A G E N D A - Hauraki District · 28 March 2017 are received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. CSDC17/52 Milner/Harris CARRIED Cr Smeaton attended the meeting

A G E N D A Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2017 Time: 9.00am Venue: Council Chambers William Street Paeroa L D Cavers Chief Executive Members: J P Tregidga (His Worship the Mayor) Cr D A Adams Cr P D Buckthought Cr C Daley Cr R Harris Cr G R Leonard Cr M McLean Cr P A Milner Cr A Rattray Cr D Smeaton Cr A M Spicer Cr D H Swales Cr J H Thorp

Distribution: Elected Members:

J P Tregidga (His Worship the Mayor) Cr D A Adams Cr P D Buckthought Cr C Daley Cr R Harris Cr G R Leonard Cr M McLean Cr P A Milner Cr A Rattray Cr D Smeaton Cr A M Spicer Cr D H Swales Cr J H Thorp

Staff : L Cavers A De Laborde P Thom S Fabish D Peddie M Buttimore Council Secretary

Public copies: Paeroa Office Ngatea Area Office Waihi Area Office

Delegations: Community Services and Development Committee

Membership Mayor (Chair) and all Hauraki District Council Councillors

Meeting frequency The third to last Wednesday of each month commencing at 9.00am

Delegations: The Council delegates to the Community Services and Development Committee the following powers, duties and responsibilities:

Unless retained by Council or delegated elsewhere by Council,

the power to consider and decide on all operational, project and policy matters relating to the following activities of Council:

Community Services Activities; Community Recreation

Libraries Swimming Pools Waihi Events Centre Sports Fields and Recreation Reserves District Sports Coordinator

Community Facilities

Halls Pensioner Housing Public Toilets Cemeteries Non-Recreation Reserves

Community Development; Community Growth

Economic Development Visitor Information Centres Town Promotion Hauraki Rail Trail Destination Coromandel Development Assistance/Grants

Community Initiatives

Social Initiatives Sister Cities Grants, Donations and Awards Other Initiatives

In considering decisions on matters as delegated above the

Committee shall have the power to depart from Council’s procurement and purchasing policies and the procedures where it is satisfied such a departure will result in works or services that meet the purpose of Local Government in clause 10 1 (b) of the LGA: To meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

1 CSDC Agenda – 17-05-17 Doc. Ref: 2210402

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 17 May 2017 – 9.00am - Council Office, William Street, Paeroa 9.30am Presentation: Goldfields Railway - Chris Hale and Rusty Fryett Subject: Request for Financial Support

11.00am Presentation: The Treasury Archive Centre (Thames) Marise Morrison Subject: Request for Financial Support Order of Business Pages

1. Apologies

2. Declaration of Late Items

3. Declaration of Interests

4. Confirmation of Minutes - Community Services and Development Committee Minutes - 12-04-17 (2192915)

5

5. Receipt and Adoption of Economic Development Subcommittee Minutes 02-05-17 (2197739)

13

6. Residential Development of the Southern Estate, Ngatea – (2211378) 20

7. Community Initiatives - May 2017 (2209764) 23

Appendix A - Goldfields Railway funding for Manager - May 2017 (2210320)

29

Appendix B - Goldfields Railway Business Plan - Apr 2017 (2210321) 33

Appendix C - Goldfields Railway Budget 2013-2019 (2210318) 50

8. Request for Financial Assistance - Paeroa College Charitable Trust - Multisport Community Complex Community Recreation Report - 17 May 2017

54

9. Community Recreation – May 2017 (2185815)

10. Extended Pool Season Report – May 2017 (2210573)

11. Ngatea Scout Hall Demolition (2211095)

79

89

95

12. Investigation Phase for Future Library Services - Ngatea (2211296) 99

2 CSDC Agenda – 17-05-17 Doc. Ref: 2210402

13. Cycleway – Hugh Hayward Domain (2208822) 101

14. Cricket Nets - Hugh Hayward Domain (2208839) 104

15. Morgan Park Update - May 2017 (2210529) 107

16. Community Facilities - May 2017 (2195813) 111

17. Assistance with Condition Assessment of Community Halls (2211426) 117

18. Remuneration Authority 2017-18 Determination Feedback - 2017 (2210883)

Appendix A – Local Government Review – Consultation Document (2211431)

120

123

19. Proposal for Local Bill - Control of Mangroves (2209961) 153

1 Community Services and Development Committee Minutes – 12-04-17 Doc Ref: 2192915

HAURAKI DISTRICT

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2017 COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM

APOLOGIES RESOLVED THAT the apology for absence of Cr D A Adams and D H Swales and the lateness of Cr P Buckthought, G Leonard and D Smeaton be received and sustained. CSDC17/48 Tregidga/Harris CARRIED LATE ITEM Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted. RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion. - Re-establishment of Tetley Quarry Subcommittee The item was not on the agenda because the item as unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline. Discussion on the item could not be delayed because a decision was required to allow for the disposal of quarry plant. CSDC17/49 Thorp/McLean CARRIED DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS There were no declarations.

PRESENT J P Tregidga (His Worship the Mayor), Cr P D Buckthought (10.00-11.40am), Cr C Daley, Cr R Harris, Cr G R Leonard (10.40-11.40am), Cr M McLean, Cr P A Milner, Cr A Rattray, Cr D Smeaton (9.20-11.40am), Cr A M Spicer and Cr J H Thorp

IN ATTENDANCE Messrs P Thom (Acting Chief Executive/Planning and Environmental

Services Manager), A de Laborde (Group Manager - Engineering Services), D Fielden (Economic Development Manager), P Matthews (Parks and Reserves Manager), J McIver (Community Engagement Manager), Ms R Kirby Community Services - Facilities Manager) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary)

CSDC Agenda - 17-05-17 Page 5


DELEGATION TO VISIT JIADING, BEIJING AND TAIWAN (2193071) The Mayor requested that (Item (1) Request for Financial Assistance – Mayoral Visit to Asia listed in the public excluded section of the agenda be moved out of committee. RESOLVED THAT the report on the Request for Financial Assistance – Mayoral visit to Asia be considered out of committee. CSDC17/50 Tregidga/Spicer CARRIED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 15-03-17 (2184565 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services and Development Committee held on Wednesday,15 March 2017 are confirmed and are a true and correct record. CSDC17/51 Harris/McLean CARRIED RECEIPT AND ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES 28-03-17 (2188016) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development Subcommittee held on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 are received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. CSDC17/52 Milner/Harris CARRIED Cr Smeaton attended the meeting at 9.20am.

REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE – MAYORAL VISIT TO ASIA MAY 2017 (2193071) The Mayor presented a report which requested Councils consideration that he lead a delegation of three people to China to investigate the possibility of an investor establishing a product in the Hauraki district. It was advised that he would also be meeting with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan to further economic opportunities for the district. The cost of the trip would be met by the Sister Cities and Economic Development budget. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/53 McLean/Daley CARRIED RESOLVED THAT the Mayor leads a delegation of three people to the Jiading District of Shanghai to further the Sister City relationship and to include a visit to a prospective investor and the Baxy Ice Cream Company in Beijing, and THAT the Mayor meet with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan to further economic opportunities for the district, and



THAT the cost of $9,000 be met from the Sister Cities and Economic Development budgets.

CSDC17/54 Harris/Daley CARRIED THE TREASURY BUSINESS CASE FOR FUNDING 2017 (2191323)

The Community Engagement Manager presented a report which sought the consideration of the Committee to a request from the Coromandel Heritage Trust for the funding of two staff positions at The Treasury research and archive centre in Thames. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/55 Rattray/Smeaton CARRIED RESOLVED THAT an open day be arranged for the Councillors to visit The Treasury archive centre in Thames before any further consideration is given to the funding assistance request towards funding two staff positions at the centre. CSDC17/56 Milner/Thorp CARRIED COMMUNITY INITIATIVES REPORT 12 APRIL 2017 (2185953) The Community Engagement Manager presented the monthly community initiatives report on activities for the month of March 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/57 Daley/McLean CARRIED Key matters noted:

• Cr Leonard will be travelling with the Jiading International Friendship Youth Camp group. • Industry Training Graduation Awards have been postponed. • Anzac Day – the Community Engagement Manager updated on the programme for the

Anzac Day ceremonies throughout the district. Cr Buckthought attended the meeting at 10.00am. REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - KEEP HAURAKI BEAUTIFUL (2189702) The Community Engagement Manager presented a report which advised of a national initiative that may benefit the district in regards to community litter clean up events and to seek consideration to providing a level of funding towards this initiative. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/58 Spicer/Smeaton CARRIED



RESOLVED

THAT a grant of $2,226.00 is contributed from the District Discretionary Social Fund towards the ‘Keep Hauraki Beautiful’ project.

