Council.  The report will include:

§ Recommendation as to changes, deletions and additions to the Policy.

§ An overview of the treasury function in achieving the stated treasury objectives and performance benchmarks.

§ A summary of breaches of Policy and one-off approvals outside Policy.

The Council receives the report, approves Policy changes and/or rejects recommendations for Policy changes.


62

 

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Traffic Subcommittee

 

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 30 June 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

PRESENT:

Cr L Sutton (Chair)

Cr J Briggs

 

Cr B Dyer (Deputy Chair)

Cr A Mitchell

 

Cr N Shaw

 

 

APOLOGY:                           Cr Brown  

 

IN ATTENDANCE:        Mr C Agate, Traffic Engineer–Network Operations

                                 Ms T Malki, Traffic Engineer

                                 Ms R Bowman, Committee Advisor

 

 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

 

 

 

1.       APOLOGIES 

Resolved: (Cr Sutton/Cr Briggs)                                                 Minute No. TSC 20401

“That the apology received from Cr Brown be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment is recorded under the item to which it relates.      

3.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS      

          There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4.       Recommendations to Council - 28 July 2020

i)

Greater Wellington Regional Council Bus Stop Modifications (20/425)

 

The Traffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Enginneer- Network Operations noted that inconsistent utility pole location was an issue not initally noticed throughout areas of Petone undergoing bus stop improvement works. He advised that utility poles were not consistent with the kerbline and footpath causing bus accessibility from the kerbline to be compromised. He explained that Officers were aware of the issue, however the costs associated with relocation of existing poles can be prohibitive. The Officer undertook to find out the ‘average’ cost associated with relocation of a utility pole.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Enginneer- Network Operations confirmed the proposed bus stop modifications to Gracfield Road would not extend the broken yellow lines over the driveway because it was a commercial location. He advised that parking issues around driveways predominantly occurred in residential, rather than commerical locations such as Gracefield Road. 

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendations contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 22 June 2020.

 

The motion was taken in parts. Parts (i) (a) – (i)(k) were declared CARRIED on the voices. Parts (ii) (a)(aa) - (ii) (k)(cc) were declared CARRIED on the voices.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Dyer)                      Minute No. TSC 20402

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)         rescinds the current traffic resolutions associated with the following bus stops:

(a)        Cuba Street (#’s 92 – 100) – Bus Stop #8008;

(b)        Cuba Street (outside Weltec) – Bus Stop #9008;

(c)        Jackson Street (#’s 428 – 430) – Bus Stop #8018;

(d)        Jessie Street (outside #446 Jackson Street) – Bus Stop #8019;

(e)        Jessie Street (outside #448 Jackson Street) – Bus Stop # 9019;

(f)         Jessie Street (#’s 7 – 13) – Bus Stop #8020;

(g)        Gracefield Road (opposite #’s 112 – 118) – Bus Stop #8780;

(h)        Gracefield Road (#’s  112 - 118) – Bus Stop #9780;

(i)         Gracefield Road (opposite # 240) – Bus Stop #8782;

(j)         Gracefield Road (# 240) – Bus Stop #9782;  and

(k)        Randwick Road (#’s 25 – 29) – Bus Stop # 9153; and

(ii)        approves the installation of the following bus stop modifications and parking restrictions:

(a)        Cuba Street (#’s 92 – 100) – Bus Stop #8008;

(aa)      9 metres of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report;

(b)        Cuba Street (outside Weltec) – Bus Stop #9008;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’ parking restriction as                                     shown in Appendix 2 attached to the report; and

(bb)      5 metres of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 2 attached to the report;

(c)        Jackson Street (#’s 428 – 430) – Bus Stop #8018;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 3 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 3 attached to the report; and

(cc)       8 metres of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 3 attached to the report;

(d)        Jessie Street (outside #446 Jackson Street) – Bus Stop #8019;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 4 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 4 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 4 attached to the report;

(e)        Jessie Street (outside #448 Jackson Street) – Bus Stop #9019;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 5;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 5 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 5 attached to the report;

(f)         Jessie Street (#’s 7 – 13) – Bus Stop #8020;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 6 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 6 attached to the report; and

(cc)       13 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 6 attached to the report;

(g)        Gracefield Road (opposite #’s 112 – 118) – Bus Stop #8780;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 7 attached to the report;

(bb)      2 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 7 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 7 attached to the report;

(h)        Gracefield Road (#’s  112 - 118) – Bus Stop #9780;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 8 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 8 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 8 attached to the report;

(i)         Gracefield Road (opposite #240) – Bus Stop #8782;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 9 attached to the report; and

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 9 attached to the report;

(j)         Gracefield Road (outside # 240  ) – Bus Stop #9782;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 10 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 10 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 10; and

(k)        Randwick Road (#’s 25 – 29) – Bus Stop # 9153;

(aa)      15 metre ‘Bus Stop – At All Times’, no parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 11 attached to the report;

(bb)      9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (entry taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 11 attached to the report; and

(cc)       9 metres of ‘no stopping at all times’ (exit taper) parking restriction as shown in Appendix 11 attached to the report.”

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would reduce the risk of vehicle conflict at the listed on-road bus stop locations; improve visibility and safety for the benefit of all road users; promote compliance with the NZTA’s draft Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure and Facilities; reduce the instances of ‘pole strikes’; and meet the requirements as set out in Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

 

ii)

Campbell Terrace - Proposed Loading Zone Parking Restriction (20/296)

 

The Traffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised that signage would be installed to notify residents of the proposed loading zone parking restrictions. He noted that the current restrictions were P120 8am-6pm seven days per week, which were standard Land Transport Act industrial area timings unless otherwise specified by Officers.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendations contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 22 June 2020.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Mitchell)                             Minute No. TSC 20403

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the rescinding (removal) of the existing P120 parking restrictions on Campbell Terrace, as shown in  Appendix 1 attached to the report;

(ii)   approves the rescinding (removal) of a portion of the existing ‘No Stopping At All Times’ parking restriction, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; and

(iii)  approves the installation of a ‘Loading Zone – P30 , Monday to Sunday 8am to 6pm’ parking restriction on Campbell Terrace, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons that the loading zone is a required condition of Resource Consent RM180417. It is needed for the delivery of goods during construction phase of the development, as well as allowing delivery vehicles, couriers and rubbish trucks to service the building and its new residents once built. The loading zone would also make deliveries to nearby local businesses easier.

 

iii)

Hebden Crescent - Proposed 'No Stopping At All Times' Parking Restriction (20/300)

 

The Traffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Mitchell)                             Minute No. TSC 20404

 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a ‘No Stopping At All Times’ stopping restriction on the section of Hebden Crescent, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reason that the proposed restriction will improve the safety of the driveway given the road’s posted speed limit, and high proportion of heavy vehicles using this section of Hebden Crescent.

 

iv)

Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark - Confirmation of Existing Parking Restrictions (20/470)

 

The Traffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised that initially there had been no intention for restrictions to be implemented in the Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark. He explained that traffic reports without a prompt resolution from Council delayed traffic engineering works. He noted that parking layout for the Ricoh Sports Centre had been an ongoing process of trial and error which had delayed the formality of a Council resolution.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised that Council did not usually consider parking restrictions. He noted that Ricoh Sports Centre was an exception as it was a Council-owned facility.  He highlighted that a Council resolution was needed to confirm parking restrictions for enforcement purposes.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Mitchell)                             Minute No. TSC 20405

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that  Council:

(i)    approves the current ‘No Stopping At All Times’ parking restrictions within the Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark, defined by the broken yellow lines and yellow hatching, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report;

(ii)   approves the current ‘P180 Electric Vehicle – At All Times’ parking restrictions within the Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark, defined by EV Charging Symbol, as shown in the Appendix 1 attached to the report; and

(iii)  approves the current ‘mobility’ parking restrictions within the Ricoh Sports Centre Carpark, defined by Mobility Parking Symbol, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reason that the parking restrictions will assist in effectively managing the operation of the facility’s parking resource for users of both the sports centre and the surrounding Fraser Park Sportsville facility, while meeting the requirements of the Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

 

v)

London Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/289)

 

Speaking under public comment, Cr Dyer read out a statement from Mr A Cassels, attached as page 13 to the minutes.

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised it was not compulsory for Council to install broken yellow lines as an NZ Transport Agency requirement. He advised that it was illegal to park on a bend regardless of the presence of yellow lines.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 22 June 2020.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Dyer)                     Minute No. TSC 20406

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on London Road, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; and

(ii)   asks officers to investigate pedestrian improvements on London Road and report back to the next Traffic Subcommittee meeting to be held on 1 September 2020.”

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would improve the safety within the street for the benefit of all road users; would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; support Council’s Parking Policy 2017 and are supported by a majority of the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

 

vi)

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/290)

 

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

 

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 22 June 2020.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Dyer)                      Minute No. TSC 20407

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Gracefield Road, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would improve the safety within the street for the benefit of all road users and would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

vii)

William Street, Graham Street and North Street - No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/291)

 

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

Cr Dyer commented that it was good to see Council rescinding broken yellow lines as opposed to installing them.  He thanked Officers and asked them to continue using a wider colour code range on maps within their reports to depict proposed changes in future.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 22 June 2020.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Shaw)                     Minute No. TSC 20408

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the existing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on William Street, Graham Street and North Street, as shown (in yellow) in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would retain the improved safety and accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users and would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

viii)

Trafalgar Street - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (19/1207)

 

The Traffic Engineer and the Taffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

Members noted concerns expressed to Officers from a member of the public in regard to the lack of parking during daycare hours. Based on these concerns, members discussed amending the Officer’s original parking restrictions proposal to 8.15am-9.30am allowing an additional 15 minutes.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised that the concerns from a member of the public on Trafalgar Street had come to Officers directly prior to the meeting.

Cr Mitchell thanked the Officers for their ongoing consultation on the matter. He noted the amended restriction time would ease traffic congestion around the daycare centre.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Briggs)                    Minute No. TSC 20409

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P15 (8.15am-9.30am and 2.00pm-3.30pm Monday-Friday School Days Only) parking restrictions on Trafalgar Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility and parking availability within the street for the benefit of all road users; would support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and are supported by a majority of the local residents who chose to respond to the consultation documents.

 

ix)

Waddington Drive - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/429)

 

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Mitchell)                            Minute No. TSC 20410

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Waddington Drive, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility and safety for local residents; would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and are supported by the immediately affected residents.

 

x)

Market Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/430)

 

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer advised that clearer signage to depict parking restrictions could be installed in Market Grove. She advised the signage would prevent prohibited parking without impeding any technical issues.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer advised that the broken yellow lines could not be extended any further due to a barrier.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Mitchell)                            Minute No. TSC 20411

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions and ‘No Parking’ marking at the Stop Bank Entrance on Market Grove, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and improve accessibility to the stop bank service road.

 

xi)

Mills Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (20/431)

 

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

 

ReCOMMENDed: (Cr Sutton/Cr Shaw)                     Minute No. TSC 20412

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the existing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the Stop Bank Entrance on Mills Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would maintain accessibility to the stop bank entrance and would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

5.

