COUNCIL
Membership:	13
Meeting Cycle:	Council meets on an eight 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)
Quorum:	Half of the members

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 & Bylaw issues:

§ Adoption of all policy required by legislation.

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

§ Approval of draft bylaws prior to consultation.

§ Adoption of new or amended bylaws.

District Plan:

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

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

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

§ 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.

§ Adoption of Terms of Reference for Council Committees, Subcommittees and Working Groups, and oversight of those delegations.

§ Council‘s delegations to officers, community boards and community funding panels.

Delegations and employment of the Chief Executive:

§ Appointment of the Chief Executive of Hutt City Council.

§ 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:

§ Civil Defence Emergency Management 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).

§ Council’s Electoral Officer, Principal Rural Fire Officer and any other appointments required by statute.

§ The recipients of the annual Civic Honours awards.

TE KAUNIHERA O TE AWA KAIRANGI | HUTT CITY COUNCIL

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

Wednesday 30 June 2021 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. 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.

5. Decisions on the wind-up of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (21/791)

Report No. HCC2021/3/142 by the Financial Accounting Manager 8

Appendix 1: Advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers to be separately circulated in a supplementary agenda.

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed with a new part to read as follows:

(8) thanks Mr John Strahl as Chair and trustees, past and present, for their service, time and contribution to the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust.”

6. Adoption of Long Term Plan 2021-2031 (21/801)

Report No. HCC2021/3/138 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager 27

Appendix 1: Long Term Plan 2021-2031 to be separately circulated in a supplementary agenda.

The Mayor’s recommendation will be provided with the supplementary agenda.

7. Setting of rates for 2021/22 (21/802)

Report No. HCC2021/3/139 by the Business Analyst - Rates 40

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

8. Lending to Council Controlled Organisations (21/803)

Report No. HCC2021/3/140 by the Financial Accounting Manager 61

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

9. Proposed change to funding for Hutt Valley Gymnastics (21/910)

Report No. HCC2021/3/141 by the Head of Parks and Recreation 65

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

10. Revocation of Reserve and Sale of Council Land - Mitchell Park (21/932)

Report No. HCC2021/3/143 by the Team Leader Parks 75

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

11. Local Government New Zealand - Remits for Annual General Meeting August 2021 (21/990)

Report No. HCC2021/3/149 by the Head of Democratic Services 81

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

12. 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.

13. CLOSING FORMALITIES - Karakia WHAKAMUTUNGA

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio, he huka, he hau hū

Tīhei mauri ora.

Cease the winds from the west
Cease the winds from the south
Let the breeze blow over the land
Let the breeze blow over the ocean
Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air.
A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day.

Kate Glanville

SENIOR DEMOCRACY ADVISOR

8 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

21 June 2021

File: (21/791)

Report no: HCC2021/3/142

Decisions on the wind-up of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust

Purpose of Report

This report follows on from decisions by Council on 24 May 2021 to progress in principal the wind-up of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT) on 30 June 2021 (report LTPAP2021/2/120). The purpose of this report is to further progress and finalise decisions.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) notes and receives the report;

(2) notes the advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(3) agrees to proceed with the wind-up of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust effective as at 30 June 2021 at 11:59 pm;

(4) agrees that the Common Seal of Council be affixed to the Deed for the wind-up of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust as attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(5) agrees that the Trustees remain in office to complete all necessary and required wind-up actions that cannot be completed in advance of 30 June 2021, as detailed in Section D contained within the report;

(6) receives and agrees that the finalisation of the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust Statement of Intent for 2021/22 to 2023/24, reported as a draft to the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee on 23 February 2021, not proceed. Refer Appendix 3 to the report; and

(7) endorses the decisions of the Long Term Plan Working Group (comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chairs of standing committees) as detailed in Section G contained within the report.

Section A - Background

1. Council established CFT in 2012 with the intention of increasing community involvement in the provision of sporting and other community facilities.

2. Since its inception, the Trust has successfully developed four community hubs – Walter Nash Centre (WNS), Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub (KSVCH), Naenae Bowling Centre (NBS) and RICOH Sports Centre (home of Fraser Park Sportsville). These facilities are all well used and highly valued in their communities. WNS and KSVCH are both leased back to Council, while the other facilities are leased to community tenants.

3. The total value of the assets owned by the Trust as at 30 June 2020 amounted to $41M. A revaluation of assets is underway ahead of the 30 June 2021 financial year end. As at 30 April 2021, total loans from Council were $3.28M and cash held by CFT was $0.3M.

4. Extract from the 2020 CFT Statement of Intent:

CFT was established by the Hutt City Council (Council) in August 2012 as a CCO to promote, develop, own, operate, and maintain recreational, leisure, and community facilities in Lower Hutt.

The main role of the CFT has been to develop and then maintain a range of fit-for-purpose, leisure, recreation and community facilities that are attractive to the residents and visitors of Lower Hutt.

In 2019 the trustees conducted a strategic review of the CFT’s future direction and concluded that while it will remain a landlord of its existing facilities, most day to day work to provide ongoing management for these is best conducted by Council staff as is future project management of new builds. The board concluded that CFT’s main focus will be to provide leadership in the identification, promotion and fundraising for new projects which support Council’s overall strategic objectives.

5. In the Annual Plan 2020/21 process and the preparation of the Draft LTP 2021-2031 there were no projects planned for the future that would be delivered through CFT.

Section B - Draft Long term plan 2021-2031 public consultation on CFT future

6. A report was presented to the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee on 30 November 2020 entitled “Hutt City Community Facilities Trust – options for the future” (Report Number LTPAP2020/6/294). This report notes a number of funding challenges for CFT which required Council to approve additional funding; in particular in regards to Ricoh Sports Centre (operated by Fraser Park Sportsville) and other asset maintenance/renewals related issues across CFT properties.

7. External advice was sought from PWC about the options for CFT going forward. The PWC report presented to the Subcommittee in November 2020 included a number of options. Council agreed to a preference with the option to transfer CFT assets to Council with CFT retained as a non-active Trust for potential future use. Council also agreed to include this preferred option in the Draft LTP 2021-2031(DLTP) for public consultation. Ahead of final decisions it was agreed officers would progress further detailed assessment and planning in line with the preferred option.

8. The PWC advice was clear that a Council decision would be subject to a number of things, including

o the venues continuing to be used for the benefit of the community,

o there being no adverse tax consequences, and

o public consultation supporting the proposal.

Section C - Progressing final Council decisions

9. Council considered the feedback from the public engagement on the DLTP at the meeting 24 May 2021 (refer report LTPAP2001/2/120) and resolved as follows:

- notes the public consultation undertaken for the draft Long Term Plan 2021-2031 in regards to the future of Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT);

- agrees in principle to proceed with the wind-up of CFT and the distribution of assets to Council on 30 June 2021;

- directs officers to progress planning and preparation for the wind up of CFT and the distribution of assets to Council;

10. The report included detailed information and updates to Council on the broader planning and preparation for changes. This included an update on legal matters and a draft wind up agreement. The key aspects covered here included:

- The Trust will wind up and properties and surplus assets of the Trust will be transferred to Hutt City Council. This is allowed under the Trust Deed.

- Each property will transfer to Council without practical changes to the occupants or the current sponsorship agreements. Where the Council has ground leases to CFT and subsequent building leases from CFT to Council, these will be surrendered back to Council. Where CFT has leases with 3^rd parties they will remain in place with Council taking over as landlord for these leases.

- Currently Squash New Zealand owns a portion of the Ricoh Centre. There are currently two means of dealing with this arrangement. Either Squash New Zealand continues to own the portion of the building and leases this to Council, or as per the current agreement CFT can buy this off Squash NZ for $1.00 after the 30^th June 2021.

- Any money held in maintenance funds by the Trust will be transferred to Council. Council will use these funds for their designated purposes. Any cash on hand held by the Trust will be used to pay down the balances of any loans made by Council to the Trust.

- The trustees shall take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss or liability. The Council Indemnifies the Trust and Trustees in relation to any liability including tax of any nature which arises as a consequence of the wind up and transfer.

11. An update on the taxation risks was also reported to Council. On Council’s behalf, PWC had been in contact with both the Charities Commission and Inland Revenue Department with an outline of the winding up proposal for CFT. A detailed report by PWC explained the steps taken to assess the tax risks, which were summarised as being overall low. To further mitigate tax risks, a binding ruling from the IRD was progressed in May 2021 ahead of the planned wind up date of 30 June 2021. Officer advice was that an update on the binding ruling would be reported back on 30 June 2021.

12. The IRD binding ruling process has progressed well and no issues have been identified by Inland Revenue. The final taxation advice from PWC (Appendix 1) will has distributed in a supplementary agenda. Officer advice is to proceed with the wind-up and transfer of assets.

13. Note that the PWC Partner Phil Fisher will be in attendance at the meeting to support any queries in regards to the taxation risks and advice.

14. Officers are seeking a final decision by Council to proceed with the wind-up of CFT effective 30 June 2021 at 11:59pm.

Section D - CFT Board matters

15. John Strahl, Chairman of the CFT board attended the LTP/AP Subcommittee meeting on 24 May 2021 and provided the Board’s view on the proposed wind-up and the engagement and planning that was underway. He will also be in attendance at the 30 June 2021 meeting.

16. Whilst the Trust is to be wound up with effective date 30 June 2021, there are transition matters that are required to be dealt with post this date. The CFT Annual Report for the period ended 30 June 2021 will be audited and is expected to be completed by 30 September 2021. There will be financial transactions that need to be completed and transitioned, such as payments to suppliers.

17. The Deed for the wind-up (Appendix 2) anticipates this and states “that the Trustees will remain in office to complete all necessary and required wind-up actions that cannot be completed in advance, such as completion and sign off of the annual accounts, audit and deregistration from the Charities Register. The Trustees shall receive no remuneration for this work from the Trust and will all resign immediately on completion of such actions”.