CSDC17/59 Spicer/McLean CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10.14am. The meeting reconvened at 10.35am. REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - GOLDFIELDS WAIHI (2186522, 2186443) The Community Engagement Manager presented a request for financial assistance towards the employment of a General Manager for Goldfields Railway Inc. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/60 Smeaton/Thorp CARRIED Cr Leonard attended the meeting at 10.40am. RESOLVED THAT the request put on hold until further information is made available to Council on the request for financial assistance, and THAT staff request that a representative from Goldfields be invited to address Council with more detailed information on the request. CSDC17/61 Tregidga/Milner CARRIED

REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - THE NUGGET (2191305) Appendix A - Request for Sponsorship - 2017 Nugget Multisport Festival (2191310) The Community Engagement Manager presented the request for financial assistance from the Nugget Multisport Festival group in support of the Nugget MultiSport Festival which is to be held in Waihi on Saturday, 13 May 2017.

RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/62 Spicer/Rattray CARRIED RESOLVED THAT Council contribute $500.00 from the District General Fund towards sponsorship of the 2017 Nugget Multisport Festival event to be held on Saturday, 13 May 2017. CSDC17/63 Spicer/Rattray CARRIED COMMUNITY RECREATION REPORT 12 APRIL 2017 (2184189) The Parks and Reserves Manager presented the monthly report on recreation activities for April 2017.



RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/64 Leonard/Thorp CARRIED Acknowledgement of Council/Civil Defence staff for assistance with March/April Storm Events The councillors requested that their appreciation be conveyed to Council staff and Civil Defence staff for their support and efforts in assisting the district communities affected by the recent storm events. RESOLVED THAT the appreciation of Council be conveyed to Council staff and Civil Defence staff on behalf of the district communities for their efforts of support following the recent storm events. CSDC17/65 Buckthought/Thorp CARRIED Key matters raised:

• Morgan Park – Waihi Soccer Club have issues with no lighting on the fields and clubrooms and also issues with other codes using Morgan Park. It was requested that a report be prepared and presented on the status of the Sport n Action Trust - Morgan Park project to the Community Services and Development Committee in May.

• Community BBQ Paeroa (Porritt, Ainsley and Edwards Streets) - Cr Milner thanked

Community Services staff for organising the event.

MINUTES OF PAEROA DOMAIN USERS MEETING – MONDAY 6 MARCH 2017 (2181105) The Parks and Reserves Manager spoke on the key outcomes of the recently held Paeroa Domain Users group and requested that the minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 6 March 2017 be received. RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Paeroa Domain Users meeting held on Monday, 6 March 2017 be received. CSDC17/66 Tregidga/Milner CARRIED Noted: It was considered that it would be of benefit that a Morgan Park User group is formed as a way of allowing all sporting codes using the park to work together more cohesively.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES MONTHLY REPORT 12 APRIL 2017 (2184179 The Community Services - Facilities Manager presented a report which updated on community facilities activity for the month of March 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. CSDC17/67 Buckthought/Daley CARRIED Cr McLean thanked the Community Services - Facilities Manager for her efforts and the support she provides to the districts pensioner housing.



MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

CSDC17/68 Tregidga/Rattray CARRIED

Item No.

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) Under Section 48(1) for the Passing of this Resolution

2

Re-establishment of Tetley Quarry Subcommittee

Section 7(2)(i) Prejudice to Commercial Position/Negotiations To enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

Section 48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist.



RESOLVED

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting and that the business in committee discussed be confirmed. CSDC17/71 Tregidga/McLean CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.40am. CONFIRMED J P Tregidga Chairperson 17 May 2017


1 Economic Development Subcommittee Minutes – 02-05-17 Doc Ref: 2197739

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON TUESDAY 02 MAY 2017 COMMENCING AT 9.00AM PRESENT Crs D A Adams (In the Chair), G R Leonard, P A Milner, R Harris, A

Rattray and His Worship the Mayor J P Tregidga

IN ATTENDANCE Messrs S B Fabish (Group Manager – Community Services & Development), D Fielden (Economic Development Manager), Ms R Jenks (Economic Development Officer) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary)

APOLOGIES There were no apologies. DECLARATION OF LATE ITEMS There were no late items. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Cr Rattray declared an interest in Item 5 - Go Waihi quarterly report. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING 28 MARCH 2017 (2188016) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Economic Development Subcommittee meeting held on Tuesday 28 March 2017 are confirmed and are a true and correct record. EDS17/19 Milner/Rattray CARRIED POSITIVELY PROMOTING THE PLAINS (PPP) REPORT TO APRIL 2017 (2195227) Appendix A - Positively Promoting the Plains (PPP) 10 Year Actual-Budget 31.12.16 (2195230) Alex Quinn, Chairman of Positively Promoting the Plains was in attendance and presented an update on the activities of the organisation to April 2017 and provided the ten-year budget to 31 December 2016. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/20 Milner/Rattray CARRIED



POSITIVE PAEROA INC. QUARTERLY FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT MAY 2017 (2195211) AND SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT (2195245 Jo Tilsley, Town Promoter - Positive Paeroa Inc. was in attendance and presented the quarterly funding accountability report to May 2017 and supplementary report which provided an overview of the key activities of the organisation and the series of events held over the last quarter. RESOLVED THAT the reports be received. EDS17/21 Tregidga/Leonard CARRIED POSITIVE PAEROA INC. MAY 2017 QUARTERLY ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT INFORMATION SERVICES (2195209) Mike Tansey, Manager – Positive Paeroa Inc. Information Services was in attendance and presented the quarterly accountability report to May 2017 on information services provided by the organisation located at the ex Paeroa Post Office site. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/22 Adams/Tregidga CARRIED WAIHI I-SITE VISITOR CENTRE REPORT - APRIL 2017 (2195211) Eddie Morrow, CEO Waihi Discovery Centre was in attendance and presented his report on the operation and outcomes of the Waihi I-Site as per the requirements of the Service Level Agreement with Council. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/23 Leonard/Harris CARRIED DESTINATION COROMANDEL REPORT HDC FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY – JANUARY TO MARCH 2017 (2195269) Appendix A - Destination Coromandel Business Plan 2015 18 V3 (2195248) Appendix B - Destination Coromandel Marketing Plan 2017-18 (2195250) Hadley Dryden, CEO Destination Coromandel was in attendance and presented the Funding Accountability report as per the requirements of the Service Level Agreement with Council for the period January to March 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/24 CARRIED



The meeting adjourned at 10.35am. The meeting reconvened at 10.55am. QUARTERLY FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT GO WAIHI JANUARY - MARCH 2017 (2195167) BRIAN GENTIL, TOWN PROMOTER In the absence of Brian Gentil, the Chairperson requested the Go Waihi quarterly accountability report be taken as read. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/25 Milner/Rattray CARRIED



MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: Item No.

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) Under Section 48(1) for the Passing of this Resolution

1

Town Promotions Criteria

Section 7(2)(i) Prejudice to Commercial Position/Negotiations To enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations, and Section 7(2)(a) – Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.


2

Destination Coromandel Criteria

Section 7(2)(i) Prejudice to Commercial Position/Negotiations To enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations, and Section 7(2)(a) – Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.


EDS17/26 Leonard/Harris CARRIED



RESOLVED

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting and that the business in committee discussed be confirmed. EDS17/29 Harris/Leonard CARRIED COROMANDEL BUSINESS AWARDS (2195159) Appendix A - Proposed Coromandel Business Awards - Costings (2195171) Appendix B - Summary - Benefits Business Awards (2195178) Appendix C - Map of the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki Districts (2195169) Appendix D - Proposed Coromandel Business Awards - Communication Plan (2195172 Appendix E - Awards Template Categories and Prizes (2195175 Appendix F - Proposed Coromandel Business Awards - Timeline (2195174) The Economic Development Officer presented a report which sought the consideration of funding from Council towards to the inaugural Coromandel Business Awards. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/30 Milner/Rattray CARRIED RESOLVED THAT $5,000 be granted towards the Coromandel Business Awards subject to the Thames-Coromandel District Council matching this amount of funding, and THAT the contribution towards the business awards be funded from the Economic Development Budget. EDS17/31 Milner/Rattray CARRIED

IMPACTS OF THE BERL REPORT ON COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS (2195143)

The Economic Development Manager presented a report which provided an assessment of the likely impacts on Council departments of the future development of retirement villages in the district.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received.

EDS17/32 Leonard/Harris CARRIED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER'S REPORT FOR APRIL (2195164) Appendix A – LGNZ Awards Application (2195052) The Economic Development Manager presented a report which updated on economic development activities for the month of April 2017.