Woburn Road Pedestrian Refuge Island Update (20/331)

Report No. TSC2020/4/139 by the Traffic Asset Manager

 

The Traffic Engineer-Network Operations elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised a potential loss of 10 carpark spaces following the installation of refuge islands. He advised that by utilising the kerb build-outs, the parking loss could be minimised.

In response to questions from members, the Traffic Engineer-Network Operations advised less parking would be lost by installing two refuge islands than a pedestrian crossing.  He advised the intention of the refuges could potentially reduce traffic congestion on Woburn Road. He noted that congestion generated by school students could decline if they utilised the refuge islands instead of the pedestrian crossing further along Woburn Road.

The Chair noted the purpose of the refuge islands was to assist the elderly residents of Masonic Lodge as opposed to reducing school traffic on Woburn Road.

Cr Briggs noted the installation of the two refuge islands would significantly improve viability of both nearby residents and those utilising the Hutt Recreation ground.

 

ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Shaw)                                    Minute No. TSC 20413

“That the Subcommittee notes and receives the report.”

For the reason a Council resolution is not necessary to install the proposed pedestrian refuge islands.

6.       QUESTIONS   

There were no questions.

 

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 2.44 pm.

 

 

 

 

Cr L Sutton

CHAIR

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 28th day of July 2020

 

 

 

 

Good morning Brady,

 

My name is Andrew Cassels and my family live at 35 London Road next to the section of Road where the council is considering painting yellow lines to stop cars parking.

A neighbour suggested that you would be happy to represent our concerns at council, and given the recent favour given to K-Mart customers over Korokoro residents I thought I should be proactive and share our concerns with you now rather than after a mistake is made.

 

Needless to say we are very concerned about the proposed changes. 

 

The two uphill lanes encourage some motorists to speed and pass other vehicles with no regard for the safety of locals and in particular the children that frequent the playground or cross the road walking to/from school. Unfortunately children from Rakeiora Road and the uphill side of London Road have to cross the 3 lane road twice to get to school without any crossings or safety considerations.

 

 

The current parking on the uphill side of London Road effectively reduces the uphill side to one uphill lane and in turn forces vehicles to slow down.

 

There is no abundance of large slow vehicles that necessitate a passing lane, and buses have a dedicated bay in which to stop, well out of the flow of the traffic.

The downhill lane seems to be too narrow with speeding vehicles coming down the hill often crossing the centre line.

 

I suggest amending the road to one uphill and one more generous downhill lane with some consideration taken for those that regularly cross London Road. This would also eliminate the concern motorists have with merging to avoid parked cars.

 

I thank you for your time, and would be happy to discuss or demonstrate our concerns any time.

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

Andrew Cassels

 

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Stop 8008

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 - Stop 9008

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 3 - Stop 8018

 


Attachment 4

Appendix 4 - Stop 8019

 


Attachment 5

Appendix 5 - Stop 9019

 


Attachment 6

Appendix 6 - Stop 8020

 


Attachment 7

Appendix 7 - Stop 8780

 


Attachment 8

Appendix 8 - Stop 9780

 


Attachment 9

Appendix 9 - Stop 8782

 


Attachment 10

Appendix 10 - Stop 9782

 


Attachment 11

Appendix 11 - Stop 9153

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 London Road No Stoppng At All Times restrictions G8.2020

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Gracefield Road No Stopping At All Times Restrictions G24.2020

 

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 William Street, Graham Street and North Street No Stopping At All Times Restrictions G51.2019

 

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Trafalgar St Parking Restrictions G40.2019

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Waddington Dr Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Market Gr Proposed No Stopping At All Time Restrictions - Plan

 

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Mills St Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 

 

 


97

 

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

 

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 7 July 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

PRESENT:

Cr S Edwards (Chair)

Mayor C Barry (until 5.11pm)

 

Cr K Brown (Deputy Chair)

Cr J Briggs

 

Cr D Bassett

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

 

Cr D Hislop (until 3.30pm)

Cr B Dyer

 

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

 

Cr L Sutton

 

 

APOLOGIES:                  Cr Rasheed and Cr Shaw.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:       Ms A Blackshaw, Director Strategy and Engagement

Ms H Oram, Director Environmental and Sustainability 

Ms A Welanyk, Director Transformation and Resources

Mr K Puketapu-Dentice, Director Economy and Development
Ms J Livschitz, Chief Financial Officer (part meeting)

Mr J Pritchard, Principal Policy (part meeting)

Mr G Stuart, Head of Regulatory Services and Emergency Management (part meeting)

Ms H Stringer, Financial Transaction Services Manager (part meeting)

Mr G Sewell, Principal Policy Advisor (part meeting)

Mr H Wesney, Head of District Plan Policy (part meeting)

Ms W Moore, Head of Strategy and Planning (part meeting)

Ms K Stannard, Head of Democratic Services (part meeting)

Ms T Lealofi, Committee Advisor

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1.       APOLOGIES 

Resolved(Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs)                                    Minute No. PFSC 20401

“That the apologies received from Cr Rasheed and Cr Shaw be accepted and leave of absence granted and the apologies from Mayor Barry and Cr Hislop for early departure be accepted.”

 

 

2.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.    

 

 

Resolved(Cr Edwards/Cr Milne)                                     Minute No. PFSC 20402

“That Standing Order 15.2 be temporarily suspended to allow public comment to be extended beyond 30 minutes.”

3.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS     

          Cr Mitchell declared an interest in item 4i) Management of Cats in Lower Hutt.  He advised that he was the local branch Chair of Forest and Bird.

4.       Recommendations to Council- 28 July 2020

i)

Management of Cats in Lower Hutt (20/584)

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Parker Jones representing Mainland Island Restoration Operation (MIRO) advised the impact one cat could have on native species.  He requested all cats be microchipped and neutered and all feral cats be trapped and euthanised immediately.  Mr Jones also advised the volunteer organisations, which look after the native reserves and animals, wanted cats managed. 

 

In response to questions from members, Mr Parker suggested the Eastbourne Herald be more widely utilised to educate cat owners and that pictures of offending cats be published.  He believed the process of instigating a Cat Management Bylaw should commence and that in the meantime, volunteers would continue with their education and trapping programmes.  He cited the Palmerston North City Council Cat Control Bylaw as a good example.

 

Speaking under public comment (via Skype) Ms Ailsa Howard advised of the profound negative effect domestic cats were having on the Dotterel populations in Kaikoura and Banks Peninsula.  She urged Council to enact a Cat Management Bylaw immediately to provide legal enforcement to any education efforts.  She clarified the three measures which would have an immediate positive effect on wildlife species at risk from cat predation.  These measures were cat de-sexing, micro-chipping and limiting the number of cats per property.

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Frank Vickers representing the Eastbourne Community Board believed removal of the words “other than domestic cats” from the existing Animal Control Bylaw would enable cats to be managed more effectively throughout the city.  He cited a recent example of a home where Animal Control officers found 100 cats and they were powerless to do anything.  He questioned why Greater Wellington Regional Council and Council’s cat management regimes were different.  He noted the Linklater report strongly recommended bylaw action to control cats rather than solely education measures.

 

In response to questions from member, Mr Vickers advised he was requesting a Cat Management Bylaw which required de-sexing and micro-chipping of cats and limiting the number of cats per property to three. 

 

Speaking under public comment, Ms Sally Bain representing MIRO explained she conducted regular trapping of cats in Eastbourne as a means to try to control the exponential problem of predatory cats.  She believed a Cat Management Bylaw was essential.  She added compulsory micro-chipping also assisted in reuniting cats with their owners and that the recent survey undertaken showed public support for a new bylaw.

 

Speaking under public comment, Councillor Lorna Johnson from Palmerston North City Council explained she was instrumental in promoting the 2018 Cat Control Bylaw in Palmerston North. She explained the process undertaken including public consultation and support from the Veterinary Association, which resulted in the bylaw being enacted.  She noted it required de-sexing and micro-chipping of cats and a limit of three per property from mid-2019.  She added that officers continually educated the public on the issue. 

 

In response to questions from members, Cr Johnson reported there were no on-going issues with the bylaw.   She added the bylaw did not require cats to be kept indoors at night and that Palmerston North had no documented conservation issues which required control of cats.  She believed that micro-chipping could assist with reuniting trapped cats and their owners and that de-sexing assisted in reducing cat predatory behaviours.  She added that it would be a mistake to introduce a highly restrictive bylaw initially and that as time progressed, the bylaw could be amended if required. 

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Quentin Duthie reported that bringing all parties together at a recent community meeting in Belmont to discuss the issues and find solutions was a constructive non-polarising exercise. He stressed involving the community in the process would be key to the success of a bylaw. He highlighted the acute Dotterel issue and spoke about the small native species in the bush areas being under constant threat from cats.

 

Speaking under public comment, Ms Susan McNair representing Kitten Inn explained that Kitten Inn had 156 volunteers and that on average it spent $250,000 per annum de-sexing, vaccinating and micro-chipping up to 1800 cats at a cost of $160 per cat.  She added that the money was raised through various fundraising ventures each year and Kitten Inn did not receive funding from Council.

 

Cr Brown left the meeting at 2.50pm and rejoined the meeting at 2.55pm.

 

In response to questions from a member, Ms McNair believed using education only would not solve the problem as many cat owners and people, who fed stray or feral cats, would continue to do so if there were no consequences for their actions. She clarified that Kitten Inn would qualify for an exemption of the three cats per property rule.

 

The Chair read out a statement from Professor Yolanda van Heezik from Otago University.  The statement is attached as page 14 to the minutes.

 

Cr Bassett and Cr Sutton left the meeting at 3.21pm and rejoined the meeting at 3.24pm. 

The Director Environmental and Sustainability elaborated on the report.  She clarified that under the current rules, officers could shoot and trap feral cats.  She added that it was only domestic cats which officers had no control over.

In response to a question from a member, the Director Environmental and Sustainability advised feral cats behaved in a different manner to domestic cats and were able to be identified in that way. She acknowledged the difficulties in identification when humans fed stray or feral cats.  She reminded members that, in order for the process of enactment of a bylaw to be commenced, the actual problem the bylaw was to solve had to be identified.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning advised it would take approximately six months for data to be collected from the community. She added the actual problem had not yet been identified and data on what the issue was, was required prior to a bylaw process commencing.

Cr Hislop and Cr Sutton left the meeting at 3.30pm.

The Head of Strategy and Planning noted that MIRO was assisting officers and that with education, communities would learn about the predatory nature of cats.  She added that micro-chipping was beneficial in reuniting lost cats with their owners.

Deputy Mayor Lewis left the meeting at 3.34pm.

Cr Sutton rejoined the meeting at 3.34pm.

The Director Environmental and Sustainability advised that discussions had been held with officers from Wellington City and Palmerston North City Councils and that a bylaw might cost approximately $150,000 per annum to enforce.  She added that enforcement had to be weighed up against practicalities.  She cited the example of the cost of an unregistered dog being $350 whereas the cost to microchip them was $35.  She added that people who were unlikely to microchip their cats were those who were unable to afford to do it.

In response to a question from a member, the Director Environmental and Sustainability clarified that the $150,000 per annum cost of enforcement included officer time and overheads.

Deputy Mayor Lewis rejoined the meeting at 3.38pm. 