18. This period of transition and wind-up actions is estimated to take up to six months.

Section E - Continuing use and services at the facilities post 1 July 2021

19. Under the proposal, all venues will continue to operate as they currently are into the future. A series of activities is planned to ensure a smooth transition, including meetings between the CFT Chair, the tenants and Council’s Asset management team, who will take over as ‘landlords’. This includes meeting with the tenants each year to set an appropriate rent. Handover meetings are also being scheduled with all existing facility sponsors.

20. Council’s Head of Parks and Recreation will continue to manage the relationship with Fraser Park Sportsville in relation to its operating grant.

21. The CFT website will be retired, and relevant content will be transferred to Council’s website.

22. In regards to long-term management and maintenance, the facilities will be included in Council’s overall asset management approach.

Section F - Statement of Intent for period commencing 1 July 2021

23. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires the Board of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to deliver to its shareholders, a final SOI on or before 30 June each year.

24. The LGA also requires Council to agree to a SOI, or if it does not agree, take all reasonable steps to require a SOI to be modified, as soon as practicable after a SOI of a CCO is delivered to it.

25. Council received and considered the draft SOI for the three years commencing 1 July 2021 for CFT in February 2021. The draft was prepared on the basis that CFT would continue to maintain its facilities, even although no new developments were planned for the next ten years.

26. Given Council decision in principal on 24 May 2021 to proceed with the wind-up of CFT on 30 June 2021, the SOI has been updated to reflect this. All prospective financial and non-financial information previously contained within the draft SOI is now redundant and has been removed as attached in Appendix 3 to the report.

Section G – LTP Working Group decision re. Naenae Bowls funding

27. Appendix 4 provides details of an issue related to Naenae Bowls Centre (NBC) indoor green surface which requires remediation. Due to continued deterioration NBC has been advised by NZ Bowls that the surface does not meet all of the playing criteria for international events and NBC will no longer be granted hosting rights for such tournaments including losing the World Championship for next year.

28. The LTP Working Group (comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chairs) considered this matter on 16 June 2021 and agreed to confirm the funding solution proposed by CFT for the shortfall of $109k. In summary CFT surplus cash will be applied for this purpose, which reduces the funding available to be applied to offset loans owning to Council at wind up.

Section H - Next steps

29. CFT’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2021 will be prepared and audited. The finalised Annual Report will be presented to the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee on 5 October 2021.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

30. There are no direct climate change impacts or considerations arising from this report other than those identified within the report.

Legal Considerations

31. As set out in the body of this report the Deed for the wind-up (Appendix 2) will transfer property to Council without practical changes to the occupants or the current sponsorship agreements. Where CFT has leased the buildings to Council these have been surrendered, where third parties lease properties these leases are remaining in place with Council as a party. Council has entered into contracts for these arrangements.

32. The signing of the Deed for the wind-up is within the Chief Executive’s and Directors’ delegations.

33. As covered by PWC advice there is a taxation risk. However, a binding ruling from IRD has been progressed and Appendix 1 includes PWC latest information and advice on this.

34. Trustees will continue to remain in office to complete necessary and required wind up actions that cannot be completed in advance. This is necessary but Council will need to be aware of actions taken by the Trustees in completing these actions.

Financial Considerations

35. The revised and final SOI of CFT has been prepared based on the assumption that the Trust is wound up with effect 30 June 2021.All revenues and expenditures previously in CFT have transfer over to Council and are included in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

36. There are no further financial considerations apart from those detailed in the report.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 – PricewaterhouseCoopers advised will be separately circulated as a supplementary agenda
2	Appendix 2 - CFT Deed of Wind up	14
⇩3	Appendix 3 - CFT SOI for 2021-2024	23
⇩4	Appendix 4 - Naenae bowls funding matter	25

Author: Darrin Newth

Financial Accounting Manager

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed By: Melanie Laban

Head of Community Projects and Relationships

Approved By: Andrea Blackshaw

Director Neighbourhoods and Communities

39 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

09 June 2021

File: (21/801)

Report no: HCC2021/3/138

Adoption of Long Term Plan 2021-2031

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 to Council for adoption.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) receives the information;

(2) endorses the decisions of the Long Term Plan Working Group (comprising the Mayor and Chairs of standing committees) as detailed in table 2;

(3) notes that the Long Term Plan 2021-2031, attached as Appendix 1, has been prepared based on the final decisions of Council on 9 June 2021 and the subsequent decisions of the Long Term Plan Working Group(refer table 2);

(4) receives the audit opinion from Audit New Zealand;

(5) resolves that it is financially prudent to have an unbalanced budget until 2028/29 as detailed in Section E;

(6) agrees to adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy, included in Appendix 1, Section 5;

(7) agrees to adopt the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 attached as Appendix 1; and

(8) agrees that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to make minor changes to the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 document, refer Section G.

Acronyms

LTP – Long Term Plan 2021-2031

Capex – Capital expenditure

Opex – Operational expenditure

LGA - Local Government Act 2002

Section A – Legal context

Legal context for the Long Term Plan 2021-2031(LTP)

2. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires all Councils to adopt a Long Term Plan and review it every three years. The LTP must be adopted before the commencement of the first financial year it relates to after being consulted with the community through a special consultative procedure. Whilst Council is required to adopt a Long Term Plan every three years, in the intervening years an Annual Plan is required. These plans set out the service levels, work plans and budgets for the coming years, and provide the basis on which Council’s rates are set.

3. The LGA requires the adoption of the LTP prior to the start of each financial year. This means that Council is required to adopt the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) on or before 30 June 2021. If Council does not adopt the LTP, it may not set rates for 2021/22. The rates resolution is included as a separate report in this agenda. The rates resolution will be considered by Council once the LTP has been adopted. Failing to adopt the LTP could impact on Council’s ability to continue to deliver services and projects for Lower Hutt.

Legal context of the balanced budget requirement and financial prudence

4. Section 101 of the LGA requires all local authorities to “manage its revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments, and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.”

5. Section 100 subsection 1 of the LGA states:

A local authority must ensure that each year’s projected operating revenues are set at a level sufficient to meet that year’s projected operating expenses.

Section 100, then goes on to say:

2) Despite subsection (1), a local authority may set projected operating revenues at a different level from that required by that subsection if the local authority resolves that it is financially prudent to do so, having regard to—

(a) the estimated expenses of achieving and maintaining the predicted levels of service provision set out in the long-term plan, including the estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful life; and

(b) the projected revenue available to fund the estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful life; and

(c) the equitable allocation of responsibility for funding the provision and maintenance of assets and facilities throughout their useful life; and

(d) the funding and financial policies adopted under section 102.

Section B – Overview of the LTP process

6. Table 1 provides a summary of the high-level plan and process completed for the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Table 1: High-level plan and process

Activity	Date
Officers progressed initial planning and preparation	July to Aug 2020
Waste Services Review decisions	15 Sept 2020
Councillor and Community Boards Chairs LTP hui	21 Sept 2020
High level plan endorsed together with key assumptions. Initial decisions progressed on strategic direction and policies.	24 Sep 2020
Council agreed: purpose, vision and themes for engagement, three waters investment, base budget review changes, rates policy etc.	27 Oct 2020
Development contributions policy and Revenue and Financing policy progressed.	30 Nov 2020
Early engagement seeking feedback on key priorities	2 Dec to 18 January 2021
Key decisions finalised to enable draft CD and DLTP to be prepared ahead of audit.	21 December 2020
Feedback from early engagement. Initial draft CD and DLTP, Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy endorsed ahead of external audit.	10 February 2021
Council adopts CD and DLTP for public engagement	31 March 2021
Formal public consultation	6 Apr to 6 May
Council briefing on results of public consultation	13 May 2021
Public hearing of submissions elated advice	20 & 21 May 2021
Council agreed direction/decisions post public consultation	24 May 2021
Council agreed final decisions	9 June 2021
External audit process	8 June to 30 June
Council adopts the LTP and sets the rates	30 June 2021

Section C – Further information on the process to prepare the LTP

7. Over the past 18 months Council has made a range of decisions to address key matters across Lower Hutt. This has included drafting a LTP amendment in early 2020 to progress major projects such as Naenae Pool (which was ultimately deferred as a result of COVID-19), the Annual Plan 2020/21 Emergency budget and completing a LTP 2018-2028 amendment to implement a new waste and recycling service.

8. Ahead of preparing the draft LTP 2021-2031 (DLTP), Council’s work programme broadly focused on investment in basic infrastructure and services. A number of specific challenges faced by Hutt City Council were identified in preparing the DLTP, including:

- Demand and pressure on infrastructure, largely due to ageing assets and historical underinvestment,

- Housing supply and affordability,

- Delivering services for a fast growing population,

- Climate change and sustainability,

- Covid-19 impacts and uncertainties.

9. Officers sought elected member feedback and direction through a range of engagements, including a hui with Councillors and Community Board Chairs in September 2020, in order to progress the development of the DLTP. From this hui, officers were able to distill the aspirations, priorities and vision elected members have for the city. As a result of this and general public feedback (from relevant consultations), six draft priorities were agreed:

- Investing in infrastructure | Whanake i ngā poupou o te hapori

- Increasing housing supply | Hei āhuru mōwai mō te katoa

- Caring for and protecting our environment | Tiaki taiao

- Supporting an innovative, agile economy and attractive city | Taunaki ōhanga auaha, tāone whakapoapoa

- Connected communities | Tūhono hapori

- Being financially sustainable | Whakauka ahumoni.

10. Early engagement with the public on these priorities took place from 2 December 2020 to 18 January 2021. There was generally strong support for these priorities.

11. Detailed proposals for public consultation were then developed by Council across the six key priority areas. Council considered a wide range of advice and information in developing the DLTP from September 2020 to March 2021. This included full reviews of the Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, Revenue and Financing Policy, Development Contributions Policy and rating policies.

12. Council included a range of budget cuts and savings in the preparation of the LTP, which equated to annual savings of $5.2M.