RESOLVED THAT the report be received. EDS17/33 Leonard/Harris CARRIED REPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 2017 WORK PROGRAMME (2195120 An update on the Economic Development Work Programme was presented for the subcommittees consideration. RESOLVED THAT the Economic Development Work Programme be received and approved as presented. EDS17/34 Milner/Rattray CARRIED The meeting closed at 12.25pm. CONFIRMED D A Adams Chairperson 30 May 2017


Page 1 of 3

Decision Report

To: Community Services and Development Committee

From: Group Manager- Community Services and Development

Date: Wednesday, 10 May 2017

File reference: Document: 2211378

Portfolio holders: Councillors Carole Daley and Toby Adams

Meeting date: Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Subject: Residential Development of the Southern Estate Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council approves the future development of an area of land in the Ngatea Southern Estate by private developer, and THAT any sale is subject to a report on area, usage and price being presented to Council for approval.

Purpose This report is to seek Council’s approval to allow for residential development to occur in an area of the Ngatea southern Estate. This report would normally be presented to Council, but due to the need to advance discussions with developers it is being presented to the Community Services and Development Committee for a decision. The matter or suggested decision does not involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background The Ngatea Southern Estate comprises of a land area of approximately 19.8 hectares and borders the Benner Drive, Darlington Street and Harris Place on the southern edge of town. The land was purchased in 2006 in conjunction with the Haurakian Charitable Trust. It was agreed by both parties that the land be sub-divided with Council taking ownership of Lot 1, 19.8 hectares and the Haurakian Charitable Trust taking ownership of Lot 2, 46 hectares.


Page 2 of 3

Council’s intention was to use their land to undertake future residential development. The area has since been rezoned for this purpose. The Haurakian Charitable Trust are in the process of sub dividing their land and in the near future will no longer require the Ngatea Southern Estate land to maintain their farming operations. They currently hold a lease on the land for a 1-year period, which expires on the 31 May 2017. Discussions are in place with the Trust with regards to their future plans. On the 16 March 2016, Council’s Operations Committee considered a report to sell a 4.5 hectare section of the Ngatea Southern Estate to a private developer to undertaken a residential development. The committee passed the following resolution,

THAT the Operations Committee does not agree that any land in the Ngatea Southern Estate is developed at the present time.

This decision was made at the time as the Committee agreed that development should be occurring in the Northern Estate first, whether it be Council or private development. The private developer involved in the request for land in the Ngatea Southern Estate, subsequently purchased land in the Ngatea Northern Estate and is working with staff to have the area of land subdivided off to allow their development to occur. Council has recently been approached by another two private developers wishing to purchase an area each of land within the Ngatea Southern Estate to undertake residential developments. The area in total for both developments would be approximately one third of the total area. Issues and options Due to the resolution passed on the 16 March 2016, Council with need to pass another resolution to allow development to occur in the Ngatea Southern Estate. If this occurs, it will allow the Economic Development Portfolio Holder to advance discussions with the two private developers on their proposals, which would then be reported back to Council for a decision on any sale of land. New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision involves a new activity. It is therefore considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as it provides: • local infrastructure Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to inform (i.e. one-way communication disseminating information) the private developers of the Committees decision.


Page 3 of 3

Budget Implications Any development work and resource consent costs undertaken as part of any subdivision would be reflected in the selling price resulting in no costs to Council. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). The Portfolio Holders and staff are recommending to Council that it approves the future development of an area of land in the Ngatea Southern Estate by private developer, subject a report on area, usage and price being presented to Council for approval. This will allow for discussions to occur with the developers. Steve Fabish Group Manager Community Services and Development


Page 1 of 6

Information Report To: Community Services & Development Committee

From: Community Engagement Manager

Date: Monday 20 April 2017

File reference: Document : 2209764 Appendix A : 2210320 Appendix B : 2210321 Appendix C : 2210318

Portfolio holder: Cr Anne Marie Spicer

Meeting date: Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Community Initiatives Report for the month of April 2017

Recommendation: THAT the report be received.

Purpose The Community Services and Development Group is responsible for the delivery of Community Development’s Community Initiatives activities. A report on these activities will be presented to the committee on a monthly basis. Social Initiatives A workshop with the working party is planned for Friday 19 May 2017. Sister Cities Travel plans for the delegation to China have been completed with the delegation meeting the Jiading government Mayor and officials on Monday 29 May 2017. The two students and Council representative for this year’s Jiading International Friendship Youth Camp have been selected; Jiading have been advised of their participation at the event. Planning for the student education exchange with the three colleges begins later this month. Grants and Donations Plains Ward Community Assistance Funding The Plains Ward has been allocated $11,187 plus $11,640.40 carried forward from the previous term for community assistance grants for the 2016/17 financial year. Grants have been made to the following:


Page 2 of 6

Organisation Amount Grante

Hauraki Plains Lionesses (hall hire) $48.00

Brylie Gordon $500.00

Lions Club of Ngatea $500.00

Kerepehi Brass Band $250.00

Turua Scout Group / 1st Waihi Scout Group $750.00

Lions Club of Ngatea (hall hire) $70.00

C. Clark (hall hire) $63.50

Hauraki Lioness Club (hall hire) $43.00

Coastline Kaiaua $1,000.00

Lions Club Ngatea $500.00

Ngatea Volunteer Fire Brigade (hall hire) $103.00

TOTAL ALLOCATED $3,827.50

UNALLOCATED $18,999.90 The Plains Ward Chair received a request from the President of the Ngatea Rugby and Sports Club for the cost of erecting a scoreboard at the Hugh Hayward Domain. The Ward Working Party are yet to meet and confirm their decision regarding level of support for this request. Plains Ward Discretionary Social Fund Initiatives The Plains Ward has $5,000 from the 2015/16 term that was not allocated and a further $5,000 for the 2016/17 term making a total of $10,000 for discretionary grants of a social services nature. No grants have been made to date. Paeroa Ward Community Assistance Funding The Paeroa Ward has $4,162 from the 2015/16 term that was not allocated and a further $10,941 for the 2016/17 term making a total of $15,103 for community assistance grants for the current financial year. Grants have been made to the following:


Paeroa Volunteer Drivers $500.00

Paeroa Neighbours $1,000.00

Te Pai O Hauraki Marae $500.00

Paeroa Basketball Assn $1,000.00


Page 3 of 6

Deija Gray $125.00

ECHO Walk Festival $500.00

Paeroa Volunteer Drivers $750.00

Paeroa Volunteer Fire Brigade (hall hire) $255.00

Buchanan-Darvil (hall hire) $78.00


UNALLOCATED $10,395.00

The Paeroa Ward Chair received a request from the new owners of the Ohinemuri Masonic Lodge building for financial assistance towards the earthquake proofing of the said building, and one from Karaoke Fever seeking sponsorship for an event in the domain on the 24 June 2017. The Ward Working Party are yet to meet and confirm their decision regarding level of support for these requests. Paeroa Ward Discretionary Social Fund The Paeroa Ward has $5,000 plus the unallocated balance for the 2015/16 term making a total of $15,000 for discretionary grants of a social services nature. In the 2016/17 term grants were made to the following:


Paeroa College – Te Ara Tapu a Tane $5,000.00

Carehouse Paeroa $1,000.00


UNALLOCATED $9,000.00 Waihi Ward Community Assistance Funding The Waihi Ward has been allocated $11,995 for community assistance grants for the 2016/17 financial year. Grants have been made to the following:


Golden Steps Trust $1,000.00

Helen Macky $500.00

Waihi East School $350.00

Society of St. Vincent de Paul $230.00

1st Waihi Scout Group / Turua Scout Group $750.00


Page 4 of 6

Waihi Community Resource Centre $1,200.00

Waihi ECHO Walk Festival $500.00

Art Waihi (hall hire) $189.00

Deija Gray $125.00

Waihi Association Football Club Inc. $1,000.00

Waikino Liaison Society Inc. $1,500.00

Waihi Memorial RSA $1,500.00

Waihi Art Club (hall hire) $150.00

Go Waihi Inc. (Beach Hop) $1,000.00

Nugget MultiSport Festival $500.00

Waihi Community Youth Trust $500.00


UNALLOCATED $1,001.00 The Waihi Ward Chair received a request from Jacob Drake for financial assistance with a trip to Nepal. The Ward Working Party are yet to meet and confirm their decision regarding level of support for these requests. Ward Discretionary Social Fund The Waihi Ward has $5,000 plus the unallocated balance for the 2015/16 term making a total of $5,480 for discretionary grants of a social services nature. Grants have been made to the following:


Waihi Community Resource Centre $3,000.00


UNALLOCATED $2,480.00 District General Funding The District has been allocated $10,400 for general grants for the 2016/17 financial year. Grants have been made to the following:


Page 5 of 6


Goldfields Railway Inc. $1,750.00

Kerepehi Brass Band Inc. $250.00

Waihi LandSAR $2,750.00

Go Waihi inc. (Beach Hop) $1,681.00

Goldfields School $1,000.00

Thames Coastguard $2,000.00

Nugget MultiSport Festival $500.00


UNALLOCATED $ 469.00 District Discretionary Social Fund The District has $45,000 plus the unallocated balance for the 2015/16 term making a total of $57,920 for discretionary grants of a social services nature. Grants have been made to the following:


Age Concern Thames $5,000.00

Hauraki Citizens Advice Bureau $8,000.00

Hauraki Secondary-Tertiary-Industry Project $11,200.00

Te Mana Rangatira Project $2,000.00

Keep Hauraki Beautiful $2,226.00


UNALLOCATED $29,494.00 OTHER REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - GOLDFIELDS RAILWAY WAIHI (2186522, 2186443; APPENDICES A, B, & C) Last month a request for financial assistance towards the employment of a General Manager for the Goldfields Railway Inc was presented to the members. Portfolio Holder and staff recommended that the request for a grant be declined and that the applicant be directed to make a submission to the Annual or Long Term Plan.