The Head of Strategy and Planning advised that Palmerston North City Council officers had informed officersthat each complaint received concerning a cat took approximately three hours to deal with.  She further advised that the Biosecurity Act was under review and a new National Policy Statement (NPS) was being developed.  She highlighted that it would be prudent to wait for the new legislation to be enacted prior to enacting a Cat Management Bylaw.  This was to ensure the bylaw complied with the new legislation. 

The Director Environmental and Sustainability advised Palmerston North City Council had received 24 cat related complaints in one year.  She deemed that number of cats to be sufficient evidence of a problem.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning advised cat management education in the Eastbourne community was already underway using community groups.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Regulatory Services and Emergency Management explained that removing the words “other than domestic cats” from the current Animal Control Bylaw could be ultra vires.  The Head of Strategy and Planning agreed to report back with a legal opinion on the matter.

In response to a question from a member regarding details of an education programme, the Head of Regulatory Services and Emergency Management advised that a pamphlet would be developed and distributed in the Eastbourne area, a survey would be undertaken and a pest control caravan could be utilised.  He added an approximate $30,000 budget for marketing and promotional works would be used and that existing community groups and volunteers would also be utilised. He clarified that the Animal Control Bylaw controlled areas for dogs to be on and off leash and prohibited areas for dogs.

In response to a question from a member, the Director Environmental and Sustainability advised that officers also worked closely with the Eastbourne Community Board, MIRO and Council’s Biosecurity officer concerning the Dotterels.

The meeting adjourned at 4.05pm and reconvened at 4.17pm.

MOVED:  (Cr Edwards/Mayor Barry)

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes the results of the public survey seeking feedback on five options around the management of cats attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii)   agrees that Council takes steps to develop a strategy for the management of cats in Lower Hutt based on an education and awareness approach on cat issues including de-sexing, microchipping and keeping cats indoors at night;

(iii)  notes the work being progressed to assist the community campaign to “Save the Dotterels” and this will provide evidence to inform the development of the strategy for the management of cats in Lower Hutt; and

(iv) notes a later review of the success of this approach will be used to inform any future decision on other options.

AMENDMENT MOVED:  (Cr Mitchell/Cr Milne)

Replace part (ii) above to read:

(ii)   That Council develops a bylaw requiring the compulsory de-sexing, micro-chipping and registration of cats, and limiting the number of cats (except by registered exemption for breeding or rescue purposes). The bylaw should also define prohibited areas including the beaches of Eastbourne, Key Native Ecosystems as identified by Greater Wellington Regional Council and other areas of high biodiversity value; and

 

A new part (v) to read:

 

(v)   That clause 2.3 of the Control of Animals Bylaw 2018 be amended to remove the exemption of domestic cats from the sentence “All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer.”

 

Cr Mitchell requested immediate action to introduce a Cat Management Bylaw in order to protect not only the Dotterels, but also the many other animals which were killed by cats. He advised many conservation and animal welfare organisations had already highlighted the many problems caused by unmanaged cats in the city (predation of native and other species, disease, interbreeding, fighting and other nuisances) and that de-sexing, micro-chipping and limiting the numbers of cats would greatly improve the chances of many native species.  

 

Cr Mitchell reminded members of the concerns raised by the public speakers and the concerns raised at a previous meeting. He believed there was no shortage of data to prove there was a problem and that whilst education was important, it was not enough to protect the city’s biodiversity from cats.

 

Cr Milne expressed support for the amendment believing that there was sufficient data to identify that cats posed a predatory problem to many species. 

 

Cr Edwards expressed support for the amendment believing a bylaw, which required compulsory micro-chipping and de-sexing of cats and limiting the numbers on one site, would help to save the city’s biodiversity.

 

Cr Briggs expressed support for the amendment adding that education was also required to shift the cultural mindset.

 

Cr Dyer expressed support for the amendment and queried how cat-prohibited areas would operate in practice.

 

Deputy Mayor Lewis expressed support for the amendment.  She added that if Council was educating the public on an issue it was advantageous to have a law to enforce the issue.

 

With the agreement of the mover and the seconder, Mayor Barry suggested an additional part to the amendment to read:

 

“Asks officers for a clear breakdown of actual costs of the proposed bylaw process and implementation especially if Council has prohibited areas for Council to consider at its meeting to be held on 28 July 2020.”

The amendment was declared CARRIED on the voices.

 

ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Mitchell/Cr Milne)            Minute No. PFSC 20403

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)       notes the results of the public survey seeking feedback on five options around the management of cats attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

 

(ii)     develops a bylaw requiring the compulsory de-sexing, microchipping and registration of cats, and limiting the number of cats (except by registered exemption for breeding or rescue purposes). The bylaw should also define prohibited areas including the beaches of Eastbourne, Key Native Ecosystems as identified by Greater Wellington Regional Council and other areas of high biodiversity value;

 

(iii)   notes the work being progressed to assist the community campaign to “Save the Dotterels”;

(iv)   amends clause 2.3 of the Control of Animals Bylaw 2018 to remove the exemption of domestic cats from the sentence “All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer; and

(v)   asks officers for a clear breakdown of actual costs of the proposed bylaw process and implementation especially if Council has prohibited areas for Council to consider at its meeting to be held on 28 July 2020.”

 

ii)

District Plan Review Subcommittee (20/648)

 

The Head of District Plan Policy elaborated on the report. He highlighted to members an amendment to the draft Terms of Reference.  He advised the word ‘must’ needed to be removed from the first paragraph under the Note heading.  Members noted the amendment.

In response to questions from members, the Head of District Plan Policy advised the proposed District Plan Subcommittee would oversee the District Plan review process.  He highlighted that outside community representatives would be used at engagement level rather than at governance level.  

In response to further questions from members regarding continuity of the membership especially if Councillors did not get re-elected, the Head of District Plan Policy advised the District Plan review process was aligned to the triennium.  He acknowledged the risk of an incoming Council formalising an Operative District Plan when a previous Council had undertaken the review.  He reassured members that it was normal practice for a panel consisting of independent commissioners, along with Councillors, to hear submissions on a District Plan review.

The Director Environmental and Sustainability added that the role of the proposed subcommittee was for the elected members to provide direction and that consultants would be contracted for specific technical expertise. 

Mayor Barry expressed support for the motion.  He advised that the matter was recommended to Council.  

Mayor Barry left the meeting at 5.11pm.

 

Recommended(Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs)             Minute No. PFSC 20404

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    establishes a District Plan Review Subcommittee; and

(ii)   adopts the Terms of Reference for the District Plan Review Subcommittee, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons that a dedicated subcommittee provides an efficient and focused governance arrangement for the full review of the District Plan.

 

 

iii)

Delegations for deciding remission of rates and economic development grants for economic development (20/655)

 

 

 

The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated on the report.

 

 

 

ReCOMMENDED(Cr Edwards/Cr Bassett)            Minute No. PFSC 20405

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    agrees that the rates remission policy for rates remission and economic development grants 2017 is included in the overall Council Rates Remission Policy; and

(ii)   agrees that applications for remission of rates and economic development grants for economic development will be considered by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee, acting under delegated authority from Council.”

For the reason that the economic development remissions policy (part 5) is currently separate to the full Rates Remission Policy.  This delegation enables the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee to provide consideration of decisions regarding the award of economic development grants and rates remissions.

 

5.

Vogel House rates remission request (20/61)

Report No. PFSC2020/4/144 by the Principal Policy Advisor.

 

The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated on the report.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Tim Vogel spoke on behalf of the Vogel family.  He explained the family had acquired Vogel House from Government in November 2019.  The family was spending money upgrading items such as the roof, guttering, driveway and deck areas. 

 

In response to questions from a member, Mr Vogel clarified that family members currently lived permanently at the house.  He advised the family would be receptive to members of the public requesting the use of the house and/or grounds for private functions.

 

In response to a question from a member regarding the future plans for Vogel House, Mr Vogel advised the family wished to renovate and completely restore the house, including heating, insulation and painting. He invited Council to hold a meeting in the residence.

In response to a query from a member regarding Council funding sources for heritage buildings, the Director Environmental and Sustainability elaborated on the Built Heritage Incentive Fund and the Rates Remission Policy. She added the former source was designed to assist with the cost of consultancy work rather than the actual building work which may be required.

In response to a question from a member regarding the time taken so far in processing this application, the Principal Policy Advisor advised that a heavy workload had resulted in the time delay.

In response to a question from a member, the Chief Financial Officer agreed applications to the Built Heritage Incentive Fund could be dealt with on an annual basis and that this could be considered as part of the Long Term Plan review process.

Cr Mitchell expressed support for the motion and looked forward to both the Heritage Policy and the Conservation Policy reviews.

 

Resolved(Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                Minute No. PFSC 20406

“That the Committee:

(i)    notes the information provided in the report in relation to the historical and architectural significance of Vogel House;

(ii)   notes that the Heritage Policy is being reviewed and that there may be amendments to the Rates Remission Policy as a result of this work;

(iii)  notes that decisions about rates remissions are made on a case by case basis and that, therefore, this decision does not set precedent for future decisions of this nature;

(iv)  approves Option 1 – a rates remission of 50 per cent of the Hutt City Council General Rates for the 2020/21 year,  being approximately $6,250, and the condition that the applicant will need to demonstrate that the property is being renovated.  The applicant will need to agree to the condition in writing; and

(v)   agrees that the funding of this rates remission will be from the Built Heritage Incentive Fund, which will be reduced by an equivalent amount of the remission;

(a) The property complies with objectives and criteria of Council’s Rate Remission Policy Part 4; and

(b) Vogel House is classed as a Heritage Place Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand, and is listed in Council’s District Plan.”

 

6.

Regional Amenities Fund- withdrawal from Joint Committee (20/633)

Report No. PFSC2020/4/154 by the Head of Strategy and Planning

 

The Head of Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.  She advised that Kapiti Coast District Council and Porirua City Council had already withdrawn from Wellington Regional Amenities Fund (WRAF) and that Upper Hutt City Council was considering doing the same.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning agreed with the reasoning that some Councils may be looking to divert funds into Covid-19 response funding.

Cr Bassett expressed concern with the motion.  He believed WRAF was one mechanism which got the region working together for the benefit of all.  He was aware of criticism of the WRAF concerning no value for money and urged members to consider the wider picture. 

Cr Briggs reminded members that the issue had been debated for the past three years.  He stated that post Covid-19, it was important each Council supported local incentives and ventures.  He cited there were many other ways the region was working together including in water management and waste minimisation.

The Chair believed there needed to be a mechanism for supporting regional events as well as local arts and events. 

 

Resolved(Cr Edwards/Cr Mitchell) (BY DIVISION)      Minute No. PFSC 20407

“That the Committee agrees to withdraw from the Wellington Regional Amenities Fund Joint Committee.”

For the reason that this follows on from Council’s decision on 18 June 2020 to withdraw funding from WRAF.

          The motion was declared carried by division with the voting as follows:

          For

          Deputy Mayor Lewis

          Cr Briggs

          Cr Brown

          Cr Dyer

          Cr Edwards

          Cr Milne

          Cr Mitchell

Against

Cr Bassett

Cr Sutton

          Total: 7

Total: 2

 

7.       Information Item

Policy, Finance and Strategy Work Programme 2020 (20/613)

Report No. PFSC2020/4/59 by the Committee Advisor

Cr Bassett advised that with the upcoming major national reforms into the management of Three Waters, there would be additional requests for information from officers concerning such things as the value of water assets, depreciation and renewal programmes.  He requested a regular balance sheet be reported to the meeting. 