13. The DLTP Consultation Document and supporting information are statutorily required to be audited. Audit NZ worked alongside relevant staff for some months to complete the audit process for the consultation phase. Audit NZ issued their audit opinion on 31 March 2021 ahead of the public consultation proceeding. The audit opinion included three matters of emphasis being:

- uncertainty over the delivery of the capital programme,

- uncertainty over the Three Waters Reforms

- uncertainty over the Three Waters forecasts (largely due to the asset condition information based on age of assets).

14. The Consultation Document and supporting DLTP information adopted on 31 March 2021 outlined Council’s proposals for 2021-2031. Options were presented for each proposal and public feedback was sought from the 6 April to 6 May 2021. The key proposals covered:

- Three waters investment

- Transport investment

- Naenae pool

- Petone wharf

- RiverLink

- Rates policy

- Development contributions policy.

15. A dedicated web site attracted high numbers of visits with people engaging with the material available. 427 survey forms were completed via ‘Bang the Table’ during the engagement period (337 full forms and 90 single priority forms). An additional 25 paper forms were received.

16. Hui were held with Iwi Mana Whenua and a number of café style engagement hui were held in our community facilities. Hui occurred with a range of interest groups across the education, social services, business and community sector. Social media played a key role. There were at least 117 conversations on the Hutt City Council Facebook page relating to the 10 year plan and Facebook polls received 1,617 responses. The hearing of public submissions took place on the 20 and 21 May 2021.

17. Detailed analysis of the LTP submissions helped inform Council decisions on the proposals. At the LTP subcommittee meetings of 24 May 2021 the Council considered the analysis of the results of the public engagement process and progressed a range of decisions for the LTP, such as Rating Policy, Development Contributions Policy and budget decisions. The subcommittee met again on 9 June 2021 and finalised decisions for the LTP. These included decisions on all the proposals, some budget changes to operating and capital expenditure and retaining the rates revenue increase for 2021/22 at the same level as per the DLTP but increasing it slightly for later years in the plan.

18. An extract of a selection of the resolutions from the Council meeting on
9 June 2021 follow:

(3) notes that the detailed analysis and results of the public engagement was reported to Council 24 May 2021, refer Section C;

(4) approves for inclusion in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 the Three Waters investment option 1, refer paragraphs 12 to 14;

(5) approves for inclusion in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 the Transport investment option 1, refer paragraphs 15 to 17;

(6) approves for inclusion in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 the Naenae pool investment option 1, refer paragraphs 18 to 20;

(8) approves the inclusion in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031, the Cycling and Micromobility programme investment option 2, as detailed in table 2 of the report;

(9) agrees the rates increases to be included in the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 as follows:

	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026-2031
Rates revenue increase¹	5.9%²	5.9%	5.9%	7.2%	7.2%	7.2%

Note 1- excludes revenue from growth in the rating base

Note 2- excludes impact of service changes introduced in 2021/22 for waste services (rubbish, recycling and green waste)

(10) notes the projected rating impact for 2021/22 for the average residential ratepayer is $2.51 per week which excludes the new targeted rates for rubbish and recycling;

(11) notes the projected debt and debt to revenue ratio for the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031, refer graphs 2 and 3;

(12) notes the projected balanced budget position for the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031, refer graph 4;

(13) endorses the updated Statement of Service Performance information, refer Appendix 4;

(14) notes the external audit process that is to be completed.

19. An overview of the capital investment programme is provided in graph 1, which shows the planned $1.5B investment over the ten years. This investment is more than double the previous LTP, with two thirds of the programme focused on Three Waters and Transport. This reflects Council’s commitment to address years of underinvestment in these vital areas for our city and is a prime driver for the planned rates rises in the next ten years.

Graph 1: Total capital expenditure by year and council activity

Section D – Decisions by the LTP Working Group

20. Since the last LTP/AP Subcommittee meeting on 9 June 2021, the timelines have been particularly tight to finalise the external audit process and prepare the final LTP. This has been anticipated at the meeting 9 June 2021 and Council resolved as follows:

- agrees that the LTP Working Group (comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chairs of Committees) be delegated the authority to make decisions as required in preparing the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 for Council adoption on 30 June 2021; and

- requires that any such decisions made by the LTP Working Group be reported back to the Council meeting on 30 June 2021.

21. The decisions that have been progressed through the LTP Working Group are summarised in Table 2. The LTP/AP Subcommittee is requested to endorse these decisions.

Table 2 – Decisions of LTP Working Group

Brief description

LTP Working Group decision

In early June 2021 Waka Kotahi notified Council’s across the New Zealand about reductions in funding available for the 2021-2024 National Land Transport Programme. For HCC we were notified that our local roads maintenance programme bid of $53.3M would be funded up to a limit of $45.7M (a 14% reduction). This equates to a $3.86M reduction in Waka Kotahi funding in the LTP compared to what has been included (or $1.29M in the first three years of the plan). This represents 1.6% reduction in the total Waka Kotahi funding included in the LTP.

Given the time constraints, the LTP Working Group agreed the pragmatic response is not to adjust the LTP for this matter ahead of 30 June 2021.

The Head of Transport will prepare a report on this matter for decision early in 2021/22 to consider service level impacts and funding options.

External audit: The funding difference of $3.86M is not material and therefore there is no audit opinion impact. It has been recorded as an unadjusted error.

The key performance indicator content of the LTP (part of the Statements of Service Performance) was presented to the LTP Working Group following changes made from feedback received.

The LTP Working Group agreed the need to improve the format. The KPI content was endorsed.

Section E - Balanced budget requirement and financial prudence

22. Sections 100 and 101 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) are the relevant legislation to be considered. The overarching requirement in this legislation is to act prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.

23. Financial prudence is not defined in the Act. In the standard dictionary sense prudence means ‘careful’, ‘sensible’, or ‘habit of acting with careful deliberation’.

24. Council has considered the legislative requirement for a balanced budget and financial prudence a number of times in the preparation of the draft LTP and ahead of finalising decisions for the LTP. Factoring in the economic environment as a result of COVID-19 and affordability of rates has been front of mind in these decisions.

25. In deciding on the LTP investment programme and the rates revenue settings, Council has worked to find a pragmatic response aiming to take into consideration the pressures on current ratepayers and ensuring the Council remains financially sustainable into the future, whereby the actions of today do not significantly impact unfairly on ratepayers in the future.

26. The financial projections included in the LTP show:

– A projected underlying net operating deficit in 2021/22 of $14.7M,

– A balanced budget projected to be achieved in 2028/29 (refer graph 2),

– Net debt is projected to peak at $573M in 2028/29,

– Net debt to revenue peaks at 191%, which is within the financial strategy limit of 250% (refer graph 3).

27. The rates revenue decisions included in the LTP (refer paragraph 18), are a key driver of the balanced budget being achieved in 2028/29. Graph 2 shows this projected balanced budget position over the period of the LTP, whilst graph 3 shows the projected net debt to revenue ratio is retained well within the limit of 250% throughout the period of the LTP.

28. Officer advice is that Council can resolve that it is financially prudent to have an unbalanced budget until 2028/29, as revenues are increasing over the ten year period of the LTP and repayment of the debt is occurring so as avoid a significant impact on future ratepayers. The projected balanced budget position does not impact on Council’s ability to maintain its levels of service, undertake asset renewals and is consistent with the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Graph 2: Projected balanced budget position

Note - The Hutt City Council balanced budget target is defined as the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014 definition, modified to exclude from the definition of revenue Waka Kotahi capital improvement subsidies and central government COVID-19 Response and Recovery co-funding for Naenae Pool and Eastern Bays Shared Path.

Graph 3: Projected net debt to revenue ratio compared to debt to revenue limit of 250%

29. Further detailed information:

The LTP includes a range of further detailed information, including the “Our finances at a glance”, Financial Strategy, Revenue and Financing Policy, significant forecasting assumptions, Prudence Reporting, detailed financial statements and funding impact statements.

Details of the rating impact are available in a separate report in this agenda entitled “Setting the rates for 2021/22”, as well as in the LTP “Funding Impact Statement for rates 2021/22”.

Section F – Final external audit of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031

30. The final LTP is required to be audited prior to adoption by Council. The audit commenced on 8 June 2021. This audit involves reviewing and understanding significant changes made to the DLTP following consultation. The audit team will gain assurance that appropriate consequential changes and disclosures have been made.

31. Auditing the long term plan involves reporting on whether the plan provides a reasonable basis for:

- long-term decision-making and co-ordination of Council’s resources;

- its accountability to the community.

32. The audit team will also report on whether the LTP’s underlying information and assumptions are reasonable and whether certain legislative disclosure requirements have been met.

33. The Audit Director will be in attendance at the meeting and provide an update on the audit opinion. The same three matters of emphasis that were raised in the audit opinion for the Consultation Document for draft LTP have been retained in the final audit opinion. An audit opinion will be distributed in a supplementary agenda along with Appendix 1 being the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Section G - Preparation of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 document

34. The final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 has been updated to reflect the decisions made by Council on 9 June 2021 – Refer Appendix 1.

35. The LTP document will be published on Council’s website. It is required to be made available on Council‘s website no later than 30 July 2021.

36. Due to the tight timelines involved in preparing information for this report there may be the need for minor editorial changes (for example from final proof reading) and/or design changes as part of the publication process of the LTP document. Council is requested to delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to make any minor changes required ahead of the publication of the document.

Consultation

37. Reports considered at the 24 May 2021 and 9 June 2021 LTP/AP Subcommittee meetings addressed matters related to public consultation process for the draft Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

38. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide. Climate impact statements need to be compiled for decisions/projects that affect greenhouse gas emissions (in relation to both Council’s own emissions and city-wide emissions) and/or are affected by a changing climate (e.g. sea level rise, etc.).

39. The LTP directly responds to the need to achieve emission reductions, by embedding emission reductions in a range of initiatives. For example, Council’s investment in Naenae Pool includes that the new building would not use natural gas for heating and instead utilise alternative low-carbon energy sources. The LTP also includes a number of projects to reduce emissions, including the decarbonisation of Council facilities (including pools and the Dowse) and by investing in public charging stations in order to order help accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles in the community.