Page 6 of 6

The members resolved that the request put on hold until further information is made available to Council and that a representative from Goldfields be invited to address Council with more detailed information on the request. The Chairperson and Secretary/Treasurer will be in attendance to present additional information as requested. THE TREASURY BUSINESS CASE FOR FUNDING 2017 (2191323) The Community Engagement Manager presented a report last month which sought the consideration of the members to a request from the Coromandel Heritage Trust for the funding of two staff positions at The Treasury research and archive centre in Thames. Staff recommended that Council includes a grant payment of $30,000 in the 2017/18 Annual Plan to the Coromandel Heritage Trust and consider future funding in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. The members resolved that an open day be arranged for the Councillors to visit The Treasury archive centre in Thames before any further consideration is given to the funding assistance request. A number of Councillors have visited the centre, and a member from the centre will be in attendance to answer any questions. Other Initiatives Awards The Industry Training Graduation Awards to be hosted by Thames-Coromandel District Council have been postponed and a date is yet to be confirmed - possibly 28 June 2017. Ministry of Youth Development (MYD). No significant matters to report. Creative NZ Creative Communities Scheme (CCS) No significant matters to report. John McIver Community Engagement Manager


Report to Hauraki District Council meeting 17 May 2017 Funding to employ a Manager for Goldfields Railway Inc

Over the past 10 years Goldfields Railway has grown to become a sound Tourism Railway while still maintaining its goals to be a Heritage Railway. Goldfields Railway is the only fully operational Heritage Railway precinct in NZ We operate 364 days of the year being closed for Christmas Day Our operational times vary during the year depending on demand from group bookings, track and bridge maintenance and the weather. During the school holidays we operate 3 return runs a day between Waihi and Waikino a 6.4 km trip taking approx 30 minutes each way.

The group operate under a Management Committee which meets monthly and receives reports from • The Chairman on big picture activities • The Operations Manager on the Loco and Track operations and staff

training • The Secretary Treasurer on the finances and correspondence • The Health and Safety Officer on Safety matters, Risks, Incidents • The Rolling Stock Manager on the Carriage operation and the

Locomotives • The Housing Manager on the Houses and upgrade works being

undertaken • The R & M team Leader on the restoration works being undertaken • The Projects Manager on key projects being undertaken which at this

time include o The rebuild of the Hunslett DSA 551 to become our operational

Loco o The build of the Mini Rail which is now ready for operation o The build of a Water Tower – base completed and on hold

All these people are Volunteers and put in a lot of hours.

Goldfields Railway Inc. Phone: 07-863-9020 38 Wrigley Street, Email: [email protected] Waihi 3610 Web Site: www.waihirail.co.nz


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX A

We have formed linkages with a number of organisations to assist the growth of the Railway and these include

• Wintec to develop our Marketing so that we can increase our passenger numbers

• Waikato University to show opportunities for students to be involved in volunteers work including Social Media and the day to day operations. Guarding or Driving in their Holidays etc

• Corrections NZ to provide persons needing to complete Community Hours for misdemeanours. Currently we are working to reopen a siding at Waikino to allow the community and visitors the opportunity to enjoy swimming and picnicking at the old Quarry site. • Some discussions with Springhill Prison about working on a Rolling stock

rebuild in their workshops • Waihi College with a project the students can complete • The Hauraki Rail Trail part of which runs adjacent to our line • The Waihi Discovery Centre who share marketing initiatives • The OceanaGold Education Centre who also share visitor initiatives

We operate under a Licence from NZ Transport Agency Rail Division and have very strict reporting requirements under our Safety Case which is approved by NZTA and Worksafe NZ. We undergo and audit each year. The future:

Goldfields Railway has a number of initiatives it has targeted to be completed over the next five years. These include: • The replacement of the Waitekauri Bridge; • Restoration of a number of goods wagons and carriages to allow for two

complete trains to be available at any time; • The acquisition of another diesel locomotive heavy enough for pulling

larger trains; • The return of a steam locomotive large enough to pull a standard

Goldfields Railway rake of carriages; • The building of a replica of the original steam locomotive shed that was

once on-site; • The construction of a blind loop and extension of the platform at Waikino

Station; • The restoration of the Waihi Station goods shed and jigger sheds;


• The construction of a blind loop at Waihi Station, specifically for the storage and display of goods wagons;

• The reconnection and refurbishment of the ballast quarry line; • The possibility of adding two new stations along the route • Improved signage around both stations and along the railway line; • The reinstating the tablet rail control system; • The possibility of constructing a series of small, one-bedroom units for use

by pensioners, adjacent to the heritage bank at Waihi station; • The possibility of repurposing the stockyard site at Waihi Station; • The possibility of obtaining rail heritage and other, appropriate heritage

buildings to be located at Waihi Station; • Expansion of the mini-rail system at Waihi Station.

To achieve these goals, Goldfields Railway plans to:

• Significantly increase its passenger numbers via its strategic partnerships (e.g. Gold Discovery Centre, Hauraki Rail Trail, OceanaGold Education Centre, etc.)

• Create a number of its own events to attract visitors to the railway; • Attract third parties to utilise the railway for events, e.g. corporate,

weddings, birthdays, etc; • Possibly add a late afternoon return service to Waikino during peak

periods, specifically for those using the Hauraki Rail Trail; • Actively seek external support from interested stakeholders; • Actively seek external funding via donations, endowments and

crowdfunding.

The opportunity is yours: This is your chance to get on board with an organisation that’s set for long-term growth and provides opportunities for the local community and wider district. In order to grow our operation a lot of this work needs more time put into it and we have decided that this would be best be achieved by employing a full time paid Manager who could then progress some of the above initiatives, coordinate activities on a day to day basis and have an overall responsibility for the running of the Railway and report to the Management Committee. A Position Description has been developed.

We anticipate that the role would require a salary of around $60K per annum.


Our finances currently are committed as follows: (See Budget} We would like assistance for years 1 and 2 of $30K each year following which our income will have risen sufficiently to cover this total cost

Chris Hale Secretary Treasurer


Updated 30 April 2017

Business Plan Sept 2013

Updated Apr 2017


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX B


Contents:

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 3

Mission Statement: ................................................................................................ 3 Overview ............................................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4

3. Key Business Objectives & Activities ............................................................... 5

Primary Business Objectives: .......................................................................................... 5 Infrastructure Funding Visitor Experience

Secondary Business Objectives: ........................................................................... 9 Governance and Management Operations Human Resources Asset Preservation Finance Budgets

4. Key Contacts ..................................................................................................... 14



1. Executive Summary

Mission Statement:

Goldfields Railway Inc will preserve, restore and promote the rail heritage of Waihi By achieving the following strategic objectives…

• Ensuring the Railway has sound, safe and certified infrastructure

• Providing an outstanding and educational visitor experience

• Ensuring the Railway has a sustainable long term future

• Growing opportunities for engagement in rail heritage

• Maintaining the integrity of the Waihi Railway precinct and heritage story

Overview Goldfields Railway is a key piece of Hauraki Coromandel Heritage with strong links to the Gold mining history of the region. It has aging infrastructure that requires constant ongoing maintenance. These infrastructure issues have large funding requirements meaning that the organization is vulnerable to the market forces. These issues need to be addressed to ensure a sound foundation upon which Goldfields Railway can build relationships both locally and nationally. Sound business planning and marketing are needed to build the experience and visitor numbers for the long term viability of Goldfields Railway