The Chief Financial Officer confirmed there would be information reported to the meeting in September concerning the revaluation of water assets.  She agreed that in the future, regular reporting on the items raised by the member would occur.

In response to a question from a member, the Director Environmental and Sustainability agreed to investigate the status of the Events Policy/Strategy review and to report back to the meeting.

Resolved(Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs)                          Minute No. PFSC 20408

“That the work programme be noted and received.”

8.       QUESTIONS   

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 5.42 pm.

 

 

 

 

Cr S Edwards

CHAIR

 

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 28th day of July 2020


 

 

Dear members of the committee,

 

I would like to make the following submission regarding implementing a bylaw to facilitate the management of cats. I am a wildlife ecologist and conservation biologist at the University of Otago who has led a number of studies in NZ investigating pet cats’ impacts on wildlife. 

 

There is absolutely no doubt about the negative impacts that pet cats, stray cats and feral cats are having on our native wildlife. As well as predation, cats spread toxoplasma, a disease that kills native birds and mammals (dolphins) and has negative impacts on human behaviour that are only just starting to be understood. It is unfortunate that no national legislation exists that facilitates the process for councils to create bylaws. However bylaws have been successfully implemented by WCC and New Plymouth CC, both with favourable outcomes. In the absence of national legislation, councils have a very important role to play in showing leadership in this issue, and through their actions (i.e. the creation of bylaws) fostering an environment that makes national legislation more likely.

 

I believe the Linklater et al. paper has been used to justify a “promote and educate” approach only. As an author on that paper, I should point out that this study shows clearly that registration, microchipping, limiting numbers of cats per household, and de-sexing all had high buy-in from the cat owners we surveyed; however, because they scored lower on their ‘conservation score’, in that they did not directly reduce predation on wildlife, they were not prioritised in this study. However, microchippings, registration, de-sexing and limiting numbers were all essential to the ultimate goal of managing cats. 

 

Your own survey results, which were based on a much larger sample of the public than in the Linklater study, already show high likelihood of adoption of measures such as micro-chipping, etc; therefore I strongly recommend that you create a bylaw that enables you to implement these measures. 

 

I’d also like to point out that the survey results presented in the report represent only cat owners. Councils should remember that cat owners are the minority in the general population (usually <40%), and that non-cat owners are much more supportive of measures to manage cats. Many members of the public are frustrated in their attempts to protect native wildlife on their own properties, or as part of community conservation initiatives, by the ubiquitous presence of free roaming cats, which exist at densities of around 225 per square kilometre throughout most medium density suburbs. Stray and feral cats add to this total. Councillors should be representing the views and needs of their entire electorate, the majority of whom are non-cat owners.

 

While promoting and educating is certainly essential, adoption of some measures that people clearly already support will only serve to speed our progress towards socially-accepted cat management measures that actually significantly reduce the negative impacts of cats on our native wildlife.

 

Prof. Yolanda van Heezik


Attachment 1

Appendix 1: Final report: Survey on controlling cats in Lower Hutt  December 2019

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 District Plan Review Subcommittee Terms of Reference

 

HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES

DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

 

Membership:                      Chair of Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

                                     4 other councillors

                                                 Up to 2 representatives appointed by Iwi

NOTE:

Elected members should hold current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers.

The Chair should in addition hold Chair certification.

Standing Orders 30 and 31 outlining provisions for Tangata Whenua and Taura Here do not apply to this Subcommittee, and Iwi appointees will have full voting rights as members of the Subcommittee under Standing Orders.

 

Meeting Cycle:                   As required

Quorum:                       4

 

Reports to:                           Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

 

 

PURPOSE:

 

To make recommendations to the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee, for recommendation to Council, on the matters to be addressed in the full review of the District Plan and development of a Proposed District Plan.

 

Provide:

Direction to Council officers on all matters relating to the drafting of content for the review of the District Plan. This includes but is not limited to:

·      scoping and investigation of the issues

·      engagement on possible content

·      development of discussion documents and other draft documents for consultation

·      development of a Draft District Plan for consultation

·      development of a Proposed District Plan for statutory consultation.

 

General:

Any other matters delegated to the Subcommittee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

 


MEMORANDUM                                                 138                                                            28 July 2020

 

   Our Reference   20/747

TO:                      Mayor and Councillors

Hutt City Council

FROM:                Wendy Moore

DATE:                14 July 2020

SUBJECT:           Cat Management - responding to requests from Elected Members for further information

 

 

Recommendation

That Council notes the contents of the memorandum.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    This memorandum responds to requests from elected members during the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee meeting on 7 July 2020. 

Background

2.     At its meeting on 7 July the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee agreed to recommend that Council:

a.    develops a bylaw requiring the compulsory desexing, microchipping and registration of cats, and limiting the number of cats (except by registered exemption for breeding or rescue purposes). The bylaw should also define prohibited areas including the beaches of Eastbourne, Key Native Ecosystems as identified by Greater Wellington Regional Council and other areas of high biodiversity value; and

b.    amends clause 2.3 of the Control of Animals Bylaw 2018 to remove the exemption of domestic cats from the sentence “All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer.

3.     The Committee also asked officers to provide information for Council, to consider at its meeting to be held on 28 July 2020, giving a clear breakdown of the actual costs of the proposed bylaw process and implementation especially if Council has prohibited areas.

Legal advice

4.     The amendments proposed to be introduced or amended in a bylaw relate to:

a.    compulsory de‑sexing;

b.    microchipping and registration;

c.     limiting the number of cats owned by people\households;

d.         creating prohibited areas;

e.         allowing for Council officers to seize and impound domestic cats.

5.     The legal advice focuses on whether Council can legally make those proposed changes to a bylaw.  The advice is given on the basis that the purpose of the proposed changes is the protection of native wildlife.

6.     The advice is that the empowering provision allowing a bylaw to be made on the “keeping of animals” is broad enough that it could extend to a bylaw on cat control for environmental purposes. However, the advice notes several hurdles that are likely to be faced.

 

7.     First, they consider that both the proposal to create prohibition areas and that officers be authorised to impound cats are questionable.  The legality of these proposals needs to be considered by Council in more detail as we work through the bylaw process.

 

8.     Second, they have emphasised that a bylaw needs to be evidence based.  Currently there is insufficient evidence available to justify the proposed controls.  Officers suggest this can be mitigated by implementing specific community-based projects to promote responsible cat ownership in areas that are known to be at particular risk of predation by cats – domestic and/or feral.  The data collected from these projects and further community surveying will go some way to closing the “data gap”.  It will take some time to achieve this.

 

9.     Third, there is high risk that such restrictions may be viewed as “not legal” “unreasonable” or “repugnant” by the community, challenged through the courts and found to be wanting. National cat owners associations are unlikely to want a precedent created.

 

10.   Issues such as cat control bring out strong views on both sides.  The risk of challenge (and the time, expense and uncertainty that comes with it) is high.

 

11.   The legal advice is attached as Appendix 1.

Costs

12.   The following table provides cost information requested and some commentary.


 

Action

Cost

Comment

The bylaw process:

·      Identifying specific areas to include in bylaw – GIS, biodiversity specialist, GWRC staff

·      writing the bylaw – General Counsel, Principal Policy advisor, other senior staff

·      pre-consultation process - survey, advertising, meetings, supporting community action

·      engagement on draft bylaw -  survey, Facebook, full engagement similar to recycling and rubbish

·      submissions process and analysis of results, BTT, advertising, community meetings

·      hearing – Democratic Services, administrative support

 

$20k

 

 

 

 

$40-$50k. If external legal advice required $60k

 

$10k + officer time

 

 

 

Officer time

 

 

 

 

$2k + officer time

 

 

 

Officer time

Identification of specific areas could be controversial and open to public debate e.g. SNAs debate. Accurate identification is essential both for public acceptance and to improve the ability to target problem areas

 

 

 

Linklater et al draws attention to the importance of bringing cat owners behind any efforts to control domestic cats to ensure success of interventions.

Early and deep engagement will need to focus on this outcome – how best do we work with cat owners to address mutual interests?

Rushing this conversation risks alienating the very people needed to ensure a successful outcome – the reduction of predation by domestic and (if measureable) pest/feral cats

Implementation

·      Setting up a database for registration and microchipping purposes

·      Managing complaints and enquiries

·      Managing cats taken including caring for while in care and vet

·      Patrolling beaches and other prohibited areas for roaming cats

·      Public education

·      Salary and overheads

 

Nil

 

 

 

Officer time

 

$50 per cat vet fee

 

 

 

 

$25k

$60k

Use existing registration databases

 

 

 

 

Use existing facilities

 

It will be very important to do all that can be done to avoid euthanising a domestic cat.  Careful management of this aspect of domestic cat control is essential.

 

Includes collateral and the SPCA caravan for a month once per year

Total

$157-$167k

 

Ongoing costs

·      Salary and overheads

·      Public education

 

$60k

$25k

 

Officer time - two days per week

Includes collateral and the SPCA caravan for a month once per year

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Legal advice

139

    

 

 

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

 

 

 

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environmental & Sustainability

 

 


Attachment 1

Legal advice

 

 

Our ref:       1413026

16 July 2020

Brad Cato

Chief Legal Officer

Hutt City Council

By email

 

Dear Brad                                                                                            

Cat control - power to make bylaw

1              You have asked for our advice as to whether Hutt City Council (Council) has the power to make a bylaw to regulate various controls over domestic cats.

2              As we understand it, the Committee has made a recommendation to the Council regarding the management of cats.  In relation to bylaws, the Committee has recommended the following proposal (Proposal):

ii                   Develops a bylaw requiring the compulsory de‑sexing, microchipping and registration of cats, and limiting the number of cats (except by registered exemption for breeding or rescue purposes).  The bylaw should also define prohibited areas including the beaches of Eastbourne, Key Native Ecosystems as identified by Greater Wellington Regional Council and other areas of high biodiversity value;

...

iv                 Amends clause 2.3 of the Control of Animals Bylaw 2018 to remove the exemption of domestic cats from the sentence "All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer; and

3              The amendments proposed to be introduced or amended in a bylaw relate to:

3.1          compulsory de‑sexing;

3.2          microchipping and registration;

3.3          limiting the number of cats owned by people\households;

3.4          creating prohibited areas;

3.5          allowing for Council officers to seize and impound domestic cats.

4              You have asked us whether the Council can legally make those changes to a bylaw to implement the Proposal.  We have assumed that the purpose of the Proposal is for the protection of native wildlife.

Summary

5              In summary, our view is that a bylaw of the nature proposed is possible but there are some potential barriers to such a bylaw.  We summarise those issues below, together with brief comment on those barriers: 

5.1          The Council must be empowered to create and/or amend bylaws relating to the Proposal.   The Council is empowered under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to make bylaws that address the 'keeping of animals', which we consider would include the ability to regulate the owning and managing of cats.  This would appear to encompass the microchipping and registration, the de‑sexing and the limiting of the number of cats.  However, it may not include the ability to create 'prohibited areas', or authorising Council officers to impound cats.  This would need to be considered in more detail by the Council.