40. Where applicable, climate impact statements are, or should be, in place for each of the key initiatives or investments that have been included in the LTP.

Legal Considerations

41. The requirements of the Local Government Act have been followed in respect of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Financial Considerations

42. Reports considered at the 24 May 2021 and 9 June 2021 meetings addressed financial considerations in detail and can be referenced for further information.

Appendices

Appendix 1 will be circulated separately as a supplementary agenda.

Author: Philip Benseman

Budgeting and Reporting Manager

Author: Daniel Koenders

Manager Financial Strategy & Planning

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

50 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

16 June 2021

File: (21/802)

Report no: HCC2021/3/139

Setting of rates for 2021/22

Purpose of Report

1. To set the rates for the year commencing 1 July 2021 and ending 30 June 2022, under the Local Government (Rating)Act 2002.

Recommendation

That Council resolves to set the rates and add penalties to unpaid rates during the 2021/22 rating year by passing the resolution attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Acronyms:

DLTP – Draft Long Term Plan 2021-2031

FLTP – Final Long Term Plan 2021-2031

LTPAP – Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

SUIP – Separately used or inhabited part

Background

2. At the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee meeting of 24 May 2021, there were two reports considered in relation to the setting of rates for 2021/22. Firstly a report on rating policy decisions (refer LTPAP2021/2/124) and then a report on the overall Long Term Plan 2021-31 budget decisions (refer LTPAP2021/2/125) which included the rates revenue aspects.

3. At the 9 June 2021 subcommittee meeting, further information on rates was presented (refer LTPAP2021/3/130) and Council endorsed the proposed rates increases for the term of the FLTP.

4. Subject to Council first adopting the final Long Term Plan 2021-2031 at the meeting of 30 June 2021, Council can then set the rates for the 2021/22 rating year. Attached to this report are the detailed rating resolutions (Appendix 1) and the Funding Impact Statement including rates for 2021/22 (Appendix 2). Both these appendices have been prepared based on the Council’s final LTP decisions.

Rating policy and system

5. Council’s rating system includes:

- a general rate, based on the capital value of a property;

- existing targeted rates, based on a fixed amount per property (known as a rating unit) or separately used part of a property (SUIP) for: water supply, wastewater and recycling;

- a new targeted rate for rubbish collection based on a fixed amount per SUIP where the ratepayer can choose between an 80 litre, 120 litre or 240 litre wheelie bin;

- a new targeted rate for green waste collection based on a fixed amount per SUIP where the ratepayer can choose to opt in for the monthly collection service; and

- a targeted rate to fund the Jackson Street Programme activity based on the capital value of commercial properties with frontage to Jackson Street, Petone between Hutt Road and Cuba Street.

Further details are provided in Appendix 2, the Funding Impact Statement including rates for 2021/22.

Targeted rates

6. Table 1 that follows provides a summary of the changes in the targeted rates and amounts for 2021/22 compared to the previous year 2020/21.

Table 1: Targeted rates for 2021/22

Differential	2020/21	2021/22	Change since 2020/21
Wastewater –per SUIP	$519	$559	$40
Water supply rate –per SUIP	$489	$520	$31
Recycling – per SUIP	$40	$105	$65
Refuse/rubbish 80 litre per SUIP¹	$0	$105	New
Refuse/rubbish 120 litre per SUIP¹	$0	$144	New
Refuse/rubbish 240 litre per SUIP¹	$0	$288	New
240L Green waste per SUIP (optional)	$0	$95	New

Note 1: Ratepayers will be charged one of the refuse/rubbish targeted rates.

Water supply targeted rate

7. The water supply targeted rate is a fixed amount per rating unit or SUIP.

8. The increase to the overall water supply targeted rate is 6.3%, being a $31.00 increase (from $489.00 in 2020/21 per SUIP on a rating unit to $520.00 in 2021/22). The increase reflects the significant increased investment for this priority area.

Wastewater targeted rate

9. The wastewater targeted rate is a fixed amount per SUIP (or water closet/urinal for rating units in the commercial categories). Any property, regardless of its rateable value, pays fixed rates before the general rate in the dollar is applied to the property’s rateable value.

10. The increase to the overall wastewater targeted rate is 7.7%, being a $40.00 increase (from $519.00 per SUIP on a rating unit to $559.00). The increase reflects the significant increased investment for this priority area.

11. For rating units in any of the commercial categories, an additional charge of 50% of the full charge ($279.50) for the second and any subsequent water closet or urinal on the rating unit.

Targeted rates for recycling, refuse/rubbish and green waste collection

12. The new kerbside rubbish and recycling collection services will begin 1 July 2021 and properties will be rated for this service through targeted rates.

13. The new service includes an optional green waste collection that ratepayers can opt in for. This will begin 1 July 2021 and properties that have opted in will be rated for this service through a targeted rate.

14. The introduction of the new kerbside rubbish, recycling, and green waste services were consulted on as part of a Long Term Plan Amendment in late 2020. The DLTP was based on the decisions from this LTP amendment process.

Recycling collection targeted rate

15. The recycling collection targeted rate will increase from $40 per annum in 2020/21 to $105 per annum in 2021/22 and will include both a 120 litre or 240 litre wheelie bin for mixed recyclables and a 45 litre crate for glass.

New refuse/rubbish collection targeted rates

16. The new kerbside rubbish collection service will include weekly collection of a wheelie bin of general rubbish.

17. The amount of the refuse/rubbish collection targeted rate will depend on the level of service the ratepayer has chosen. The default service is a 120 litre wheelie bin collected weekly.

18. Ratepayers have the option to choose, instead of the default, an 80 litre or 240 litre wheelie bin collected weekly.

19. The targeted rate amounts in 2021/22 for the different sized bins are shown in the table below:

Wheelie bin size	Final LTP targeted rate amount
80 litre	$105
120 litre (default)	$144
240 litre	$288

20. Homeowners will no longer need to purchase rubbish bags or pay for a private rubbish collection service.

New green waste collection targeted rate

21. The new kerbside waste service will include an optional monthly collection of a 240 litre wheelie bin for green waste.

22. Ratepayers can opt in to the service, and only those ratepayers that do will pay the targeted rate.

23. The targeted rate amount in 2021/22 for the Green Waste service is $95.

General rate differential

24. The general rate is a rate in the dollar assessed on the rateable value of each property.

25. Through the DLTP options on rating policy change were presented for public feedback. Following the public submission process, the Council agreed a change to rating policy for 2021/22.

26. At the Council meeting 24 May 2021, the Council resolved as follows (refer report LTPAP2021/2/124):

(iii) agrees to adopting a percentage allocation approach for sharing the total general rate as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan;

(iv) agrees to reduce the residential rating category share of general rates from 63% to 62% in 2021/22 and making further reductions of 1% per year for the following two years with the corresponding increase in commercial percentage as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan;

(vi) agrees to combining the Commercial Queensgate and Commercial Central differential rating category as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan;

(vii) agrees to removing the Commercial Accommodation differential category by merging properties into either Commercial Central or Commercial Suburban differential rating categories depending on location as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan;

27. In summary, the option approved by Council for 2021/22 is an allocation of the General Rate based on a percentage share between the Residential and Commercial differential rating categories. The commercial differentials have been consolidated from four to two categories.

28. The revised rating differentials based on the percentages agreed are summarised below.

Table 2: Summary of rating differentials for 2021/22

Property category	Differential
Residential	1.000
Commercial central (includes Queensgate)	2.997
Commercial suburban	2.781
Rural	0.747
Utility networks	2.842

29. Graph 1 provides a summary of the allocation of general rates across the property categories in 2021/22.

Graph 1: General rates allocation by property category

Rates revenue increase

30. At the Council meeting 9 June 2021, Council resolved in support of the rates revenue increase to be included in the FLTP as follows:

	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026-2031
Rates revenue increase¹	5.9%²	5.9%	5.9%	7.2%	7.2%	7.2%

Note 1- excludes revenue from growth in the rating base

Note 2- excludes impact of service changes introduced in 2021/22 for waste services (rubbish, recycling and green waste)

31. The 2021/22 total rates revenue (excluding GST) totals $129.5M which includes $49.8M of targeted rates for the year.

Rating impact

32. The rating analysis and impact that follows was prepared in mid-June. While there is likely to be further growth in the rating database, analysis shows this will be minimal between mid-June and the end of June.

33. Based on LTP 2021-2031 budgets, the changes in average property rates for 2021/22 compared to 2020/21 levels are summarised in table 3. These are shown including GST but excluding Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Table 3: Rates impact for 2021/22

Property Category	Capital Value as at 1 July 2021	2020/21 Rates	Final Long Term Plan 2021/22 Rates
Property Category	Capital Value as at 1 July 2021	2020/21 Rates	Change per annum	Change per week	%
Average Residential¹	$628,5000	$2,608	$131	$2.51	5.0%
Average Commercial Central	$1,740,915	$13,994	$808	$15.53	5.8%
Average Commercial Suburban	$1,642,500	$11,922	$1,202	$23.12	10.1%
Commercial Queensgate²	$295,000,000	$1,906,376	$394,488	$7,586.31	20.7%
Average Rural (no services)¹	$872,000	$1,617	$61	$1.17	3.8%
Utilities	$2,630,700	$18,294	$966	$18.57	5.3%

Note 1: Residential and Rural 2021/2022 rates do not include increases for rubbish, recycling, and green waste.

Note 2: Queensgate property value has increased from $240M to $295M.

34. Graph 2 shows the movement in rates for the average residential property from 2020/21 to 2021/22.

Graph 2: Average residential property rates change

Note: Residential 2021/2022 rates do not include increases for rubbish, recycling, and green waste.

35. Table 4 provides the indicative rating impact for the average residential property in a selection of suburbs across the city.