2. Introduction Goldfields Steam Train Society Inc was registered in July 1980 following two years investigation by a widespread enthusiastic group headed by the Mayors of Waihi and Paeroa to retain the Waihi - Paeroa link after it closed in Sept.1978.The Society was finally able to purchase the 6.75 km of N.Z.R. line between Waihi and Waikino for a regional vintage railway tourist attraction. In 1996 the Society changed its name to Goldfields Railway Inc. Over the many years of the organisation’s life it has grown and developed from a one day a month rail enthusiast’s type operation to a fulltime visitor industry operator and key district and regional attraction. As a significant district visitor attraction Goldfields Railway is committed to providing a quality Rail Heritage Experience on a regular basis between Waihi and Waikino. The organisation continues to operate as an incorporated society, as originally registered. As per its constitution a management committee is elected annually at the AGM’s held in Sept. The railway operation has an obligation to comply with various legislative acts and is subject to regular track inspections and safety audits by NZ Transport Agency – Rail Division. This requires effective processes and procedures to be implemented and followed in order to meet standards set. These requirements also influence the ability to operate. The aged condition of the track, bridges and rolling stock has provided some significant challenges for the organisation over the years and continues to do so. Goldfields Railway holds a lease agreement with the Department of Conservation for the use of the land at and around the Waihi Station precinct. The same agreement covers the rail corridor between Waihi and Waikino and also includes the Waikino Station and surrounding grounds. A sub-lease agreement for the Waikino Station is held between Goldfields Railway and the Waikino Station Café operation. The Waikino Station Café operation was established in December 2000. The independently owned and operated café operation at the Waikino Station adds value to the overall customer experience offering. The café provides ticket sales services at the Waikino station. While the café operations and the railway are independent operations a sound working relationship needs to be maintained and provides shared benefits. The Society has a reasonable number of members with a small number of working members that carry out duties such as driving and guarding as volunteers. A small number of project based restoration works are also undertaken by volunteer members. Customers of the railway are predominately free independent travelers as visitors to the Waihi and Coromandel area and school groups. A small number of group/coach visitors also add to



the customer base of the railway. The group/coach market customers include a range of education, special interest and travel industry tours.

3. Key Business Objectives & Activities In order to achieve the strategic objectives that have been set Goldfields Railway Inc as a whole must buy into the key objectives and activities that have been identified within this business plan. Because of the nature of the entity and constant pressure on resources it is important that all activities are reviewed and prioritized in a pragmatic manner. The following key business objectives have been identified, reviewed and broadly sorted into two areas of priority (Primary and Secondary) to provide guidance around urgency of activity, allocation of resources and implementation planning.

(A) Primary Business Objectives: Infrastructure Key Strategic Objective: Ensuring the Railway has sound, safe and certified infrastructure Goldfields current infrastructure while enabling operation is in need of upgrade and constant maintenance. Good planning and commitment from members to that plan will see a gradual upgrade of this important asset

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Track Upgrade

Full assessment of track condition to meet NZTA certification requirements Prioritise work to be done Develop (1 year) track maintenance plan and costings Implement track maintenance plan

Operations Manager Operations Manager Operations Manager Operations Manager

Annually August Sept annually Sept annually Sept annually

$1000 Nil Nil TBA

Inspection completed by Glenbrook Jan 2016 Priorities set Plan developed Weekly work completed by Trackman and PDs



Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Bridges upgrade

Full assessment of bridges condition to meet NZTA certification requirements Prioritise work to be done Develop Waitekauri Bridge restoration plan and costings Implement Bridge restoration plan Raise funds

OM Committee OM OM

Now Dec 2015 Asap 2016

Nil $350,000 plus GST

Completed Dec 2015 Waitekauri Bridge next Bridge It and Pinnacles Civil work approved Sept 2016 Quotations sought based on Bridge It plans Applications made and funds raised May 2017

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Equipment

Complete register of all equipment Develop Equipment maintenance plan and costings Implement maintenance plan

Committee OM OM

Ongoing July 2013 July 2013

Nil

Completed G Martin Maintenance Plans developed On going

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Locomotives and Rolling Stock

Complete register of all Locomotives and Rolling stock incl

• History • Maintenance records

Determine use and need for each piece of rolling stock to determine ongoing value to Goldfields

• Develop Maintenance Plan

Committee Committee RS Manager

Aug 2013 Ongoing Safety Case

Nil Nil

List Completed In progress Completed and in use



Funding Key Strategic Objective: Ensuring the Railway has a sustainable long term future Goldfields will need to raise a substantial amount of capital to maintain its infrastructure to a certifiable standard. With a sound safe working environment Goldfields does have a sustainable future.

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Fundraising Strategy Large amounts Small amounts

Identify funding required for infrastructural projects Prioritise requirements Identify sponsorship options and potential benefits to sponsors Identify fundraising options

• Sponsorship • Donations • Grants

Identify and engage a professional fund raiser Work with Fundraiser on developing a Fundraising Strategy Identify all small fundraising options and dates for application Make applications as required

Committee Treasurer Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Treasurer Treasurer

July 2013

$7000

Report Completed Waitekauri Bridge and Track Appln’s in progress On going Giblin Report completed On going with each project On going with each project Ongoing



Visitor Experience Key Strategic Objective: Providing an outstanding and educational visitor experience Goldfields is a unique piece of New Zealand’s Rail Heritage The reason people visit Goldfields Railway is for the Heritage Rail experience Goldfields need to deliver an excellent experience in a professional way

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost:

Action

Deliver an outstanding Rail experience Develop and outstanding educational experience

Assess the current experience delivery methods

• Are they consistent • Are they of a high

standard Develop the standard and experience that Goldfields should deliver

• The physical experience • The service experience • Key consistent message

Provide staff with a visitor training programme Implement physical changes that are deemed necessary Monitor and measure the Customer experience and adjust as necessary Review current educational package Consult with end users to gauge and meet user needs Prepare upgraded material for

• Schools • Tour Groups • Free Independent

Travelers

Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee

Asap Aug 2014 Mar 2016 Mar 2016 Mar 2016

Tba In House

In Progress The Safety case has been rewritten and review can commence Part of the Marketing strategy currently being developed Part of Marketing Strategy Reviewed and in use



Marketing Key Strategic Objective: Ensuring the Railway has a sustainable long term future Goldfields is recognized as a significant visitor attraction in the Hauraki Coromandel region Goldfields future will depend not only on good infrastructure but being able to tell the market about it by building relationships

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: ActionDevelop a Marketing Strategy

Develop a marketing strategy recognizing

• Market sectors o Schools and

Educational interests

o Group Tours o FITs o Industry o Special events

• Key messages o Stories

• How they can be reached

o Social Media o Website o Brochures o Other media

Radio Newspa

pers o Word of Mouth

• Expertise to develop the Strategy

o Engage expert assistance

• Display / Sponsorship opportunities

Secretary and committee Grant Griffin

Oct 2015

In house 1st draft currently prepared for review by Committee Wintec working on upgrade May 2017 In progress Wintech assisting Viv Bakareth Under development



(B) Secondary Business Objectives: Governance & Management Key Strategic Objective: Ensuring a the Railway has a sustainable long term future Goldfields will need clear governance and management in order to fulfill its business objectives and regulatory requirements.

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Constitution Business Planning Management Structure

Review the Constitution annually to ensure it meets the current and future operational and members needs Develop a business plan with short, medium and long term objectives Develop an appropriate Management Structure to ensure the Business plan, priorities and objectives are achieved Develop a succession Plan

Committee in liaison with Hon Solicitor Committee Committee Committee

July each year Nov 2013 Ongoing Sept 2014

In house

Constitution reviewed Aug 2015 Adopted at Aug AGM Completed Nov 2014. On going upgrades – May 2017 Management restructure completed as part of revised Safety Case- Jun 2015 Updated Apr 2016 Proposal agreed June 2015 and updated Apr 2016

Operations Key Strategic Objective: Ensuring that the Railway has a sustainable long term future Goldfields must have robust and consistent operational procedures in order to meet safety regulations and provide an enhanced visitor experience

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Operational schedule

Review the timetable to meet current market needs Review the pricing structure

OM and Committee Committee

asap

In house

Reviewed and set New pricing set for July 16



Rolling stock operations Health and Safety compliance

Review and update all Standard Operating Procedures for all operational functions incl Preventative Maintenance Ensure Health and Safety policies are current and meet NZ Transport Agency requirements

RS Manager H & S Officer

asap asap

In house In house

Under ongoing review Maintenance Schedules being prepared Safety Case review completed

Human Resources Key Strategic Objective: Growing opportunities for engagement in rail heritage Goldfields Railway needs a range of people with excellent technical, interpersonal and commercial skills. As a society based organization with an understanding of commercial realities, both volunteers and paid staff will be required to achieve the Strategic objectives

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Membership Volunteers Community engagement Succession Planning

Actively pursue new membership

• Guards and Drivers • Restoration

Training as required Develop partnerships with Business Develop partnerships with the Community Prepare a plan to show how replacements for Operational Management of the Railway will be introduced

Committee OM tba tba Committee

asap on going asap asap asap

Press releases have secured 7 new personnel On going Ongoing Ongoing Updated Apr 2016



Asset Preservation Key Strategic Objective: Maintaining the integrity of the Waihi Railway precinct and heritage story The Waihi station complex is the most original valuable historic railway site in New Zealand and significant for railway heritage. It includes 6 ex-NZR houses, railway station, associated goods and storage sheds and a Derrick hand crane The preservation of the Precinct and its historical records are core to the future of Goldfields Railway