5.2          The process for making any bylaw involves evidence and consultation.  If the Council wishes to proceed further with the Proposal then it would need to have an evidential basis, which we have not currently seen or reviewed.

5.3          Any proposed bylaw must be legally valid, ie it has to be not repugnant, must be reasonable and be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).  The Proposal would have to be carefully assessed to confirm that it meets these validity requirements. We would expect that the community would have strong views as to the reasonableness and repugnancy of the controls in the Proposal.  We have not considered this in detail, but note that prohibiting cats from accessing areas such as the beaches of Eastbourne and key native ecosystems would be very challenging for a cat owner to comply with and for the Council to enforce, and may be not be upheld as a reasonable requirement if challenged in Court. 

5.4          Cats are domestic animals that can be owned and accordingly are private property.  Under the LGA, enforcement officers are empowered to take private property, but only in certain circumstances. For example, from public land, the property must be materially involved in the commission of an offence, and the seizing is reasonable in the circumstances. Given this, any part of the Proposal which involves the impounding of domestic cats will have to meet the requirements of the LGA to enable the taking to be legal.

6              Our more detailed reasons for these views are set out below

Bylaws

7              As a type of delegated legislation, bylaws represent one of the most explicit forms of law-making power that territorial authorities possess.  Bylaws allow a territorial authority the flexibility to respond to issues within its district and to respond to those issues in a manner which is appropriate for its particular community.

8              Bylaws are also an important coercive tool.  The maximum fine on conviction for breaching a bylaw under the LGA is $20,000, although some specific Acts have different penalty provisions.  In addition, other sanctions are also available for breaches of bylaws, including (and most important for current purposes) the ability of enforcement officers to seize property materially involved in the commission of an offence against a bylaw.

9              Bylaws therefore represent a potential control mechanism for territorial authorities.  However, this tool has various limitations:

9.1          First, the procedure for making bylaws (and for ten-yearly reviews required by the LGA) requires consultation with the community using the special consultative procedure.  The process followed, and the substance of the bylaw, can subsequently be challenged in the High Court through judicial review.

9.2          Second, even once made, bylaws still remain vulnerable to a number of potential challenges to their validity.  This is usually done by way of a collateral challenge to prosecution under the bylaw.  Such challenges include uncertainty, unreasonableness, ultra vires, repugnant to the law of the land and inconsistency with the NZBORA.

10            These potential challenges need to be carefully considered when proposing and/or drafting bylaws.

Empowering provisions

11            Before a bylaw can be made by a territorial authority, there must be a relevant statutory empowering provision that authorises such a bylaw to be made.

12            Council has bylaw-making powers under section 145 of the LGA:

A territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for 1 or more of the following purposes:

(a)   protecting the public from nuisance:

(b)   protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety:

(c)   minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

(our emphasis)

13            Council also has specific bylaw-making powers under section 146 of the LGA:

Without limiting section 145, a territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for the purposes—

(a)   of regulating 1 or more of the following:

(v)   keeping of animals, bees, and poultry:

(our emphasis)

14            We have not located any other relevant empowering provisions. 

Keeping of animals

15            Council has the power to regulate the keeping of cats under section 146(a)(v) of the LGA. The scope of that power is that Council can regulate the owning and managing (ie keeping) of cats.  Where people choose to keep a cat, the Council can place a constraint on that activity.  However, the constraint cannot lead to a prohibition of keeping cats, as Council is only empowered to regulate the keeping of cats.

16            In our view, this means the Council does have the power (under section 146(a)(v) of the LGA) to place constraints on the keeping of cats through a bylaw.   The reason for this is that the wording of section 146(a)(v) of the LGA is very broad, and there are no express restrictions on why (or for what purpose) cats can be regulated.

17            We have also considered whether the Council has bylaw making powers as a nuisance.  Nuisance is not defined under the LGA.  However, the tort of public nuisance is defined as a wrong against the public, consisting of conduct that creates an unreasonable interference with the comfort and convenience of a section of the public.[2]  Some example of bylaws that have been held to address nuisance include:

17.1        A bylaw restricting the singing in public places to the annoyance of neighbours.[3]

17.2        A bylaw restricting stock-droving on certain roads.[4] 

17.3        A bylaw prohibiting the occupation or camping in a public place without lawful authority.[5]

18            In our view, there is uncertainty whether a cat potentially harming wildlife can constitute a nuisance to a person under the LGA as:

18.1        There is uncertainty whether a cat can be the perpetrator of a nuisance, as a nuisance usually involves a positive act by a person; and

18.2        This is further complicated by considering whether the potential damage caused by one animal to another (in this case, cats damaging or killing native wildlife) can constitute a nuisance.  A nuisance generally requires a positive action / effect on a person, as opposed to wildlife. 

19            R v Young,[6] is a sentencing decision against Ms Young who was found guilty of breaching the Auckland City Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 as the owner of cats which caused a nuisance to neighbours due to the odour and noises emitted by the cats.  In the sentencing decision the Court indicated that the activities of the cat constituted a nuisance.  However, the cats were Bengals kept for breeding purposes, resulting in significantly piercing noise together with significant odour issues.  It may be that an ordinary cat does not reach the same level of nuisance.

20            The above raises some doubt on whether Council could rely on section 145 of the LGA to regulate cats for the purpose of protecting wildlife. This would leave any such bylaw open to challenge.

21            However, as we consider that Council has the power (under 146(a)(v) of the LGA) to regulate the keeping of cats, for the purpose of protecting wildlife, we have not considered this question further.   

Procedure for making bylaws

22            Assuming that Council determines that the proposed content of a bylaw comes within the empowering provision, the next step is to undertake a section 155 assessment.

23            Section 155 of the LGA provides that before commencing the process for making a bylaw, the Council must determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.  Logically, this requires:

23.1        Identifying what the perceived problem is;

23.2        What the options are for addressing it are; and

23.3        Determining whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of dealing with it.

24            If the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, then it must determine whether the proposed bylaw:

24.1        Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

24.2        Gives rise to any implications under the NZBORA.

25            Having considered these matters and determined that it is appropriate to proceed, the Council must then consult on the bylaw using the special consultative procedure in the LGA.  The draft bylaw, the reasons for the bylaw and the section 155 report constitute the statement of proposal for the purposes of the special consultative procedure.  In summary, the special consultative procedure then requires:

25.1        Adoption of the statement of proposal by the Council.

25.2        Public notice of the proposal and distribution of the summary of information.

25.3        A period for written submissions (minimum of one month).

25.4        Written submissions being made available for inspection.

25.5        Consideration of the proposal at an open Council meeting, where submitters are given the opportunity to be heard, if requested.

26            As soon as practicable after making the bylaw, the Council must then give public notice of the date on which the bylaw comes into operation.  

27            Once a bylaw is operative, the LGA requires its on-going review.  Bylaws must be reviewed every 10 years.  A review involves the reconsideration of a bylaw's appropriateness and NZBORA implications, using the special consultative procedure.   Bylaws that are not reviewed will expire within two years of the date by which they ought to have been reviewed.

Evidence required for a bylaw

28            In order to make a bylaw a viable option, it will be necessary to produce evidence that domestic cats need to be controlled and managed in the manner outlined in the Proposal. 

29            Our view is that the evidence assessment for a bylaw on this topic can be simplified into the following four categories:

29.1        Is there a problem to be addressed? 

29.2        If yes, what effects are caused by that problem and how serious are they?

29.3        What sort of actions and/or controls will make a difference to that problem or the effects it creates?

29.4        is a bylaw the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem?

30            This evidence will need to be thorough, robust and substantiated by fact. 

Constraints of bylaws

31            We do not currently know what, if any, form a proposed bylaw will take, or whether the bylaw will meet the requirements outlined above.  However, it is prudent at this stage to identify the constraints of bylaws which may be encountered.

32            Section 17 of the Bylaws Act 1910 provides:

Part of bylaw only may be deemed invalid

If any bylaw contains any provisions which are invalid because they are ultra vires of the local authority, or repugnant to the laws of New Zealand, or unreasonable, or for any other cause whatever, the bylaw shall be invalid to the extent of those provisions and any others which cannot be severed therefrom.

33            There are four possible validity issues that could be encountered in implementing the Proposal by way of a bylaw:

33.1        Repugnancy;

33.2        Reasonableness;

33.3        Consistency with the NZBORA; and

33.4        Certainty.

34            Each of these potential grounds of invalidity are addressed briefly below.  Each is a matter to be addressed in more depth once the details of the proposed process/controls under the bylaw are defined. 

Repugnancy

35            A bylaw will be invalid if it is 'repugnant' to another law of New Zealand.  A finding that a bylaw is 'repugnant' requires more than proof that the bylaw deals with a matter covered by statute or a right recognised at common law.

36            However, where a bylaw purports to alter a fundamental rule of common law, specific statutory authority may be required.[7]  Domestic animals are personal property.  The common law principle of absolute ownership of personal property is a significant one.  As such, a bylaw which interferes with absolute property rights could be deemed invalid by reason of repugnance. 

37            Furthermore, the legal status of domestic animals as personal property may create issues of repugnance with specific legislation, for example, criminal offences for intentionally destroying personal property.[8]

38            However, there are currently bylaws in place which enable local authorities to seize and impound personal property, including domestic animals.  

Reasonableness

39            A bylaw may be declared invalid so far as its provisions are unreasonable.  The test for reasonableness considers a number of factors, but most importantly in this case:

39.1        As the bylaw may seek to interfere with a right common to many members of the public, it will be more closely considered for reasonableness than bylaws affecting more particular activities.

39.2        Existing general legislation on domestic cats (being the subject of the bylaw) will be closely considered to assess the bylaw's reasonableness.[9]

39.3        An assessment of reasonableness will also closely examine the benefit(s) of the bylaw.

Consistency with the NZBORA

40            A bylaw will be invalid if it is inconsistent with the NZBORA.  If a bylaw prima facie breaches a right or freedom under the NZBORA, it is only consistent with the NZBORA if it is a 'reasonable limit' on that right 'demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'.

41            There is one right under the NZBORA which could be breached by a bylaw implementing the Proposal.  Section 21 of the NZBORA provides:

Unreasonable search and seizure

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

42            As the proposed bylaw could involve the seizure, impounding, examination and possible euthanasia of personal property, it would need to be shown that the bylaw places only a reasonable limit on the right provided by section 21 which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Certainty

43            A bylaw will be invalid if it is not certain and positive in its terms.  A bylaw must provide a clear statement of the course of action to be followed or avoided.

44            The certainty of a bylaw implementing the Proposal will necessarily depend on its wording, process and controls, and (as noted above) would be best addressed at a later stage.

Ability to impound

45            In terms of allowing the impounding of cats through the bylaw, we note that domestic animals, like other personal and moveable chattels, are private property.  The LGA provides the enforcement powers available to a local authority which can in some circumstances allow enforcement officers to seize property.[10] 

46            Property not on private land may be seized and impounded if it is materially involved in the commission of an offence, and it is reasonable in the circumstances to seize and impound the property.    There are also some obligations around providing an opportunity to the person committing the offence to stop, unless the property is not in the position of the person at the time the enforcement officer proposes to seize it.