Table 4: Average residential property rates per suburb

Rates remissions

Changes to Rates Remission Policy

36. At the Council meeting 24 May 2021, the Council resolved as follows (refer report LTPAP2021/2/124):

(viii) agrees to the Rates Remission Policy being updated to include a one year remission of 50% of the increase of the general rate for ratepayers changing from Rural to Residential rating category and from Commercial Accommodation to Commercial Central rating category as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan;

37. In addition to the two new rates remissions, there are also amendments to two of the existing remissions to support the new Rubbish and Recycling service. Table 5 shows the changes summarised:

Table 5: Summary of changes to Rates Remission Policy

Section	Policy title	Change proposed
Part 3	Remission of targeted rates in certain circumstances	The wording of this policy is updated to make it easier to understand while keeping the original intent. New conditions provide the ability to grant a remission of the Rubbish and Recycling targeted rates for undeveloped land and to remit targeted rates on a property damaged and uninhabitable as the result of a fire.
Part 8	Remission of rates and charges on land affected by natural calamity	A minor change to allow for the remission of the Rubbish and Recycling targeted rates.
Part 9	NEW Remission of rates – Transition Rural to Residential	A new remission to provide the ability for a one year 50% remission of general rate increases payable for a property moving from the Rural to the Residential rating category.
Part 10	NEW Remission of rates – Transition Commercial Accommodation to Commercial Central	A new remission to provide the ability a one year 50% remission of general rate increases payable for a property moving from the Commercial Accommodation to the Commercial Central rating category.

Rates Remission for Economic Development

38. Part 5 of the Council’s Rates Remission Policy allows for remission of rates to promote employment and economic development within Lower Hutt. The stated objective of the policy is to encourage the establishment or relocation of new businesses to the City and to encourage the expansion of existing businesses.

39. Once granted, the remission remains in place for the period approved. The remission is calculated as between 50% and 100% of the rates assessed on the capital value of the new investment only.

40. There are no new properties recommended for remission under this policy for 2021/22. The total value of the remissions in 2021/22 is $344,953.58. It was $382,434.98 in 2020/21. The decrease in the value of the total remission is the result of the remission for Jackson Street Holdings finishing at the end of 2020/21.

41. Table 6 shows the list of existing remissions and the value of the remission for 2021/22. This is provided for information purposes only and no decisions are being sought in relation to this information.

Table 6: 2021/22 Economic Development Rates Remission

Company	Term	Property ID	Address	Remission (inc GST)1
General Distributions Ltd	3 of 5	Various	The Strand	$125,760.48
Pacific Property Fund No2 Ltd	3 of 3	9002268	120 Hutt Park Rd	$52,112.79
Aubury Trust	4 of 5	9006848 & 308000	45-47 Queens Dr	$32,207.92
Pet Vet	3 of 5	579000	53 Rutherford St	$22,700.24
AP & AP Ltd	4of 5	9005058	8 Melling Road	$112,202.15
		Total value of remission 2021/22		$344,983.58

Note 1: The remission quoted for 2021/2022 is calculated on the figures in the Rates Funding Impact Statement attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

42. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

Consultation

43. The public engagement process on the DLTP took place from the 6 April 2021 to the 6 May 2021. The proposed changes to rating policy and rates increases were included in this process. Council considered the feedback from the consultation process ahead of finalising decisions on the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Legal Considerations

44. The rates are to be set in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the requirements of which include the following:

a. after setting the rates, sending each ratepayer:

i. an assessment showing full details of rates on each rating unit, including how each rate is calculated and what activities are funded by the rate.

ii. a brief description of Council’s rates remission and postponement policies.

b. sending a copy of the resolution setting the rates to the Secretary of Local Government within 20 working days of it being passed.

45. As in previous years, the rating resolution (Appendix 1 to the report), includes authority to charge late payment penalties of 10 per cent on rates instalments not paid by the due date. In addition it also provides for additional 10 per cent penalties to be charged each six months on rates remaining outstanding from previous years.

46. The rating resolution (Appendix 1) and Rates Funding Impact Statement (Appendix 2) has been reviewed by Simpson Grierson.

Financial Consideration

There are no financial considerations in addition to those already outlined in this report.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1: Rates Resolution 2021/22	51
2 ⇩	Appendix 2: Rates Funding Impact Statement 2021/22	54

Author: Alicia Andrews

Business Analyst - Rates

Author: Helen Stringer

Financial Transaction Services Manager

Author: Daniel Koenders

Manager Financial Strategy & Planning

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

Attachment 1

Appendix 1: Rates Resolution 2021/22

SETTING THE RATES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2022

Targeted and General Rates

1. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and the Funding Impact Statement including Rates for 2021-2022, the Council hereby resolves, pursuant to Section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, to set and assess the following Hutt City Council rates for the year commencing 1 July 2021 and ending 30 June 2022. All amounts are inclusive of Councils GST obligations.

(a) A Targeted Rate (Water Supply Rate) set and assessed under sections 16 to 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The water supply charges for 2021-22 are as follows:

1. A charge of $520.00 per separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) on a rating unit which is connected to the water reticulation system and is not metered.

2. A charge of $260.00 per SUIP on a rating unit that is not connected to, but is able to be connected to, the water reticulation system.

3. A charge of $520.00 per rating unit which is connected to the water reticulation system and contains more than one separately used or inhabited part, where a water meter has been installed to measure the total water consumed.

(b) A Targeted Rate (Wastewater Rate) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The wastewater charges for 2021-22 are as follows:

1. A charge of $559.00 per SUIP on a rating unit which is connected to the city wastewater system.

2. For rating units in the commercial categories, an additional charge of $279.50 or 50% of the above charge for the second and subsequent water closet or urinal connected to the wastewater system from each rating unit

(c) A Targeted Rate (Recycling Charge) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The recycling charge for 2021-22 is $105.00 per SUIP on every rating unit in the Residential or Rural categories that can be serviced.

(d) A Refuse Collection Targeted Rate set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The refuse charges for 2021-22 are as follows:

CATEGORY	Provision or availability	Per SUIP
Residential and Rural rating units	80 Litre or equivalent	$105.00
Residential and Rural rating units	120 Litre or equivalent	$144.00
Residential and Rural rating units	240 Litre or equivalent	$288.00
Residential and Rural rating units	Able to be serviced but not serviced	$105.00

(e) A Green Waste Collection Targeted Rate set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The green waste charge for 2021-22 is $95.00 per SUIP on every rating unit in the Residential or Rural categories that has opted in to receive the green waste service.

(f) A Targeted Rate (Jackson Street Programme Rate) set and assessed under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The Jackson Street Programme charge for 2021-22 is 0.00074897 on every rating unit in the Commercial Suburban differential category having frontage to Jackson Street, Petone, between Hutt Road and Cuba Street.

(g) A General Rate set and assessed under sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The general rate charge for the 2021-2022 rating year is as follows:

CATEGORY	DIFFERENTIAL	CHARGE PER $ OF CAPITAL VALUE
Residential	1.000	0.257612 cents
Rural	0.747	0.192436 cents
Commercial Central	2.997	0.772187 cents
Commercial Suburban	2.781	0.716327 cents
Utility Networks	2.842	0.732137 cents
Community Facilities 1	1.000	0.257612 cents
Community Facilities 2	0.500	0.128806 cents
Community Facilities 3	2.344	0.603842 cents

Rates Instalments

2. The targeted rates and the general rate for the financial year ending 30 June 2022, as set out above, are payable in six equal instalments by the following due dates:

INSTALMENT NUMBER	DUE DATE	PENALTY DATE
One	20 August 2021	23 August 2021
Two	20 October 2021	21 October 2021
Three	20 December 2021	21 December 2021
Four	21 February 2022	22 February 2022
Five	20 April 2022	21 April 2022
Six	20 June 2022	21 June 2022

Penalties on unpaid rates

3. The Council resolves, pursuant to sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, except as stated in 4 below, that:

a) A penalty of 10% will be added to the amount of any instalment remaining unpaid by the relevant due date above.

b) A penalty of 10% will be added to the amount of any rates assessed in previous years remaining unpaid on 20^th August 2021.

C) A further penalty of 10% will be added to the amount of any rates to which a penalty has been added under b) above and which remain unpaid on 21^st February 2022.

4. No penalty shall be added to any rate account if:

· A direct debit authority is in place for payment of the rates by regular weekly, fortnightly or monthly installments, and payment in full is made by the end of the rating year.

· Any other satisfactory arrangement has been reached for payment of the current rates by regular installments by the end of the rating year.

64 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

04 June 2021

File: (21/803)

Report no: HCC2021/3/140

Lending to Council Controlled Organisations

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the loan funding arrangements for Urban Plus Limited and Seaview Marina Limited. This includes changes to the quantum of the loan facilities, agreeing to extend the maturity of the loans and retaining the lending margins currently in place.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) approves extending the maturity of existing loan agreements to allow Council to on-lend up to;

(a) $2.7M to Seaview Marina Limited; and

(b) $43M to Urban Plus Limited;

(2) agrees that these approvals will cover the period up to 30 June 2031;

(3) agrees that the maximum maturity date for any loan is limited to
30 June 2031;

(4) agrees that the margin on loans to Seaview Marina Limited and Urban Plus Limited remain unchanged at 1%;

(5) approves officers entering into the necessary amended loan agreements between Council and Seaview Marina Limited, with the revised terms and conditions associated; and

(6) approves officers entering into the necessary amended loan agreements between Council and Urban Plus Limited, with the revised terms and conditions associated with these loans.

Background

2. Council has had loan funding arrangements in place for Urban Plus Limited (UPL), Seaview Marina Limited (SML) and Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT) for many years. The most recent Council approvals were 18 June 2020 (refer LTPAP/2020/4/142). There approvals were made in the context of the approved Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and Annual Plan 2021/21, as follows:

o approves extending the maturity of existing loan agreements to allow Council to continue on-lending up to;

o $3.5M long-term to Seaview Marina Limited (SML);

o $13.0M long-term to Urban Plus Limited (UPL);

o $5.0M short-term (up to 364 days) to UPL; and

o $3.335M long-term to The Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT);

o agrees that these approvals will cover the period up to 30 June 2028;

o agrees that the maximum maturity date for any loan is limited to seven years from the date the loan is arranged;

o approves increasing the value of Short-term lending in (i) (c) above from $5.0M to $9.0M to UPL;

o agrees that the margins on loans to CCTOs (SML and UPL) remain unchanged at 1.0%, and 0.5% for CCOs (CFT);

o approves officers making the necessary amendments to the existing loan agreements between Council and the CCTOs/CCOs, outlining the revised terms and conditions associated with these loans.