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: Action Station Buildings Station Houses Historical information

Prepare a Maintenance plan for buildings incl costings Prioritise activities Prepare a Maintenance /Replacement plan for Station Houses incl costings Prioritise activities Prepare and Maintain historical records Develop Storage facilities both on and off site Display of Railway archival artifacts/ exhibits at Station

Chairman Housing Mgr Committee Committee G Martin Committee G Griifin

asap asap Ongoing Ongoing June 2015

tba tba

Action required Conservation Plan to be developed with Heritage NZ Prepared and in use Plan prepared Houses are being upgraded under review with PGG Wrightson Historical Docs listed and catalogued Initial work completed Library and storage set up



Finances Key Strategic Objective: Maintain up to date financial records that enable committee to make sound financial decisions Waihi Railway’s main income source is its ticket sales which cover operational costs. The aged infrastructure requires relatively high maintenance and this is funded mainly from grants, donations and sponsorship. Requirements of Clause 19(e) of the Constitution

Task: Activity: Who: Date: Est Cost: ActionAnnual budgets Annual Accounts Monthly Accounts

Prepare annual budgets Prepare Annual Accounts Have Annual Accounts audited Present Annual Accounts at AGM Prepare monthly financial reports

Treasurer Treasurer Treasurer

15 Sept annually 15 Sept annually 15th each month

2016/17 completed 2015/16 accounts completed Presented at AGM Sept 2016 Monthly reports completed



GOLDFIELDS RAILWAY INC BUDGET excl GST See attached



4. Goldfields Railway – Key Contacts Organisation Key Contact Phone No EmailNZ Transport Agency Graeme Hudson [email protected] FRONZ Trevor Burling [email protected] Historic Places Trust Mid Northern Office

Joshua Arbury 027 3008342 [email protected]

Rail Heritage Trust of NZ

Barry O’Donnell 04 980 3089 [email protected]

Pinnacles Civil /Opus John Kaczon Suzanne Porter

022 6580817 07 343 1131 027 2167807

[email protected] [email protected]

Bridge It Pat Seuren 027 2409549 [email protected]

Dept of Conservation Mark Anderson

Sharon Te Whaiti-Rowe

07 571 2728 07 858 1582

[email protected] [email protected]

Gold FM Brian Gentil 07 863 9644 0211472583

Lotteries Heritage Joanne Becker 0800 824824 [email protected]

Charities Commission Username: GOL21340 Password: 4#7gS33H

Lorraine Tawhai 04 978 7777 [email protected]

Carters Contractors Warren Carter 07 863 7050 [email protected] [email protected]

Hutchins Engineering Mark Hutchins 07 863 3500 Hauraki Rail Trail Diane Drummond 027 3227227 [email protected] James Say Trust M McLean 07 863 5151 Trust Waikato Sandra Larsen 07 282 0282 [email protected] Lion Foundation Melita 09 487 0384 www.lionfoundation.org.nz Hauraki District Council

Wendy Harris 07 862 8609

Waihi College Brendon Carroll 07 863 8349 [email protected]

A & G Price Chris Harrison 07 868 6060 [email protected],nz

Kiwirail Eruera Chesley 027 7079310 [email protected]



Mainline Steam Ian Welch Destination Coromandel

Hadley Dryden 07 868 0017 [email protected]

Disabilities NZ Competenz Richard Cowper 021 814 552 [email protected] MITO Mark Gebbie 06 397 7497 [email protected] BCITO Greg Forsyth 027 4577447 [email protected] Gough-Cat Greg McCarthy 03 983 2451 [email protected]

Oceana Gold Bernie O’Leary 07 863 [email protected]

Waihi Gold Discovery Centre

Eddie Morrow 07 863 9015 [email protected]




Financial Budgets/Forecasts:

Draft Consolidated Operating Estimates Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Budget Budget

GST Excl 2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

REVENUE

Ticket Sales 175000 200000 225000 184927 230000 213313 250000 265000 280000

Shop sales 6000 7250 9000 9094 10000 8639 10000 10000 10000

Surplus Material Sales 5000 5500 6000 6044 6000 8015 6000 6000 6000

Power point sales 500 750 1000 1683 1200 3772 8000 8000 8000

Rent Waikino 10500 10500 10500 10434 10500 10434 10500 12500 12500

Rent Houses 42000 50000 55000 57656 55000 63137 55000 55000 60000

Rent Cattle Yards 10000 10000 10500 10779 10500 11347 10500 10500 10500

Subscriptions 800 900 1000 930 1000 1156 1000 1000 1000

Grants 30000 50000 60000 122740 60000 31769 60000 60000 60000

Donations 2500 2500 2500 2770 2500 970 2500 2500 2500

Interest Received 350 400 450 883 500 554 750 750 800

Fundraising Capital tba tba 270000 245000 30000 5000 350000 40000 40000

Wage subsidy 4000 4000 6000 6100 2000 1125 0 0 0

Total Income 286650 341800 656950 659040 419200 359231 764250 471250 491300


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX C

EXPENSES

ACC 1600 1603 2000 1640 2150 2250 2400

Accounting and Audit 1200 1170 1500 1516 1500 2000 2000

Coffee Materials 500 436 500 256 500 500 500

Subscriptions 500 340 500 532 600 600 600

Members Café 1000 910 1000 697 1000 1000 1000

Office costs 3000 3032 3000 2517 3000 3000 3000

Ticket Printing 1500 1600 1800 1760 2000 1952 2000 2500 2500

Cleaning 5000 3500 3400 3500 3758 3600 3700 3700

Commission on Tickets 10000 12000 13000 12886 14000 13348 15000 16000 17000

Shop purchases 1200 1400 6500 6498 7000 6593 7500 7500 7500

R & M Engines 10000 10000 15000 10065 15000 36476 50000 30000 20000

R & M Rollingstock 15000 20000 5000 1375 7500 14795 30000 30000 25000


Draft Consolidated Operating Estimates Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Budget Budget

GST Excl 2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

Eftpos and Bank Fees

Electricity 2750 2500 2584 2500 2852 2500 3000 3000

Equipment Hire 1200 3000 3050 3000 3105 3000 4000 4000

Fuel and Oil 18000 15000 12000 11422 13500 9748 13500 14000 14000

R & M Bridges 15000 20000 350000 347244 10000 9982 350000 20000 20000

R & M Track 25000 25000 30000 29921 30000 21574 30000 50000 50000

Marketing / AdvertisingOperations 6000 7000 8000 8346 8000 4289 8000 8000 8000

Insurance 3750 4000 4500 4572 4500 5060 4500 4500 4500

Insurance Houses 5000 5000 5000 5400 5000 5110 5000 5000 5000

Rates Houses 7000 7500 8000 8273 8000 6917 8000 8500 8500

Rates Other 5000 5000 2000 2241 2000 514 2000 2500 2500

Travel costs 6000 6000 7000 6700 7000 7050 7000 7000 7000

R & M Houses 12000 12500 15000 14938 15000 3285 15000 15000 20000

Health and Safety 3000 4000 5000 4821 5000 462 6000 6000 6500

Staff Training and allowances 5000 6000 6000 5399 6000 5262 6000 6000 6000

Security 1000 1100 3500 3697 3500 1176 3500 3750 3750

Telephone 3000 3000 2803 3000 2915 3000 3000 3000

Interest on Loans 2000 1500 134 1500 832 1500 1500 1500

Lease DoC 10000 10000 10000 10226 10000 10002 10000 10000 10000

R & M Buildings / Grounds 6500 6500 16000 16171 15000 7538 15000 20000 20000

Sundry Costs 5000 8000 3042 7500 849 7500 8000 8000


Wages 45000 75000 85000 82366 85000 74792 91000 96000 102000

Debt Servicing 10000 10000 10000 9600 20000 16600 20000 30000 30000

Mini Railway 3000 2702 1000 1000 1000

Water Tower 2000 1584 0 0 2000

Managers Salary 60000 60000 60000

Total Expenses 220950 279600 642100 620791 322000 282323 784350 478800 478450


Page 1

Decision Report

To: Mayor and Councillors

From: Community Engagement Manager

Date: 20 April 2017

File reference: Document: 2189616 Appendix A: 2194200

Meeting date: 17 May 2017

Subject: Paeroa College Charitable Trust

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT the correspondence from Paeroa College Charitable Trust be received, and THAT a grant of $10,000 from the Paeroa Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund be made to the Paeroa College Charitable Trust for the multi-sport project.

