Komiti Ratonga Rangatōpū me te Rautaki
Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee
Minutes of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Tuesday 13 July 2021 commencing at 2.00pm
PRESENT: |
Cr S Edwards (Chair) |
Mayor C Barry |
|
Cr J Briggs |
Cr K Brown (Deputy Chair) |
|
Cr B Dyer |
Cr D Hislop |
|
Deputy Mayor T Lewis |
Cr C Milne (via audio-visual) |
|
Cr A Mitchell |
Cr S Rasheed |
|
Cr N Shaw |
Cr L Sutton |
|
|
|
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability (part meeting)
Mr K Puketapu-Dentice, Director Economy and Development
Ms J Livschitz, Chief Financial Officer
Mr D Koenders, Manager-Financial Strategy and Planning (part meeting)
Mr D Scott-Jones, Solicitor (part meeting)
Mr H Wesney, Head of District Plan Policy (part meeting)
Mr B Hodgins, Strategic Advisor (part meeting)
Ms A Andrews, Business Analyst – Rates (part meeting)
Ms J Randall, Democracy Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
The Chair opened the meeting with a Karakia Tīmatanga
1. APOLOGIES
PRECEDENCE OF BUSINESS
In accordance with Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence to item 5 to be considered after item 3.
The item is recorded in the order in which it was listed on the Order Paper.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
Cr Sutton left the meeting at 2.09pm and rejoined the meeting at 2.11pm.
3. CONFLICT
OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no
conflict of interest declarations.
4. Recommendations to Council - Te
Kaunihera o Te Awa Kairangi -
10 August 2021
a) |
|
a) |
Speaking under public comment, Mr Craig Innes, Deputy Chair of the Wainuiomata Rural Community Association considered that a recent report to a Council committee had acknowledged that the new rubbish collection system might not be practical for the entire district. He added that at least one Wainuiomata rural property owner had received an acknowledgement from Council that it was not practical to collect rubbish from them. He queried if the properties identified would receive a remission in landfill fees. He questioned how rates remissions could be proposed for properties identified with significant natural areas (SNAs) when there had been no SNAs identified. He noted communication from Council to specific landowners had advised there would be a removal of the grandfathering of rates for certain areas that had been paying rural rates but were now zoned residential.
The Business Analyst – Rates elaborated on the report. In response to questions from members, the Business Analyst – Rates agreed to investigate if there had been any applications for remissions from property owners due to SNAs on their properties. She further agreed to make it clearer in the Rates Remission Policy that property owners were able to apply for remissions for a future rating year. She said one intention of the proposed addition was to allow for flexibility where an ongoing remission was warranted. She confirmed the remission for land that had been protected could apply to land with forms of protection other than SNAs. The Chair asked that officers report back to the committee every six months with a summary of approved rates remissions for that period. |
|
RECOMMENDED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer) Minute No. PFSC 21301 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (1) notes and receives the report; and (2) approves an addition to the Rates Remission Policy, attached as Appendix 2 to the report.” |
b) |
Procurement policy - proposed changes to financial thresholds (21/981) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Group Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. In response to questions from members, the Director, Economy and Development advised the Procurement Policy was part of a suite of measures to be considered to ensure Council could meet its broader objectives. In response to a question from a member, the Group Chief Financial Officer agreed to keep the Committee updated on changes to Wellington City Council’s financial thresholds. Cr Milne expressed concern that Council was considering awarding closed contracts. He suggested a comprehensive review of the supplier situation before the proposed changes to financial thresholds were agreed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recommended: (Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs) Minute No. PFSC 21302 “That the Committee recommends that Council makes the following changes to procurement financial thresholds in Council’s Procurement Policy attached as Appendix 1 to the report: Council Group (excluding Urban Plus Limited (UPL))
|
Cr Milne and Cr Sutton requested that their dissenting votes be recorded against the above matter.