3. The loan maturities were extended out to 2028, being the end point of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028. The reason for this was to provide longer term certainty of funding to the entities.

4. It was also noted that as part of the LTP 2021-2031(LTP), that there would be a review of the Statement of Intents (SOIs) and funding arrangements for these entities.

5. Formal loan agreements between Council and the entities were executed and remain in place. The respective loan balances have remained within approved loan limits and as at 31 May 2021 were:

a. $2.7M for SML;

b. $13M for UPL; and

c. $3.281M for CFT.

6. The purpose of this report is to review the funding arrangements from 1 July 2021 onwards given the recent LTP decisions of Council.

Urban Plus Limited (UPL) funding arrangement

7. Council approved the SOI for UPL for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 on 9 June 2021(refer report LTPAP2021/3/129). This included a decision to increase the loan facilities for UPL up to a maximum of $43M to enable the delivery of broadened outcomes agreed.

8. The cashflow requirements for the full $43M loan facility are expected to be progressively increased, with a peak expected in 2023. Officers will work with UPL to understand the detailed timing of cashflow requirements and structure the loan facilities accordingly. This is likely to be a mix of both long term and shorter term loan facility arrangements, with a range of variables taken into account such as the timing of land acquisitions, property developments and proceeds from sales/settlements.

Seaview Marina Limited (SML) funding arrangements

9. Council approved the SOI for SML for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024 on 9 June 2021 (refer report LTPAP2021/3/128).

10. The SOI shows SML continuing to borrow $2.7M throughout the period and not accessing the full $3.5M loan facility that is in place currently. Approval to on-lend up to $3.5M to fund SML’s planned in-water developments was initially granted in 2009. SML borrowings have not exceeded $2.7M since 2014. It is proposed that this funding level is reduced down to $2.7M from 1 July 2021 onwards in line with the SOI.

Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT) funding arrangements

11. A separate report in this agenda deals with a decision on the wind-up of CFT. Assuming this decision proceeds, the loan facilities will no longer be relevant. Accordingly, this report assumes no further funding requirements for CFT on the wind-up of CFT.

Consultation

12. Public consultation is not required. The Draft LTP did however include information on the proposed changes to the CFT and UPL. Council has considered all the feedback in progressing final LTP decisions.

13. Officers have consulted with Council’s treasury advisors who recommend the continuation of allowing UPL and SML to make use of Councils on-lending ability. The Councils strong credit rating and access to debt funding via the Local Government Funding Agency can provide the required loan funding at the lowest cost to the Hutt City Council Group.

Legal Considerations

14. Section 63 of the Local Government Act allows Council to on-lend to a Council Controlled Trading Organisations as long as it is not at more favourable terms than the local authority could obtain if it were unable to use rate revenue as security. This limitation does not apply to CCOs.

15. Council’s Chief Legal Officer will review and approve the necessary amendments to the existing loan agreements and any supporting documentation, once Council approval is received and updated documentation drafted.

Financial Considerations

16. It will cost the HCC Group less for Council to borrow the money and on-lend to UPL and SML than it would for UPL and SML to borrow directly from a financial institution. This is due to the Councils strong credit rating and the ability to access funding through the Local Government Funding Agency.

17. The funding arrangements with UPL and SML will provide long term funding at low fixed rates that are tailored to their individual borrowing requirements. This will also allow Council to spread (where applicable) the maturity of the loans to avoid concentration risk on one particular maturity date, thus also reducing re-financing risk.

18. Council will charge SML and UPL an additional 1% margin (unchanged from prior years) above the rate it obtains to ensure compliance with section 63 of the Local Government Act. Even with this additional margin these entities are able to obtain the required finance more cost effectively than they would if they approached the financial institutions directly.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Darrin Newth

Financial Accounting Manager

Author: Bradley Cato

Chief Legal Officer

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

68 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

11 June 2021

File: (21/910)

Report no: HCC2021/3/141

Proposed change to funding for Hutt Valley Gymnastics

Purpose of Report

1. To seek approval to reallocate part of the budgeted operational funding grant for Hutt Valley Gymnastics (HVG) proposed facility project towards demolition costs and alternative lease proposal.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) notes that funding of $500k is included in the 2020/21 budget as a contribution towards the building of a gymnastics facility;

(2) notes the letter from Hutt Valley Gymnastics Centre Inc, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(3) agrees to reallocate $200k of this funding to a grant for Hutt Valley Gymnastics towards fit-out and lease costs of an alternative venue;

(4) agrees to allocate a further $120k of this funding towards demolition of the ex-Avalon rugby clubrooms; and

(5) notes that this will result in a $180k saving against budget.

For the reasons that this alternative proposal still delivers on the outcomes sought by Council at a reduced cost.

Background

2. Hutt Valley Gymnastics (HVG) has been seeking larger premises for the delivery of gymnastics based activities for at least the last 8 years. Membership at the club has grown from 250 to nearly 800 during this period. NB this excludes casual participants (over 1,000 annually) who attend community based programmes.

3. Over the last decade HVG has worked alongside Council and other sporting and community clubs to explore opportunities for both joint and/or stand-alone facilities during this time, initially as part of Petone Sportsville and then latterly with Fraser Park Sportsville.

4. Most recently Council agreed (Annual Plan 2020/21) to fund HVG to repurpose the ex-Avalon Rugby Club and build an extension to suit their needs at a cost of approximately $1.6M.

5. This was to be funded through a $500k grant from Council, a club loan of $500k guaranteed by Council, and fundraising of circa $600k.

6. Unfortunately the club has been unable to meet this fundraising target. Most significantly they have been unsuccessful in gaining Lotteries funding which they had worked towards for 12 months. The main reason for this being lack of funds for distribution due to other priorities including COVID-19 related.

7. It should be noted that HVG have expended close to $135k inclusive of GST on the proposal to date.

8. The club has therefore been exploring other options and are now seeking funding support from Council to enable leasing of an alternative larger facility.

9. Alongside this officers are also seeking to reallocate some of the budgeted grant funding towards demolition costs of the ex-Avalon Rugby Club which will no longer be required.

Discussion

10. Attached, as Appendix 1 to the report, is a proposal from Hutt Valley Gymnastics which details background, current situation, options analysis and preferred option and budget. The preferred option is to lease a new facility.

11. To summarise the preferred option is to enter a long term lease of a larger commercial warehouse including fitting it out to meet gymnastics needs.

12. The larger premises will allow for:

· increased membership and club activities

· hosting of regional competitions

· expansion of community and school based programmes

· ability to accommodate other clubs and codes

· greater revenue generation potential and greater certainty on operational costs

· significantly reduced capital expenditure

13. HVG is now requesting reallocation of the budgeted Council funding grant to support fitting-out of this site to make it useable ($140k) and covering the initial shortfall of lease costs ($76k).

14. Officers fully support the proposal as it delivers on a number of Council outcomes:

· increased participation in physical activity

· financially sustainable

· provides opportunities for wider community participation

· ability to support wider outcomes in a high deprivation community

15. Officers also seek funding for demolition of the ex-Avalon Clubrooms (owned by Council) which is no longer required and which is listed as an earthquake prone building.

Council Funding

16. Officers propose re-allocation of the budgeted $500k grant funding as follows:

· $200k immediate grant made to HVG on signing of the lease towards fit-out and shortfall of the first years lease costs.

· $120k allocated to immediate demolition of the old clubrooms which is adjacent to the grandstand currently also being demolished.

· $180k recorded as a saving this financial year.

Options

17. No options are included in this report. However options are discussed in the HVG proposal letter attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

18. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

Consultation

19. Fraser Park Sportsville and Avalon Rugby Club have been informed of the likely demolition of the ex-Avalon clubrooms.

Legal Considerations

20. None

Financial Considerations

21. As detailed in the report.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Hutt Valley Gymnastics Council letter	69

Author: Marcus Sherwood

Head of Parks and Recreation

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed By: Andrea Blackshaw

Director Neighbourhoods and Communities

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

77 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

15 June 2021

File: (21/932)

Report no: HCC2021/3/143

Revocation of Reserve and Sale of Council Land - Mitchell Park

Purpose of Report

1. This report seeks Council approval to revoke the reserve status of the land at Mitchell Park following public notice of the proposal and agree in principle to proceed to sale and purchase of the land.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) notes that on 8 December 2020 Council resolved:

agrees to initiate a proposal to revoke the reserve status of approximately 1640m2 of land at Mitchell Park, (as shown in the plan in paragraph 5 of this report), for the purposes of making the land available for sale to Hutt Valley Health Limited with the net proceeds of sale being used to enhance tennis facilities on the Park;

(2) notes that the proposal to revoke the reserve status of a portion of land at Mitchell Park was publicly notified with no submissions objecting to the proposal;

(3) approves the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the land at Mitchell Park measuring 1,436m2 (more or less) being a part of Pt Lot 1 on DP25427 and declares the land surplus for sale;

(4) instructs officers, as required by the Reserves Act 1977, to forward its revocation decision to the Department of Conservation (DOC) for ratification;

(5) agrees, subject to DOC ratification of the reserve revocation, to sell the land to Lower Hutt Health Limited for the sum of $1.4M plus GST if any, and

(6) agrees the net proceeds of sale be used to re-invest and enhance tennis facilities at the Park through a direct grant to Hutt Valley Tennis Inc;

(7) notes that the decision to reinvest the proceeds of sale in part 6 above is in addition to the $500k already granted by Council to Hutt Valley Tennis, and

(8) approves an extension of the existing right of way over part of Mitchell Park in favour of 135 Witako Street to the land that is subject to revocation and sale for the purpose of providing legal access to all of that property.