Purpose The purpose of the report is for Council to consider a request from the Paeroa College Charitable Trust for the funding of a multi-sports community complex. Background The College Board of Trustees have been looking at developing a local area that would create a community sports hub. The Board has established a charitable trust that will progress this initiative and other projects as they evolve. This initial project will take place on a piece of land north of the Hal Thorp Park (Tennis and Squash club), and backs onto the college playing fields. This area is being developed initially for sports such as basketball, hockey and futsal (- 5 aside football). More detail of their plan can be found in the attached appendix. Issues As, the Trust’s mission is “to create and support capital projects that enhance the wider community and provide sustainable assets for the whole community to operate, enjoy and benefit from,” this proposal should not present any issues for Council.


Page 2

Budget Implications As a potential asset for the community the funding of this initiative is possible through the Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund. Recommendation Staff and the Paeroa Ward Committee members are recommending that Council grant payment of $10,000 from the Paeroa Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund towards this project. John McIver Community Engagement Manager


Page 3

APPENDIX A: 2194200


Page 4


Page 5


Page 6


Page 7


Page 8


Page 9


Page 10


Page 11


Page 12


Page 13


Page 14


Page 15


Page 16


Page 17


Page 18


Page 19


Page 20


Page 21


Page 22


Page 23


Page 24


Page 25


1

Information Report


From: Community Engagement Manager and Parks & Reserves Manager

Date: 26 April 2017

File reference: Portfolio Holder:

Document: 2195815 Cr Max McLean

Meeting date:

17 May 2017

Subject:

Community Recreation Monthly Report on Activities for the month of April 2017


Purpose The Community Services Department is responsible for the delivery of Council’s Community Recreation activities, including Libraries, District Swimming Pools, Sports Fields, Recreation Reserves and District Sports Co-ordinator (Sport Waikato). A report on these activities will be presented to the Community Services and Development Committee on a monthly basis. COMMUNITY RECREATION Libraries Leading up to the move to the new Paeroa library, customers were asking lots of questions about the progress of the project and saying how they were looking forward to getting into the new building. The official opening on Friday 5 May 2017 went very well with all of the visitors and customers very impressed with the new style and layout of the shelving and reading spaces. Having a removal company come in and pack, relocate from the old library and place all the books back on the correct shelves in the new library went very smoothly and was completed in one day. This took a lot of stress off the staff. The Waihi Library became a vibrant community space over the school holidays. Children were busy reading, colouring in, using their devices or just sitting in groups chatting. The following graphs give an overview of some of the operations statistics of the district library service:


2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000Ju

l-13

Sep-

13

Nov-

13

Jan-

14

Mar

-14

May

-14

Jul-1

4

Sep-

14

Nov-

14

Jan-

15

Mar

-15

May

-15

Jul-1

5

Sep-

15

Nov-

15

Jan-

16

Mar

-16

May

-16

Jul-1

6

Sep-

16

Nov-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

APNK Computers in Libraries

WAH

POA

NGT

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Jul-1

3

Sep-

13

Nov-

13

Jan-

14

Mar

-14

May

-14

Jul-1

4

Sep-

14

Nov-

14

Jan-

15

Mar

-15

May

-15

Jul-1

5

Sep-

15

Nov-

15

Jan-

16

Mar

-16

May

-16

Jul-1

6

Sep-

16

Nov-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Wireless Sessions

WAH

POA

NGT

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Jul-1

3

Sep-

13

Nov-

13

Jan-

14

Mar

-14

May

-14

Jul-1

4

Sep-

14

Nov-

14

Jan-

15

Mar

-15

May

-15

Jul-1

5

Sep-

15

Nov-

15

Jan-

16

Mar

-16

May

-16

Jul-1

6

Sep-

16

Nov-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Total Issues Books/Magazines

WAH

POA

NGT

District Swimming Pools This was the first full pool season under the new management partnership of the Pools Supervisor and the Parks and Reserves Manager. We have seen the successful introduction


3

of some new ideas and technology, but are still in the process of implementing a number of improvements across all pools. Ideas for marketing and promotion are being looked at to help with increasing the numbers of visitors to pools, especially for Waihi. There was also a very good team of lifeguards working at the pools this season. They had a great focus on customer service and attention to detail with regard to dealing with and reporting, any health and safety issues. Summary of Pool Attendance for the Season Total Public Swims District 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 Total (3 yrs) Ngatea 5,364 6,022 5,815 17,201 Paeroa 5,052 4,924 5,256 15,232 Waihi 4,247 3,478 3,041 10,766 District Total 14,663 14,424 14,112 School Swims* District 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 Total Ngatea 9,431 5,313 4,940 19,684 Paeroa 5,110 5,242 2,026 12,378 Waihi 5,831 4,839 2,604 13,274 Schools Total 20,372 15,394 9,570 *Please note that these figures are derived from a manual headcount of students at the time of arrival, which often coincides with the departure of the previous group of students. It can be difficult to get accurate numbers during this time of confusion. Staff are looking into a better system of monitoring attendance numbers for schools. Retail Items for 2016/2017 District Drinks Ice Creams Waterproof Nappies Ngatea 77 413 37 Paeroa 89 275 61 Waihi 58 173 11 Total 224 861 109 Upcoming Pool Work Staff have commissioned Watershed Consulting to provide a report on the condition of the Waihi pool so that we will be more aware of future maintenance needs. The pool contract agreement with the Waihi College will also be finalised and signed. The Paeroa and Ngatea pools will both be painted prior to the start of the next pool season. New covers will be purchased for all three pools to enable more efficient heat retention. Any Health and Safety concerns at the pools will also be addressed during the off-season, including the installation of new mats and the removal of trip hazards; slipping hazards; and sharp objects.


4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

November: December: January: February: March:

General Public

Waihi:

Paeroa:

Ngatea:

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


Schools

Waihi:

Paeroa:

Ngatea:


5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Shop items

Waihi:

Paeroa:

Ngatea:

Waihi Events Centre There are no items of significance to report. Sports Fields and Recreation Reserves Morgan Park A detailed report on the Morgan park redevelopment project is included in the agenda. Brenan Field The excessive wet weather we’ve had recently has had a very detrimental effect on the playing surface of the field, making it unsafe to play on. A turf specialist has provided staff with some repair options but it is unlikely that we can do anything until the Spring. Rugby League is the main sport affected. The various rugby clubs in Paeroa are discussing how they can share the fields that we have so that everyone can still have facilities on which to train and play games. Paeroa Domain Remedial work has been conducted at the netball courts: repairs to fences: repairs to cracks in the asphalt; and chemical treatment to reduce court slipperiness. The new footings have been poured and the goal posts have been installed on the number one field on the Domain. Seasonal maintenance work has also been carried out including fertilising and verti-draining. Hugh Hayward Domain A separate report is included in the agenda on the removal of the Ngatea Scout Hall.


6

District Sports Co-ordinator (Sport Waikato) The following is an update from Julie Stephenson, Hauraki District Coordinator reporting on her activities over the last month. Our People

• Project Energizers have continued workshops with large and small ball skills in a number of schools. In the lead up to winter sport season they have also included striking skills and fundamental hand/eye coordination drills

• ECHO Walking Festival has concluded with a number of walks having to be cancelled or postponed because of the challenging weather conditions in April. Some of our local walks especially in and around Waihi were very popular with excellent numbers attending. The rate of satisfaction with the delivered walks has increased favourably according to the 2017survey with the level of organisation and the overall enjoyment of walks all rated 4 or 5 out of 5

• Set up the Squash Micro-Court indoors at Karangahake School for week one of term

two. It was generously provided free by Squash Waikato for the week. A keen parent has attracted 15 students to come along to the beginners ‘Small Nix’ programme to be held this term in Paeroa

• Support for the Waihi Squash Club Holiday programme which attracted 11 students. Numbers were slightly disappointing although this seemed to be the trend over these last holidays

• Under 5 Energize have been concluding their oral health campaign with the connection to whole body health. Feedback has shown that 95% of parents/caregivers have learnt new information that they have put into practice from the campaign. This term U5 will focus on Matariki with traditional Maori games in early childcare centres

Building Communities

• The possibility of an all-weather track around the edge of the Hugh Hayward Domain, Ngatea is gaining some traction after it was agreed at a special meeting, that the concept be taken to council.

• Attended a Sports Facilities Planning Workshop in Cambridge (including

representatives from all Waikato Councils). This workshop had an aquatics theme which was quite interesting. It showed that the Waikato region had an abundance of local seasonal pools, but was lacking in sub-regional and regional year round pools.

• The Paeroa College/Community all weather courts project peer review has been

completed by Sport New Zealand. Sport Waikato’s Regional Facilities Officer, Leanne Baker will be reporting this back to the steering group as soon as possible

• The 10 weeks of support for the new ‘Steady As You Go’ class in Ngatea has concluded and it has been great to see that 3 of the participants have put their hands up to share the coordination and delivery in the future.

• Involvement with the organising committee for the Waihi Nugget Multisport event, especially around promotion outside the district


7

Other

• Over the years, Sport Waikato has built up a pool of equipment that was used at holiday programmes or borrowed by schools and community groups. During the holidays the equipment was catalogued and repaired and has been pooled with Project Energize resources to ensure maximum use.