5. |
Three waters reform update, including financial analysis of potential impact (21/953) Report No. PFSC2021/3/152 by the Group Chief Financial Officer |
|
Ms Antonia Robertson and Mr Chris Whiteside, representatives from PricewaterhouseCoopers, were in attendance for the item. Ms Robertson provided background to the announcements from central government on the Three Waters reform. She advised the four entities central government had proposed would be owned by local government but without shareholdings so that assets and debts were not part of local government balance sheets. She said the entities would be overseen by a board of government representatives and mana whenua. She highlighted that the board would set strategic expectations for entities to report against in its Statements of Intent. She predicted key teams would be established to represent the entities and their regions. She recommended that members continue to work with regional elected members to voice areas where Council wanted to retain control for the benefit of its communities. She added this would assist shape the transition and the new structure. Mr Whitesideprovided an analysis of the financial impact of the Three Waters reform on Council’s Long Term Plan. He noted that although Council’s level of debt in Three Waters had shifted materially, there was less risk for Council than for many other local authorities with higher debt levels. He noted there was still significant uncertainty since central government had not yet made clear how debt and liability would be managed. Mayor Barry noted a central government announcement on the proposed Three Waters reform was expected shortly. He added this would provide additional information and clarity on the transitions and on options for Council’s future role. |
|
Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. PFSC 21303 “That the Committee notes and receives the information.” |
6. |
District Plan Review Update (21/962) Report No. PFSC2021/3/153 by the Head of District Plan Policy |
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr Ken Jackson explained he was a landowner who had been impacted by Council’s previous mapping of significant natural areas (SNAs). He advised he had been working with officers on a voluntary incentive system to improve biodiversity in Lower Hutt. He believed central government’s proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) to protect biodiversity in identified SNAs contained unreasonable criteria. He urged Council to support other local authorities who would like to put SNAs on hold before the NPS-IB was finalised. He advised a SNA over his property would be a disincentive for him to protect its biodiversity.
Speaking under public comment, Mr Craig Innes, Deputy Chair of the Wainuiomata Rural Community Association, asked for clarification on how SNAs would be incorporated into the District Plan review since central government officials had been directed to re-draft the NPS-IB. The Head of District Plan Policy advised the delay in the release of the National Policy Statements, combined with current staffing issues, presented additional risk in terms of work needed for the District Plan review. In response to questions from members, the Head of District Plan Policy confirmed the criteria for identifying SNAs was unknown. He noted the central government timeline, that was driving the District Plan review, would require a completed draft by the end of 2021 or by early 2022. He added central government had advised that local authorities should continue with their District Plan reviews while waiting for the NPS-IB. Cr Brown considered that further work on SNAs should be deferred until after the NPS-IB had been released. She noted central government had signalled there would be changes to the NPS-IB given concerns expressed around the country on SNAs and in particular concern expressed by Māori. |
|
MOVED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Mitchell) That the Committee receives and notes the report. |
|
amendment moved: (Cr Brown/Cr Milne) That the Committee: (1) notes that central government has signalled changes to the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB), taking into account a number of issues across the country; and (2) directs officers to defer work on the ‘Significant Natural Areas’ part of the District Plan until the new NPS-IB is released by central government. The amendment was declared CARRIED on a show of hands. Members agreed to include the amendment in the substantive motion. |
|
reSOLVED: (Cr Brown/Cr Milne) Minute No. PFSC 21304 “That the Committee receives and notes the report.” |
|
RECOMMENDED: (Cr Brown/Cr Milne) Minute No. PFSC 21305 That the Committee recommends that Council:. (1) notes that central government has signalled changes to the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB), taking into account a number of issues across the country; and (2) directs officers to defer work on the ‘Significant Natural Areas’ part of the District Plan until the new NPS-IB is released by central government.” |
7. |
Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee Work Programme 2021-2022 (21/982) Report No. PFSC2021/3/87 by the Democracy Advisor |
|
Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. PFSC 21306 ”That the Work Programme be received and noted.” |
8. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 3.40 pm.
S Edwards
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 10th day of August 2021