For the reasons the proposal to revoke the reserve status and sell the land has less than minor impact on the reserve functions and will benefit tennis and any value realised from the sale of the property will be used to re-invest into a community facility.

Background

2. At its meeting of 8 December 2020, Council resolved to initiate the proposal to revoke the reserve status of a part of the land at Mitchell Park, being recreation reserve, and commence formal consultation as required by the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The proposal was publicly notified in the Hutt News on 13 April 2021 and again on 20 April 2021 and was posted on Council’s website under current consultations. Two submissions were received. One submission in favour of the proposal and one submission that was unrelated to the proposal. These are attached as Appendix 1.

Discussion

4. The proposal includes the revocation of the reserve status of the land, and sale of the surplus land to Lower Hutt Health Limited for the sum of $1.4M. It is estimated that up to $200k will be spent on undertaking legal and subdivision work. The balance of proceeds from the sale will be applied to the development of the reserve and tennis facility.

5. The Reserves Act 1977 requires that the proceeds of sale of reserve land that has had its reserve status revoked be used for the purposes of acquiring other reserve land or upgrading existing reserves for the benefit of the community. The proposal to use the net proceeds to upgrade tennis facilities would meet this statutory requirement.

6. The proposal does not compromise the current use of the reserve. While in the long term there would be a reduction in the overall amount of reserve space, this would be offset by enhancing the recreation potential of that part of the reserve that has traditionally been used for tennis and thereby for the benefit of the community.

7. The existing right of way in favour of 135 Witako Street, will need to be extended over the land subject to revocation, to ensure that legal access is obtained to all of that property.

Options

8. Council can continue with the process or decline and decide to do nothing more. The preferred course of action is to proceed with revocation given Council’s intentions and decisions on this matter.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

9. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

Consultation

10. The proposal to revoke the reserve status was publicly notified as required by the Reserves Act 1977. There were no submissions in opposition to the proposal. Mana Whenua and local iwi have been advised of the proposal.

11. The Hutt Valley Tennis Association is in support of the proposal, having held an extraordinary meeting in late February 2021 to consider the matter.

Legal Considerations

12. The Reserves Act 1977 sets out the procedure Council must follow to revoke the reserve status of the property. Council is required to forward its decision to the Department of Conservation for ratification.

Financial Considerations

13. The land has been valued at $1.4M by Council’s valuers. This is the amount which has been agreed between Lower Hutt Health Limited and Council.

14. Council has budgeted $500k in the 2021/22 Long Term Plan towards the HVT – Mitchell Park facility development. It is proposed that the nett proceeds of the sale (around $1.1M), in addition to the existing budget of $500k, be made available to HVT for other improvements, including the covering of four courts, in addition to this amount. There would still be a shortfall to complete the development which would need to be raised by HVT.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 - Copy of Public Advert	78
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 - Submission - Wainuiomata Tennis Club	79
3 ⇩	Appendix 3 - Submission - M Edge	80

Author: Aaron Marsh

Team Leader Parks

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Strategic Advisor

Reviewed By: Marcus Sherwood

Head of Parks and Recreation

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Group Chief Financial Officer

Approved By: Andrea Blackshaw

Director Neighbourhoods and Communities

87 30 June 2021

Hutt City Council

23 June 2021

File: (21/990)

Report no: HCC2021/3/149

Local Government New Zealand - Remits for Annual General Meeting August 2021

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

(a) provide advice on the remits that will be considered and voted on by delegates at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting in July 2021.

(b) seek Council’s view on whether it formally supports or does not support the remits.

Recommendations

That Council:

(1) receives and notes the information contained within the report;

(2) notes that proposed remits one to seven meet the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) National Council’s Remits Screening Policy criteria attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(3) notes that one remit was declined by LGNZ’s Remit Screening Committee and four remits were referred directly to LGNZ’s National Council attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(4) agrees to support the following remits:

(a) Remit 1 Tree Protection for the reason that it aligns with Council’s policy on climate change and protecting biodiversity and noting that Council is committed to working with property owners and the community to achieve tree protection;

(b) Remit 2 Rating Value of Forestry Land for the reason that it aligns with current Council policy of equitable rates across ratepayer groups and ensuring that rates reflect the benefit user’s gain from access to infrastructure and services provided by territorial authorities;

(c) Remit 5 Carbon emission inventory standards and reduction targets for the reason that it aligns with Council’s climate change strategy and policy noting that LGNZ already has the ability to work with central government on carbon emission standards and guidance;

(d) Remit 6 WINZ Accommodation Supplement for the reason that it aligns with Council’s policy to increase access to safe, warm, affordable housing; and

(e) Remit 7 Liability – Building consent functions for the reason that Councils and their ratepayers should not become responsible for any civil liability related to building consents issued by Consentium, an internal division of Kāinga Ora; and

(5) agrees not to support the following remits:

(a) Remit 3 Civics Education for the reason that this is already provided for as part of the National Curriculum; and

(b) Remit 4 Promoting local government electoral participation for the reason that as Councils are individually responsible for running elections, this function should stay with Council through the Chief Executive.

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 2021 AGM will be held on Saturday, 17 July 2021. 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 as Appendix 2.

Discussion

5. All remits for the 2021 LGNZ AGM have now been through 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 is contained within in Appendix 2.

6. Four remits were referred directly to the National Council of LGNZ for action. One remit was declined. See Appendix 1 for details.

Remit

Officer comment

Remit 1 – Tree Protection – Provisions added to the RMA that restricted tree protection be repealed and this change be carried through into the new resource management legislation thereby restoring the right to councils to adopt and enforce locally appropriate policies to protect trees in their district

Support – aligns with current Council policy

Hutt City Council is currently reviewing its District Plan and Council has recently gone through the notable tree plan change. This took a significant amount of time and costs were also significant. Council has budgeted to assist private landowners to identify and protect significant natural area on their land and is committed to working with property owners and the community to achieve tree protection. The protection and process can happen without the suggested changes to the RMA.

Private landowners are likely to oppose to policies and rules that they perceive as affecting their private property rights. Whether the policies/rules are centrally or locally mandated is unlikely to influence this.

Council has committed to reducing both carbon emissions and their impact on the local environment. Trees and healthy canopy cover provide enhanced stormwater management, remove air pollution, improve water quality and provide ecological corridors that connect habitats and improve biodiversity.

Officers engaged in biodiversity work have noticed an increase in the number of trees being removed for development. Their view is that the current District Plan rules are not sufficient to protect even significant/notable trees for example, they are aware of some nearly 100 year old trees that are not listed in the District Plan. Council has an Urban Tree Strategy that is currently being implemented through Parks and Gardens asset management plan.

Remit 2 – Rating Value of Forestry Land – the Valuer General amend the relevant legislation to allow for local government to address the growing disparities between the rating value of forestry land and other land uses

Support - aligns with current Council policy of equitable rates across ratepayer groups and ensuring that rates reflect the benefit user’s gain from access to infrastructure and services provided by territorial authorities. Aligns with previous central government policy and legislative changes.

Key points of the remit are:

· Forestry is getting considerable value from its land use but this is not reflected in capital value for rating purposes because of the tree exclusion.

· This means that the forestry industry is not paying the true cost of its use of infrastructure and regulatory services.

· Foresters are purchasing pastoral land which has far higher capital and therefore rateable value and converting it to forest. This enables them to take advantage of the low rating value and access guaranteed income from carbon credits at a minimum guaranteed floor price of $20.

· This creates a perverse economic outcome whereby poorer ratepayers are subsidising an expanding forestry industry that is placing increasing demands on infrastructure and regulatory services in their districts

· The introduction of Gold Kiwifruit licence into the calculation of Capital Value is an example of an industry that was significantly out of step with the purposes of rating valuations and the Valuer General stepping in to correct this.

Councils themselves have reserves and forest land, which may be affected by such a change. HCC is registering some of the forest land, and it’s unclear how any ETS value one should be taken into account. Changing the rating regime could disincentivise afforestation, especially natives, which could be the opposite of what we want to do in terms of climate change. However, the focus of this remit is not native vegetation and productive land is being used.

Remit 3 – Civics Education - that Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) advocate to central government for provision of funding to enable Councils to engage in civics education for high school children.

Do not support – provision at national level already exists

There is international evidence that reports the benefits of enabling young people to engage in civics education in general and with local Government in particular.

New resources have been developed by the Ministry of Education in consultation with the sector as part of the School Leavers’ Toolkit, which is designed to help young people transition into adulthood with confidence

https://educationcentral.co.nz/new-civics-resources-for-young-new-zealanders/

Civics and citizenship education is already well embedded in the principles and values of The New Zealand Curriculum as well as in the Social Studies learning area.

Remit 4 – Promoting local government electoral participation – the power the Chief Executive has under the LG Act for ‘facilitating and fostering representative and substantial elector participation in elections and polls held under the Local Electoral Act 2011 be removed and placed with the Electoral Commission

Do not support

Essentially, concerns about remaining neutral during an election have had a “chilling effect” on Chief Executives and council staff and impacted negatively on the actions they take to “facilitate representative and substantial elector participation in elections and polls held under the LEA 2001”.

Promoting elections and encouraging people to vote is something Hutt City Council has done in the past. As a region resources are combined and we work collectively. The Electoral Officer’s view is that as Councils are individually responsible for running elections, this function should stay with the Council through the CE. Should Government decide to make the Electoral Commission responsible (from 2025), as it is considering, then this function should also be conducted by the EC

Remit 5 – Carbon emission inventory standards and reduction targets – that LGNZ works with central government in a) developing consistent emission inventory standards for use by local and regional authorities, and b) setting science-based emissions reduction targets to support delivery on our National Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement and on our nationwide emissions budgets being established by government via advice from the Climate Change Commission

Support – aligns with Council’s climate change strategy and policy

Council is currently developing its Carbon Reduction Plan and this is consistent with work underway to develop local standards and targets.