47            Property on private land may only be seized and impounded if it is involved in the commission of an offence, but only with a warrant from an issuing officer under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

48            Local authorities may not seize property on either private or public land unless it is involved in the commission of an offence.  As domestic cats are not currently subject to any laws of confinement, or any laws requiring they be micro-chipped and/or registered, wandering domestic cats cannot currently be seized or impounded by enforcement officers of local authorities.  If the bylaw were passed, then enforcement officers may then be able to impound cats depending on whether there was an offence occurring or not.

49            We would be happy to expand on any of the above matters further.

 

Yours sincerely

Stephen Quinn

Partner

Direct +64 4 474 3217

stephen.quinn@dlapiper.com

Kate Rogers

Senior Associate

Direct +64 4 918 3050

kate.rogers@dlapiper.com

 

 


                                                                                     151                                                            28 July 2020

Hutt City Council

07 July 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/723)

 

 

 

 

Report no: HCC2020/4/156

 

Local Government New Zealand - Remits for Annual General Meeting August 2020

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to provide advice on the remits that will be considered and voted on by delegates at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting in August 2020.

Recommendations

That Council:

(i)    notes that all proposed remits meet the LGNZ National Council’s Remits Screening Policy criteria;

(ii)   notes the officers’ comments on the proposed remits; and

(iii)  agrees to support the remits as follows:

Remit

Recommendation

1

Support

2

Support

3

Support

4

Support with suggested amended definition

5

Support

6

Support

7

Support

8

Support

9

Support

10

Support

11

Support

 

Background

2.    The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) provides member authorities that wish to the opportunity to submit proposed remits for consideration.  The 2020 AGM will be held on Friday 21 August 2020. Proposed remits must be submitted on the correct form and meet the National Council’s Remits Screening Policy criteria.

3.    Council must consider whether or not to support some or all of the proposed remits to enable the delegates attending the AGM on its behalf (the Mayor and Deputy Mayor) to vote on its behalf. Officers were asked to provide advice on the proposed remits to assist Council’s discussion. Comment was sought from subject matter experts across the business on those remits that will, if actioned by LGNZ and central government, impact policy and strategy development in Lower Hutt.

4.    Some comment has been made on proposed remits with less local relevance and these comments along with brief descriptions of each remit are attached in Appendix 1.

Key points

5.     All remits meet the National Council’s Remits Screening Policy criteria.  Comment was sought from across the business and the table below summarises comments received.  More detailed comment and a summary of the National Council’s Remits Screening Policy is in Appendix 1.

Remit

Officer comment

Remit 1 Asking that central government support for public transport during Covid-19 be extended through the recovery period.

Have noted our support of PT as an essential service and increased use as a contributor to our aim of reducing carbon emissions through greater use of PT

 

Remit 2 Housing affordability: Recommends introducing legislation to fully enable councils to address housing affordability through a range of tools, one such tool being ‘inclusionary zoning’

Officers are neutral on the concept of inclusionary zones.  These zones bring advantages in high demand/growth areas where there are significant natural and/or physical constraints on development, such as Queenstown. It ensures a range of housing types and price points are provided. However, officers question the need for such a tool if Councils are providing development opportunities. In particular, officers question all Councils being required to use such a tool. If legislation provides it as a tool in the tool box Councils could use if it was evaluated as an appropriate tool to use in the local circumstances.

Remit 3: request to central government to return GST on rates for Councils to spend on infrastructure projects

Officers have no comment on the remit LGNZ has called on government through to return GST to local government. LGNZ’s “The Six Big Issues” suggests a range of policy levers to address and fund economic development and growth across New Zealand.  Returning GST to local government is one of those suggested levers. https://www.lgnz.co.nz/our-work/our-policy-priorities/the-six-big-issues/

Remit 4 Natural hazards and climate change adaptation 

1.      Suggest broadening definition to “coastal environment” – “coastline” is unnecessarily restrictive definition

 

Council will be engaging with not only shore-line communities such as Petone and Seaview about the need to adapt to climate change but also more “inland’” communities such as Alicetown and Moera that will be just as much affected – and possibly more so - than areas directly on the coast.  In addition, climate change impacts in some areas will include increased rainfall leading to flooding, increased erosion and other effects that will be felt outside coastal communities.

 

2.        Need to consider the impact of other work already be underway, creating a risk of duplication e.g. the Climate Change Commission established as part of the Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act in 2019 has begun work on a National Adaptation Plan

Remit 5: Development of an annual regional balance of transfer register to show how much each region contributes in taxes

Officers have no comment.

Remit 6: That the local government electoral cycle is extended from three to four years.

Key issue is whether it is feasible to have a different electoral to central government.  Should be considered as a national issue.


 

Remit

Officer comment

Remit 7; Water bottling. Asks that government amend legislation to stop water bottling and exports

There is a real risk of undermining partnerships with iwi. In the interest of true partnership, greater weighting should to be given to working with Māori to identify their values and interests, and reflect those values and interests in decision-making, in order for iwi to maintain their mana as kaitiaki of that resource.

The use or otherwise of water for bottling is controlled at the regional level by GWRC

Remit 8: Quorum when attending local government meetings – including remotely connected members in the quorum

Elected or appointed members connecting remotely to a public council meeting to be included in the quorum. Extends changes made in response to Covid-19. This aligns with our Councils focus on greater transparency and increasing participation

Remit 9: Use of macrons by local government. Focused on simplifying the legal requirements around the addition of macrons to council names

Officer’s view is that if local iwi determine that there needs to be a change in a TA’s name to correct historical misspelling of Māori names which is endemic in New Zealand then that should be enough to mandate that change.

There is merit in all five suggested courses of action, however there needs to be a balance between the local approach and the national one. For example, the NZ Geographic Board amended the spelling of Ohakune to “Ōhakune” in 2011. This was done without iwi consultation.  Ohakune-based iwi, Ngāti Rangi, were quick to point out that the name change was incorrect. The name subsequently reverted back to Ohakune. Consultation with iwi in this issue is paramount.

Remit 10: That the Government lift the level of rates rebates available for low and fixed income property owners – with yearly increases taking into account the cost for inputs into local government services

Officers support the proposal that central government lift the level of rates rebate available for low and fixed income property owners respectively.  Council wrote to the government requesting this during the Covid-19 lock down period and supports ongoing rates relief  for these rate payers. 

Remit 11 : That the Government implement an independent scheme, based on the United Kingdom model operated by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to measure and report on carbon emissions at a district level

The idea has some merit although establishing an independent scheme to measure and report on carbon emissions at a district level maybe premature. There are systems and tools already available for local authorities to measure their emissions if they wish and businesses, organisations and local authorities are already starting to decarbonise. The system suggested may be more expensive than current solutions, whether paid for directly or through rates/taxation if the costs of the service are subsidised by local authorities/government.

Officers suggest the remit could be amended to propose an assessment of the merits/value of the proposal and development of a business case detailing the costs and benefits of the proposal compared with available solutions before further decisions are made.

Options

6.    Officers recommend that Council support all remits. Remit 4 could be improved by broadening the “coastline” definition to “coastal environment” as “coastline” is too restrictive.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

7.    The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

8.    Remits 4, 7 and 11 directly address environmental impacts of taking water for commercial purposes, climate change mitigation and adaptation and reducing carbon emissions respectively.  

Consultation

9.    Comments on the proposed remits were provided by subject matter experts across the business.

Legal Considerations

10.  Council’s delegates to the LGNZ AGM will be voting on the proposed remits.

Financial Considerations

11.  There are no financial considerations.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

LGNZ remits 2020 AGM - table and summary National Council Remits Policy

152

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Anna Welanyk

Director Transformation & Resources

 


Attachment 1

LGNZ remits 2020 AGM - table and summary National Council Remits Policy

 

Remit policy for remits unrelated to the internal governance and constitution of Local Government New Zealand

 

Proposed remits should:

·    only major strategic “issues of the moment and

·    have a national focus

 

Additionally the remit:

·    must be relevant to local government as a whole(not a single zone or sector group, or individual council;

·    should be of a major policy nature not an administrative matter;

·    have formal support from at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils, prior being submitted to assess support and achieve clarity about the ambit of the proposal;

·    Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to show that the matter warrants consideration by delegates

 

Exclusion of remits

 

·    Remits are assessed to look at whether alternative, equally valid action can be taken to achieve resolution of the issue

·    Remits defeated at the AGM in two successive years cannot go forward

·    If a remit deals with matters currently being address by LGNZ it may be declined as the matters raised are “in-hand” unless it approaches the matter from a different point of view.

 


Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

1. That LGNZ write to the Ministers of Transport and Local Government asking to meet to discuss a joint work programme between Government and councils (through LGNZ) to develop a policy to maintain the viability of PT during the Covid-19 recovery phase

GWRC

LGNZ Regional Sector

Relevant to a sector group

Meets all other criteria

PT is an essential service in our community providing a relatively inexpensive transport option. It is critical for those reliant on PT in Lower Hutt can continue to access that service.

 

Council policy commits to reducing carbon emissions and higher use of PT supports this policy.

2. That LGNZ call on Government to:

·    introduce legislation fully enabling councils to address housing affordability through a range of tools, one such tool being ‘inclusionary zoning’;

·    establish a working group on affordable housing, comprising of relevant/affected councils, central government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, MSD), iwi, and the community housing sector; and

·    to develop an affordable housing National Policy Statement.

 

Hamilton City Council and Christchurch City Council

 

Tauranga City Council; Tasman District Council; Waipa District Council; South Waikato District Council; and Waitomo District Council

Meets all criteria – focused on relevant/affected councils

 

Specific action -introduction of inclusionary zoning in RMA. It would not be mandatory.

 

“Inclusionary zoning“ refers to district plan rules that require a portion of new land development to be retained as affordable housing for people on low-to-moderate incomes.

 

This remit is focused on providing councils with a clear legal opportunity in legislation to pursue inclusionary zoning.

 

 

Council may wish to consider inclusionary zoning as part of its District Plan review

 

If inclusionary zoning was included in RMA this would provide legal certainty for policy decisions aimed at addressing housing affordability issues in the city and reduce the likelihood of legal challenges and likely lengthy and costly appeals processes.

 

NB: An early form of inclusionary zoning was central to the early success of the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust (QLCHT)


 

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

3. That LGNZ request that government return GST on rates for councils to spend on local or regional infrastructure projects

 

 

Hamilton City Council and New Plymouth District Council

 

Auckland Council; Christchurch City Council; Tauranga City Council; Nelson City Council; Tasman District Council; Gisborne District Council; Waipa District Council; Waikato District Council; and South Waikato District Council

Meets criteria

“Tax on a tax”

 

4. Natural hazards and climate change adaptation 

 

That central government and all of local government:

·    undertake a comprehensive review of current law relating to natural hazards and climate change adaptation along New Zealand's coastlines

·    Coordinates the development of a coastline strategy for New Zealand covering: the roles and responsibilities of local and central government; greater direction on an integrated approach; and the development of principles for “who pays”.

Hauraki District Council

 

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council; Napier City Council; Hastings District Council; and Northland Regional Council.

Meets criteria

 

All councils supporting the remit are working with their respective communities to implement climate change and natural hazard responses.  Cost to ratepayers is a major factor.

 

Most councils, territorial or regional, are grappling with similar issues. 

As HCC is working regionally through two regional strategies (“Natural Hazards” and “Climate Change” to address natural hazards and climate change adaptation.

 

The focus on ‘coastline’ in the remit is too narrow and should be “coastal environment”

 

The nature of the issue requires a speedier response

 

Should empower councils to deal with pre-existing land rights

 

Needs to go back to the drawing board to clarify what is needed and ensure the outcome will be useable and produced in a timely manner.


 

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

5. Annual regional balance of transfers

 

That LGNZ work with Treasury, Statistics New Zealand and other government agencies to develop an annual regional balance of transfers to show how much each region contributes in taxes and how much each region receives in government funding

 

Does the government returns more or less to the region than it receives in tax and other revenue sources?

New Plymouth District Council

 

Thames-Coromandel District Council; South Taranaki District Council; Hastings District Council; Rangitīkei District Council; and Rotorua Lakes Council

Meets criteria

Could potentially provide greater transparency in terms of local governments’ contribution to the overall economy and what government investment each region is receiving but the question is why, what is the intended outcome and how would the information be used.

 

Essentially it would enable regions/districts to compare their community’s output performance (contribution to taxes) in against that of others in New Zealand.

 

This output can then be directly compared to the amount of funding a community/region receives from central government. Transparency yes – building trust in government probably not. 


 

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

6. That the local government electoral cycle be extended from three to four years.

Northland Regional Council; Rotorua Lakes Council; Whanganui District Council; and Hamilton City Council

 

Hastings District Council; Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Rangitīkei District Council

 

 

 

Meets criteria

Key issue is whether it is feasible to have a different electoral to central government.  Should be considered as a national issue.

 

Synchronisation of planning cycles in particular the LTP. With a 4 year electoral cycle the LTP process would occur at different times in the tenure of the elected Council. For example, every three elections a Council would have two LTP’s to consider in its term unless the LTP cycle changed as well.

7. Water bottling

 

The remit is focused on working with government to stopping the taking of water for water bottling or bulk export through changes to legislation and policy settings as required.

 

Queenstown-Lakes District Council

 

Greater Wellington Regional Council; Tauranga City Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; Upper Hutt City Council; and Waitaki District Council

Meets criteria

Parliament is considering OIA6 amendments that allow applications for the extraction of water for bottling to be declined if they are likely to result in a negative impact on water quality or sustainability if enacted.

 

Māori kaitiaki and freshwater rights

 

UHCC and QLDC have written to Minister Parker requesting a moratorium on new and existing water bottling consents.

A water bottling levy may have unintended consequences if implemented in isolation.


 

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

8. Quorum when attending local authority meetings

 

This remit requests legislative change to enable elected or appointed members, connecting remotely to a public council meeting, to be included in the quorum.

 

Does not propose that remote attendance becomes the only or dominant means to hold local authority meetings.

Waikato District Council

 

Hamilton City Council; Hauraki District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; Taupō District Council; Ōtorohanga District Council; South Waikato District Council; Waipa District Council; and Waitomo District Council

Meets criteria

 

To enable public meetings to continue during COVID-19, the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Legislation Act 2020 (the COVID-19 Act) amended sections of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

This would provide an option for local authority meetings to be held completely remotely, if required.

 

Unclear what would happen with statutory hearings

 

Is aligned with councils priority of transparent governance and increasing participation in council decision making 

 

Provides further opportunities for innovation

 

Supports diversity in representation

9. Use of macrons by local government

 

This rebate is focused on simplifying the legal requirements around the addition of macrons to council names if requested by that council or its community

Waipa District Council

 

Zone two councils

Meets the criteria

A number of councils have faced legal challenges and lengthy processes to add macrons to council names.

 

The addition of macrons enables councils to recognise and take action to implement local preferences

 

It is not efficient or cost effective for councils to individually go through the legislative processes to change a name. Simpson Grierson have provided legal advice on options


 

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

10. Rates rebates for low income property owners

 

That the Government lift the level of rates rebates available for low and fixed income property owners – with yearly increases taking into account the cost for inputs into local government services

Whanganui District Council

 

Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council; South Taranaki District Council; and Rangitikei District Council

Meets criteria

Council has written to government supporting changes to the amount and way in which rates rebates are made available to low income property owners

 

The Productivity Commission was not convinced that older “asset rich” residents were the most affected by rates affordability – their analysis indicated that renters were more likely to be affected by rates increases due to resulting rent increases. The rates rebate scheme is not available to renters.

11. Local Government’s CO2 emissions

 

That the Government implement an independent scheme, based on the United Kingdom model operated by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to measure and report on carbon emissions at a district level

Whanganui District Council

 

Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; South Taranaki District Council; Hastings City Council; and Horizons Regional Council

Meets criteria

Currently councils have no way of assessing the extent of localised carbon emission and the provision of a reliable and consistent breakdown of CO2 emissions over time by district may be useful.  The approach could be costly to develop and implement. The private sector may be reluctant to participate given existing systems.

 

There needs to be a demonstrated value proposition for this to succeed.

 

Businesses and organisations are already decarbonising

 


                                                                                     161                                                            28 July 2020

Hutt City Council

26 June 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/581)

 

 

 

 

Report no: HCC2020/4/155

 

Requesting Power of Attorney for Directors


 

Purpose of Report

1.       This report is to update the Council officers who can execute deeds under power of attorney, on behalf of Council.  This requires two councillors to execute a deed giving a power of attorney to the Chief Executive and Directors.  That will then allow those people to execute deeds on behalf of Council.

Recommendations

That Council:

(i)      grants powers of attorney to any person in the role of Chief Executive or Director to execute deeds on behalf of Council;

(ii)     approves the form of power of attorney attached as Appendix 1 to the report (the Deed); and

(iii)    authorises the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to execute the Deed to give effect to the power of attorney for any person in the role of Chief Executive or Director.

 

Background

2.       The Property Law Act 2007 requires either two director equivalents (ie. Councillors) or a person acting under power of attorney to sign deeds.

 

3.       For administrative efficiency, Council grants power of attorney to sign deeds to the Chief Executive and Directors. 

Discussion

4.       The Property Law Act 2007 amended earlier legislation by providing that “a body corporate” executes a deed if the deed is signed in the name of the body corporate by “directors” of the body corporate. 

 

5.       While the amendment is likely to have been intended to simplify the signing processes for companies, it created some ambiguity for local authorities (given the use of the term “directors”).  Officer advice is it leaves Council with two mechanisms for it to execute deeds, being:

•     execution of deeds by any two councillors as “director equivalents”; or

•     execution of deeds under power of attorney by a person expressly appointed by Council for that purpose.

 

6.       Deeds are routinely and regularly entered into by Council for a wide range of matters, particularly property-related.   For administrative efficiency it is considered appropriate for specific officers to be granted a power of attorney to sign deeds on behalf of Council.  This would be in in keeping with the delegations allowing officers to perform the operational functions of Council.

7.       Deeds that are signed under power of attorney are included for approval by Council under the “Sealing Authority” report that goes to every Council meeting.  

 

8.       There have been no changes to the requirements for executing contracts and other obligations entered into by bodies corporate. 

 

9.       Council’s Common Seal is still used on other documents where this is specifically required by legislation.   Examples are: warrants for Council officers to enter private land under the Local Government Act 2002; the execution of policy statements and plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the adoption of Bylaws under the Bylaws Act 1910.

 

10.     Practically, Powers of Attorney would be granted to the necessary officers by name.   This would give them to the power to execute deeds on behalf of Council by themselves (in the same way that they would have this power for other forms of agreement, by way of delegation).

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

11.     There are no climate change impacts. 

Consultation

12.     No consultation is necessary.

Legal Considerations

13.     A deed is a particular form of legal document.   Amongst other things, it is required where legislation specifically requires that this form of documentation be used.  It is commonly used for property related documents, for examples, deeds of lease. 

 

14.     The power of attorney itself needs to be granted by way of deed to specific individuals.  The recommendation is that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are delegated the ability to execute these deed to grant the power of attorney for anyone in the role of Chief Executive or Director.    

Financial Considerations

15.     There are no financial considerations.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Power of Attorney to sign Deeds

162

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Lyn Herriot

Executive Assistant, Corporate Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

Chief Legal Officer

 

 

 

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

 


Attachment 1

Power of Attorney to sign Deeds

 

Power of Attorney to sign Deeds

 

 

This is a Power of Attorney by way of a Deed signed by two elected councillors of

Hutt City Council on the                      day of                          20      .

 

Background

A.   Hutt City Council (“Council”) is a territorial authority under the Local Government Act 2002 and is authorised to enter into deeds.

B.   Council wishes to grant to [insert name], [Chief Executive/Director] a Power of Attorney to sign deeds on behalf of the Council.

 

By this Deed

1.   The Council hereby appoints [insert name] of [insert address], [Chief Executive/Director] (“the Attorney”) to be the Council’s attorney to do the following on the Council’s behalf:

 

a)     Sign, execute and deliver all documents made by way of deed, which the Council is authorised to sign.

b)     Continue to exercise the power under paragraph (a) until such time as the Attorney receives notice in writing from the Council revoking this Power of Attorney.

 

2.   Council covenants to ratify any agreement or obligation assumed by the Attorney under any deed signed by the Attorney pursuant to or under this Power of Attorney, and to ratify any act, agreement or obligation assumed by the Attorney and necessary to render the foregoing effectual.

 

 

EXECUTED AS A DEED

Hutt City Council by:

                                   

____________________________                ____________________________   

Signature of Mayor                                         Signature of Deputy Mayor

 

____________________________                ____________________________

Name of Mayor                                              Name of Deputy Mayor            



 


                                                                                     163                                                            28 July 2020

Hutt City Council

26 June 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/671)

 

 

 

 

Report no: HCC2020/4/22

 

Hearing by Independent Commissioner 80/102 Meremere Street, 25 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the decision of the Hearing Commissioner held on 25 May 2020 for 80/102 Meremere Street, Wainuiomata be noted and received.

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

HuttCC_RM180505_Decision

164

    

 


Attachment 1

HuttCC_RM180505_Decision

 


 

 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


                                                                     227                                                18 June 2020

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

 Tuesday 26 May 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

 

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

 

Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer

 

Cr S Edwards

Cr D Hislop

 

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

 

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw

 

Cr L Sutton

 

 

APOLOGIES:                  There were no apologies.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:       Ms J Miller, Chief Executive

Ms A Blackshaw, Director, Strategy and Engagement

Ms H Oram, Director, Environmental and Sustainability 

Ms J Livschitz, Chief Financial Officer

Mr B Cato, Chief Legal Officer

Mr G Craig, Head of City Growth (part meeting)

Ms W Moore, Head of Strategy and Planning  (part meeting)

Ms J Stevens, Contractor (part meeting)

Ms K Stannard, Head of Democratic Services

Ms T Lealofi, Committee Advisor (part meeting)

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

Ms D Hunter, Acting Committee Advisor 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

1.       OPENING FORMALITIES   

 

          Cr Brown opened the meeting with a karakia.

 

2.       APOLOGIES 

There were no apologies.