A consistent standard has the potential to reduce costs and enable easier, less expensive access to expertise. However, it is unclear what outcomes are being sought and what the benefits of having this standard would be. LGNZ could currently be working with central government in terms of the work being done to set targets or put in place actions to reduce emissions in response to the Climate Change Commission’s first package of advice to Government

Remit 6 – WINZ Accommodation Supplement – That LGNZ works with the government to 1. Conduct an urgent review of the Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) Accommodation Supplement (AS) system zones in partnership with territorial authorities and 2. Schedule a two yearly review of the WINZ AS system zones in partnership with territorial Authorities ongoing

Support – aligns with Council’s policy to increase access to safe, warm, affordable housing

The Accommodation Supplement (AS) that eligible people can claim varies across the motu. The range is from AS1 (urbanised areas) $305 per week to AS4 (least urbanised) areas $120 per week.

To ensure equitable access, it is important that urban areas are zoned appropriately. This is not the case in the Queenstown Lakes District where many new urbanised areas are still zoned AS4. This means that residents moving to those new areas from other urbanised areas in the District are negatively affected by the drop in their entitlement from AS4 to AS1. As rents continue to remain high in the District generally, this impact further reduces residents’ ability to secure safe, dry and affordable housing in the District.

Equitable access to affordable housing is a key Hutt City Council strategic and policy position.

Remit 7 – Liability – Building consent functions

That LGNZ works with Government to obtain legal protection/indemnity from the Crown in favour of all Councils, and/or to implement a warranty scheme, for any civil liability claim brought against a Council with regards to building consent functions carried out by Consentium.

That LGNZ seeks a state-backed warranty to be put in place in the event Kāinga Ora is disestablished, in favour of subsequent owners of Kāinga Ora properties, covering any and all liability Kāinga Ora/Consentium would have had in relation to those properties in order to prevent owners from pursuing Councils in respect to those losses.

Support – Councils and their ratepayers should not become responsible for any civil liability related to building consents issued by Consentium a division of Kāinga Ora

Kāinga Ora is now registered as a Building Consent Authority (BCA) known as Consentium. Consentium has taken over building consent functions for public housing of up to four levels. It is the only nationally accredited and registered non-territorial authority BCA.

The concern is that Councils will be exposed to the risk of civil liability claims in respect of the building consent functions carried out by Consentium in the event that:

· if Kāinga Ora is disestablished following a change in government or government policy or

· Kāinga Ora properties are sold to private owners

As part of the BCA registration process Consentium was required to provide evidence to MBIE that it will be in a position to meet its share of civil liability if claims arise in respect of the BCA functions carried out by Consentium. A request by a group of Councils, including Hutt City Council, for a copy of this evidence together with advice on the risks Councils are exposed to as a consequence of Consentium taking over BCA functions in their districts has been declined by Kāinga Ora on the basis of commercial sensitivity.

Options

7. Officers recommend that Council supports Remits 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and does not support Remits 3 and 4.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

8. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

9. Remits 1, 2 and 5 directly address environmental impacts of climate change mitigation and adaptation and reducing carbon emissions respectively.

Consultation

10. Comments on the proposed remits were provided by subject matter experts across the business.

Legal Considerations

11. Council’s delegates to the LGNZ AGM will be voting on the proposed remits.

Financial Considerations

12. There are no financial considerations.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1: 2021 Proposed Remits LGNZ	88
2 ⇩	Appendix 2: LGNZ Remits 2021 AGM - table	164

Author: Kathryn Stannard

Head of Democratic Services

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Matt Boggs

Director, Strategy and Engagement

Attachment 2

Appendix 2: LGNZ Remits 2021 AGM - table

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

1. That LGNZ advocate that:

· current restrictions on councils’ ability to protect trees (introduced in 2012) be repealed as part of the current RMA review process

· central government restores the right of councils to adopt and enforce locally appropriate policies to protect trees in their district.

Auckland Council

Auckland Zone

Meets all criteria

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

2. That LGNZ request that the Valuer General amend the relevant legislation to allow for Local Government to address the growing disparities between the rating valuation of forestry land and other land uses.

(Note there is a section in the Ratings Valuation Act that specifically excludes tree value being used as part of the rating valuation.)

Gisborne District Council

Supported by: Hauraki District Council; Western Bay of Plenty District Council; New Plymouth District Council; Hastings District Council; Manawatū District Council; Ruapehu District Council; Whakatāne District Council; Central Hawkes Bay District Council; Wairoa District Council; and Waikato District Council.

Meets all criteria – focused on relevant/affected councils

Councils with a high proportion of regional land used for forestry currently face challenges rating foresters at a level which reflects their use of council resources and the forest sector’s ability to pay.

The reason for very low land valuations under established forestry is that the land value is transferred into the value of growing trees and this activity is not included in capital value under the Ratings Valuation Act.

Key points are:

· Forestry is getting considerable value from their land use but this is not reflected in capital value for rating purposes because of the tree exclusion which means the forestry industry is not paying the true cost of their use of infrastructure and regulatory services.

· Foresters are purchasing pastoral (productive) land which has far higher capital and therefore rateable value and converting it to forest. This enables them to take advantage of the low rating value and access guaranteed income from carbon credits at a minimum guaranteed floor price of $20.

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

3. That Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) advocate to central government for provision of funding to enable Councils to engage in civics education for high school children.

Hamilton City Council

Horizons Regional Council; Christchurch City Council; Tauranga City Council; Nelson City Council; New Plymouth District Council; Hastings District Council; Waikato District Council; Whakatāne District Council; and Ōpōtiki District Council.

Meets criteria

There is international evidence that reports the benefits of enabling young people to engage in civics education in general and with local Government in particular.

https://educationcentral.co.nz/new-civics-resources-for-young-new-zealanders/

Civics and citizenship education is already well embedded in the principles and values of The New Zealand Curriculum as well as in the Social Studies learning area.

4 That the power the Chief Executive has under the Local Government Act (42, 2 (da)) for “facilitating and fostering representative and substantial elector participation in elections and polls held under the Local Electoral Act 2001" be removed and placed with the Electoral Commission.

Palmerston North City Council

Zone Three

Meets criteria

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

5. That LGNZ works with central government in:

a) developing consistent emission inventory standards for use by local and regional authorities, and

b) setting science- based emissions reduction targets to support delivery on our National Determined Contribution (NDC)

Palmerston North City Council

Zone Three

Meets criteria

Council is currently developing its Carbon Reduction Plan and this is consistent with work underway to develop local standards and targets.

6. That LGNZ works with the Government to:

1. Conduct an urgent review of the Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) Accommodation Supplement (AS) system zones in partnership with Territorial Authorities.

2. Schedule a two yearly review of the WINZ AS system zones in partnership with Territorial Authorities ongoing.

Queenstown Lakes District Council

Hamilton City Council; Nelson City Council; Porirua City Council; Southland District Council; Clutha District Council; and Central Otago District Council.

Meets criteria

The Accommodation Supplement (AS) that eligible people can claim varies across the motu. The range is from AS1 (urbanised areas) $305 per week to AS4 (least urbanised) areas $120 per week.

Equitable access to affordable housing is a key Hutt City Council strategic and policy position.

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

7. That LGNZ works with Government to obtain legal protection/indemnity from the Crown in favour of all Councils, and/or to implement a warranty scheme, for any civil liability claim brought against a Council with regards to building consent functions carried out by Consentium (a division of Kāinga Ora), as any such costs should not be borne by ratepayers.

Waikato District Council

Upper Hutt City Council; Hauraki District Council; Waipā District Council, Ōtōrohanga District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; and Hamilton City Council.

Meets criteria

Kāinga Ora is now registered as a Building Consent Authority (BCA) known as Consentium. Consentium has taken over building consent functions for public housing of up to four levels. is the only nationally accredited and registered non-Territorial Authority BCA.

The concern is that Council’s will be exposed to the risk of civil liability claims in respect of the building consent functions carried out by Consentium in the event that:

· if Kāinga Ora is disestablished following a change in government or government policy or

· Kāinga Ora properties are sold to private owners

As part of the BCA registration process Consentium was required to provide evidence to MBIE that it will be in a position to meet its share of civil liability if claims arise in respect of the BCA Functions carried out by Consentium. A request by a group of Councils, including Hutt City Council, for a copy of this evidence together with advice on the risks Councils are exposed to as a consequence of Consentium taking over BCA functions in their districts has been declined by Kāinga Ora on the basis of commercial sensitivity.

There has been collaboration between a few Councils with regards to obtaining legal advice on an agreement proposed by Kāinga Ora pursuant to section 213 Agreement of the Building Act 2004 with regards to certain existing consents

Remits not going forward

The remit Screening Committee has referred the following remits to the National Council of LGNZ for action, rather than to the Annual General Meeting for consideration. The Remit Screening Committee’s role is to ensure that remits referred to the AGM are relevant, significant in nature and require agreement from the membership. In general, proposed remits that are already LGNZ policy, are already on the LGNZ work programme or technical in nature will be referred directly to the National Council for their action.

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

8. That LGNZ calls on the Government to introduce legislation that would update the Local Government Act 2002 to enable members attending meetings via audio link or audio-visual link to be counted as forming part of the quorum of the meeting.

Manawatu District Council

Zone Three

That the remit is declined on the basis that it was previously debated and endorsed at the 2020 AGM.

N/A

Remits referred directly to the National Council action

These remits either reflect existing local government policy or address matters that are primarily technical in nature

Remit

Proposing council and supporting councils

Remit criteria

Points to consider

Increase roadside breath testing

That LGNZ engage directly with relevant ministers and government agencies to advocate for an increase in the number of roadside breath test and mobile deterrence road safety enforcement activities

Fly tipping

That LGNZ advocate the Litter Act 1979 be amended to allow for ‘cost recovery’ in instances where littering/fly tipping is ‘more than minor’ and the identity of the perpetrator is discoverable.

Auckland Council

Auckland Zone

Gisborne District Council

Hauraki District Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Hastings District Council, Manawatū District Council, Ruapehu District Council, Napier City Council, Rotorua District Council, Whakatāne District Council, Wairoa District Council, Waikato District Council; and Whanganui District Council.

Referred for action

N/A

Mayor C Barry (Chair) Deputy Mayor T Lewis

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