Resolved:  (Mayor Barry/Cr Dyer)                                     Minute No. C 20301

“That in terms of Standing Order 10.12  Council:

(i)            notes that the matters of the COVID-19 Relief for Local Sport and Recreation Organisations and Delegation to Draft LTP/AP Subcommittee for Recycling and Rubbish LTP Amendment Consultation were not included in the order paper for the meeting, for the reasons that the information was not available until after the order paper had been distributed; and 

 

(ii)          agrees that the recommendations be considered at this meeting for the reason that the matter needs to be addressed urgently and cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

3.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

 

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Briggs)                                             Minute No. C 20302

“That Council:

(i)            temporarily suspends Standing Order 15.1 to allow public speakers to speak to Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 1041A High Street, Avalon’ on page 282 of the Order Paper; and

 

(ii)          notes that the matter was resolved under delegated authority by the Regulatory Committee at its meeting held on 12 May 2020 and only the Regulatory Committee may revoke or amend the resolution.”

4.

MAYORAL STATEMENT (20/399)

Mayor Barry read out his Mayoral Statement attached as pages 17-20 to the minutes.  

Cr Brown left the meeting at 4.25pm and rejoined the meeting at 4.30pm.

4.

Chief Executive's Statement (20/400)

The Chief Executive read out her statement attached as pages 21-23 to the minutes.

In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive advised a name for the fenced dog park in Wainuiomata would be decided at a later date.  She took note of the suggested name of  “Les Dalton Dog Park.”

6.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

          Cr Bassett declared conflicts of interest in relation to item 8b) and the part item 9d) and took no part in discussion or voting on the matters.

          Cr Brown declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 8gc) and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Cr Milne declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 8a).  He confirmed that he had been Chair of Technology Valley until his resignation on 18 February 2020. 

          Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 8a) and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

7.       Committee Minutes with Recommended Items   

          The Chair gave precedence of business to item 9, Regulatory Committee meeting minutes dated 12 May 2020.

          The item is recorded in the order in which it is listed on the order paper.

Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee 5 May 2020

reSOLVED: (Mayor Barry/Cr Bassett)                                           Minute No. C 20303

“That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 May 2020, with the exception of items 4ii)-4iii), be adopted.”

 

4ii)

Recommended Items

Proposed Solid Waste and Minimisation Bylaw 2020 (20/357)

 

Resolved:   (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                  Minute No. C 20304

“That Council:

(i)     agrees to consult on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal, and Proposed Bylaw (draft copies of which are attached as Appendices 1-3 to Report PFSC/20/20/3/87) in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 by means of a special consultative procedure;

(ii)    agrees to establish a Hearing Subcommittee to:

(a)  hear submissions on the proposed amendments to the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw; and

(b)  recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval;

(iii)   notes the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Bylaw; and

(iv)   agrees the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy Finance and Strategy Committee be authorised to approve any other changes to the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Bylaw if required prior to the special consultative procedure commencing.”

4iii)

7A Waiu Street Fenced Dog Park (20/358)

 

Resolved:   (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                        Minute No. C 20305

“That Council:

(i)     notes the guidelines in the Hutt City Dog Control Bylaw 2015 for Fenced Dog Exercise Areas;

(ii)    agrees, having considered the guidelines, to proceed with the process to develop a fenced dog park at 7A Waiu Street for the reason that before making a resolution concerning a proposed Fenced Dog Exercise Area, Council must take into account the Fenced Dog Exercise Area Guidelines criteria; and

(iii)      asks officers to liaise with Greater Wellington Regional Council over the potential for the former Waimarie Croquet Club north of Melling Bridge to be used as a fenced, off-leash dog exercise area.”

 

 

 

 

8.       Miscellaneous

a)

Technology Valley Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2019 (20/92)

Report No. HCC2020/3/105 by the Head of City Growth

 

Ms Anthea Mulholland, Executive Director, Technology Valley and Mr Hayden Kirk, founding member and current Chair of Technology Valley, elaborated on Technology Valley.  Ms Mulholland explained the progress to date for all objectives agreed to under the partnership agreement. 

In response to questions from members, Ms Mulholland confirmed Technology Valley had made a submission to the draft Annual Plan.  She explained the submission focused on the proposed reduction in financial support.  She advised that Technology Valley worked collaboratively alongside the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of City Growth agreed to investigate why Council’s financial contribution had been proposed to be reduced.

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Hislop)                              Minute No. C 20306

“That the Council notes and receives the report.”


 

 

b)

Extension of Delivery Date for Wellington Water Ltd’s Statement of Intent 2020-2023 (20/397)

Report No. HCC2020/3/103 by the Strategic Advisor, City and Community Services

 

 

 

Cr Bassett declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Cr Milne left the meeting at 4.51pm and rejoined the meeting at 4.54pm.

The Chief Legal Officer elaborated on the report.

 

 

 

Resolved: (Cr Barry/Cr Brown)                                     Minute No. C 20307

“That Council:

(i)    notes Wellington Water Limited’s (the company) refocus on critical front line services due to Covid-19, the central government requirement to only undertake essential services during Level 4 alert and the resulting impact that stopped or scaled back work will have on the company’s performance reporting for the 2019/2020 financial year;

(ii)   notes the company is currently developing its Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2020-23 and alignment will need to occur with the shareholding Councils’ Annual Plans;

(iii) notes the Chief Executive has the authority to exercise the power under clause 4 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Act 2002 to agree or not agree to extend the deadline for delivery of the company’s final SOI by one calendar month (to 31 July 2020); and

(iv) notes the Chief Executive has approved the extension deadline for delivery of the company’s final SOI to 31 July 2020.”

 

 

c)

Council Controlled Organisation Appointments (20/405)

Report No. HCC2020/3/104 by the Contractor

 

 

 

Cr Brown declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Mayor Barry elaborated on the report.

The Chief Executive explained that several directors’ terms were due to expire in June 2020.  She highlighted the reappointment of directors for a limited time period would provide time to plan for continuity in the future.

In response to a question from a member, Mayor Barry confirmed the 10% reduction in directors’ fees related only to the named directors.

Mayor Barry advised a letter of acknowledgement had already been sent, on behalf of Council, to the directors who had requested a reduction in fees.

 

 

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Cr Edwards)                          Minute No. C 20308

“That Council:

(i)    notes that requests for a 10% reduction in directors’ fees have been received from Mr Brian Walshe and Mr Hugh Mackenzie;

(ii)   agrees to reduce the annual remuneration payable to Mr Walsh for the period 4 May to 30 September 2020:

(a)   by $833 to $18,107 per annum for his directorship of Seaview Marina Limited; and

(b)   by $1,000 to $21,727 per annum for his directorship of Urban Plus Limited;

(iii)  agrees to reduce the annual remuneration payable to Mr Mackenzie for the period 5 May to 30 September 2020 by $660 to $14,485 per annum for his directorship of Urban Plus Limited; and

(iv)  agrees to reappoint Ms Jess Andrews, Mr Matt Claridge and Mr Phil Gibbons as trustees of the Community Facilities Trust from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.”

 

d)

Representation Arrangements 2019-2022 Triennium (19/1364)

Report No. HCC2020/3/101 by the Head of Strategy and Planning

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Alex Voutratzis representing the Petone Community Board outlined the roles and functions of community panels, communities of interest groups, delegations to community boards, the Resource Management Act and City Plans. 

 

In response to a question from a member regarding the Community Boards in Auckland, Mr Voutratzis advised Auckland had 20 Councillors and Local Boards to manage each area.  He added Advisory Boards could be used in Lower Hutt to provide niche representation for specific groups eg disability, Maori.

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Max Shierlaw requested the delegations to Community Boards be extended to cover all activities undertaken on Council owned land.  He added this would then enable the public to have an input. 

The Head of Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.  She agreed to circulate the previous Community Panels Terms of Reference to members.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning explained paragraph 51 of the report referred to the ability of Community Panels to work with their Ward Councillor in developing plans for their communities. 

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning explained the list of Special Interest Groups was included to provide examples of such groups and was by no means exhaustive.  She reiterated that the Local Government Commission had directed Council to find better ways to ensure the community was heard and could participate in decision making.  She advised that a briefing with elected members and iwi on the matter was to be scheduled in the near future. 

The Chief Executive advised that the proposed briefing would include detailed logistics of the proposal for community representation and address resourcing matters.

Cr Dyer left the meeting at 5.11pm and rejoined the meeting at 5.14pm.

In response to a question from a member regarding the community’s perception of representation, the Head of Strategy and Planning advised there had been a variety of public opinions concerning the effectiveness of the Community Panels.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Strategy and Planning advised work on the Representation Review had not yet commenced.  She highlighted that once the review commenced,  it would take approximately two years to complete.

Cr Bassett left the meeting at 5.19pm and rejoined the meeting at 5.24pm

Crs Edwards and Briggs expressed concern with the proposal to push the Representation Review to the next trienniem  They considered the matter required urgent attention.

Cr Mitchell suggested the proposed briefing include discussions about those areas which used to have Community Panels or committees.  He also suggested that the proposed new panels be named “Community Funding Panels” to avoid confusion.

Mayor Barry suggested an amendment to the Community Board General Functions, “Maintain” section, to read:  “b) parks and reserves and associated public facilities, recreational facilities and activities within its local area.”  He also suggested that Community Board members be permitted to sit on resource management hearings across the city.  

Cr Shaw left the meeting at 5.50pm and rejoined the meeting at 5.55pm.

 

Resolved: (Mayor Barry/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                         Minute No. C 20309

“That Council:

(i)      notes the Local Government Commission’s findings and recommendations that a fresh approach to representation in the city is needed as evidenced by efforts through successive representation reviews to address inequities of representation at the community level between the three areas added and the ‘old Lower Hutt’;

(ii)     notes that Community Board functions and delegations have been reviewed several times between 2006 and 2019;

(iii)    adopts the delegations to Community Boards attached as Appendix 3 to the report including amendments made at the meeting;

(iv)    notes the results of the Community Panels qualitative evaluation;

(v)     agrees that Community Funding Panels will continue for this triennium;

(vi)    agrees that the role of Community Funding Panels is that of community funders focused on supporting local projects and initiatives and that the terms of reference will be amended to reflect this;

(vii)   agrees that the wider issues of second tier representation will be addressed in the next Representation Review;

(viii)  agrees that further work is completed on the “new model” including a Council and iwi workshop to:

(a)   identify communities of interest;

(b)   develop an approach for deciding which Councillors will work with each group; and

(c)   develop an agreed approach to ensure city-wide and ward Councillors work together with communities to ensure the best outcomes are achieved; and

(ix)    agrees that the process for appointing Community Funding Panel members will include:

(a)    advertising for expressions of interest – applicants will need to provide a CV together with support from community (references/support can be written or in person, not formal though);

 

(b)    short list by a subcommittee of Council comprised of two city wide and two ward Councillors and the Deputy Mayor, supported by officers as required;

 

(c)    recommendations to Council OR the subcommittee could be given decision making powers and required to report to Council to explain the decisions made; and

 

(d)          Community Funding Panel members appointed by full Council with a powhiri.”
         

For the reasons that representation is at the core of Council achieving its purpose of promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of local communities in the present and for the future.

e)

Adoption of Standing Orders (20/395)

Report No. HCC2020/3/102 by the Contractor