• Fantastic article on Waihi resident Mike Hill in this month’s Fitness Journal. Mike has

become involved with the Waihi Squash Club as a way to improve his fitness. This has resulted in a real passion for the sport where he is now fully involved as a volunteer, but it has also started a successful weight loss journey.

Coming Up May 1 – Karangahake School – Squash Micro Court May 1 – Nugget Committee Meeting May 2 – Steady As You Go, Ngatea. May 3 – ECHO Walking Festival de-brief meeting May 3 – Rippa Rugby, Ngatea May 8 – Thames Valley Secondary School Sports Association Meeting May 8 – Nugget Committee Meeting May 10 – Rippa Rugby, Waihi May 11 – Nugget Volunteers/Marshall briefing May 12 – Ohinemuri School Football Tournament May 12 – Nugget Multisport festival registrations May 13 – The Nugget, Waihi May 15 – Rippa Rugby Finals Day May 15 – Hockey PD for new/beginner coaches May 17 – Women & Girls Meeting May 24 – Meeting with Councillor McLean and Paul Matthews May 24 – Girls Rugby Have a Go day with Portia Woodman and Renee Wickliffe, Paeroa May 26 – Community Sport Partnership Fund meeting between Sport Waikato and Thames

Valley Hockey Association May 30 – Cancer Wellness Workshop – Paeroa/Te Aroha May 31 – TVSS Cross Country, Te Aroha Recreation carried forward Projects 2015/16

Operations Committee, Recreation Projects 2015/16 Carry Forwards

Start Date Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: New Paeroa Library April 2017 $1,874,064

Project Status: The library is now complete with the Grand Opening party held on Friday 5 May 2017

WARD FUNDED PROJECTS - Waihi Waihi Ward - Projects 15-16 Cary Forward


Approved Funding -

Project: New Waikino community swing bridge Carpark

TBC TBC $88,000

Project Status: The swing bridge Carpark has been finalised and construction is planned to be completed before the end of this financial year. This project is being managed by Tech Services.


8

CAPITAL PROJECTS - Waihi

Waihi Recreation 16-17 Projects Start Date Completion

Date Approved Funding

Project: Gilmour parking on George street

May 2017 June 2017 $36,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. Waihi Recreation 16-17 Projects Start Date Completion


Project: Revamp 4 sided seating at Victoria Park.

May 2017 July 2017 $3,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. Waiting for Waihi Ward decision.

Waihi Recreation 16-17 Projects Start Date Completion


Project: Morgan Park redevelopment July 2017 $512,000

Project Status: Well underway – a detailed report is attached.

CAPITAL PROJECTS – Plains Plains Ward Projects Carry Forward 15-16

Start Date Completion Date Approved Funding

Project: Dudding Reserve MiscellaneoRenewals

December 2017

$4,000

Project Status: Staff, Councillors, Ngatea Lions, and students from Hauraki Plains College are working on this as a joint project. A modified concept plan has been prepared to incorporate an architecturally designed covered seating area. The plan and design are being provided at no cost. A sign is being provided by Hauraki Plains College which will keep the public informed as to future developments. Plains Ward Main Street Projects Carry Forward 15-16

Start Date Completion Date Approved Funding

Project: Dudding Reserve CommunityNotice board and landscaping.

December 2017

$9,000

Project Status: Staff, Councillors, Ngatea Lions, and students from Hauraki Plains College are working on this as a joint project. A modified concept plan has been prepared to incorporate an architecturally designed covered seating area. The plan and design are being provided at no cost. A sign is being provided by Hauraki Plains College which will keep the public informed as to future developments. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Domain irrigation system March 2017 $15,000 Project Status: Completed. Awaiting installation of water connection.


9

Community Recreation Projects 16-17


Approved Funding

Project: Turua jetty and ramp reservdevelopment including signage

May 2017

June 2017 $10,000

Project Status: The site was visited by a Technical Services Roading Engineer to determine the scope of works and costing for this project. This project will be undertaken in consultation with the Turua Domain and Hall Committee. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Turua Domain car park development

TBC June 2017 $15,000

Project Status: The site was visited by a Technical Services Roading Engineer to determine the scope of works and costing for this project. This project will be undertaken in consultation with the Turua Domain and Hall Committee. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Waitakaruru Domain – resealing TBC May 2017 $25,000 Project Status: This project will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. A meeting is tobe arranged with the Domain Committee to finalise the project. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Waitakaruru Domain car parenewals

TBC May 2017 $8,000

Project Status: This project will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. A meeting is to be arranged with the Domain Committee to finalise the project. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Install light at SH27 for KaiheSchool and Hall Entrance

On hold $6,000

Project Status: This project will be managed by Council’s Roading Manager


Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Pipiroa boat ramp resurfacing TBC April 2017 $5,000 Project Status: The site was visited by a Technical Services Roading Engineer to determine the scope of works and costing for this project.


Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Seal of metal road beside Collegand Sparky shop

June 2017 June 2017 $12,000

Project Status: This project will be managed by Council’s Roading Manager


Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Ngatea main street entrances TBC July 2017 $41,000 Project Status: This project will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. This project wbe undertaken in conjunction with the Town Plan project.


10

WARD FUNDED PROJECTS – Paeroa

CAPITAL PROJECTS Community Recreation Projects 15-16Main Street

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Wharf St / MacKay St development

$90,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by Council’s Technical Services team, with the completion of the Mackay Street section being timed for completion just prior to the new Paeroa Library opening Community Recreation Projects 15-16Main Street


Approved Funding

Project: Wharf St / MacKay St Paeroa Planning and Consultation

$60,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by Council’s Technical Services team, with the completion of the Mackay Street section being timed for finishing prior to the new Paeroa Library opening Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Paeroa Swimming pool renewals May 2017 July 2017 $43,000 Project Status: This project is underway and will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager with the tasks being completed before the opening of the pool season. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Primrose Hill walkway March 2017 July 2017 $22,000 Project Status: This project is currently underway. Community Recreation Projects 16-17

Start Date

Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Christmas lights on main street Magnolia trees

Nov 2017 $15,000

Project Status: This project will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. Quotes are currently being sought for the lighting. General Storage areas for mulch are being created in Waihi and Paeroa so that chipper mulch from tree removals can be recycled and used around trees in the district. John McIver Paul Matthews Community Engagement Manager Parks and Reserves Manager

Paeroa Ward Recreation Projects Carried Forward 15-16


Approved Funding

Project: Karangahake Reserve Development TBC $517,000

Project Status: Council has decided to delay any projects in this area until the findings of the NZTA workshops are concluded.


Page 1 of 6

Decision Report


From: Community Pools, Events and Facilities Officer Group Manager- Community Services and Development

Date: Monday, 8 May 2017


Portfolio holder: Councillor Max McLean


Subject: Extended Pool Opening Options Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council progress / not progress with further planning and costings to allow for one extended season District Pool, and THAT Council progress / not progress with a sub- regional partnership with Thames Coromandel District Council for a new standard configuration indoor community pool.

Purpose To report back to the Community Services and Development Committee on the costs of running a District Pool for an extended season for the use by various public group members and to seek direction on progressing with a sub- regional partnership with Thames Coromandel District Council for a new standard configuration indoor community pool. The matter or suggested decision does involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background The Community Services and Development Committee have asked staff for cost estimates for the running of the pool as an extended season and some guidelines around operating methods. Currently our district pool opening season is November to March. The Paeroa pool is the most centrally located pool within in the District and by having this open through to an extended season of 9 months, it would allow the swim club, sports clubs and dedicated public swimmers to maintain a training programme. The suggested period for the pool to be open is September to May inclusive. The additional months is traditionally part of the off season for the swimming pool, resulting in swim club members and dedicated swimmers having to use other facilities in other Districts. Staff have considered the


Page 2 of 6

needs of swim club training and dedicated public swimmers when identifying options and recommendations. Council have also been recently approached by Thames Coromandel District Council with regards to the replacement of the Thames pool, which was identified as an Eastern Waikato Sub- Regional Aquatic Facility as highlighted in the Waikato Regional Sports Facility Plan. The plan highlights that Thames Coromandel District Council investigate a sub- regional partnership with Hauraki district Council for a new standard configuration indoor community pool. At this stage they are in the feasibility stage and then progressing to the business case stage and are requesting Hauraki District Council staff assistance with this initiative. These phases would be over several months. At this stage staff are asking for feedback on this proposal in order to reply back to Thames Coromandel District Council. Issues and options Key points and options to consider for an extended season are, Days of Operation

1. Options to be considered about the number of days that the pool could be open per week.

3 DAYS 5 DAYS 7 DAYS PRO: CON: PRO: CON: PRO: CON:

Funding only for 3 days of staff

Maintaining the pool for only 3 days will be similar as

heating it for 7 days.

.Will provide adequate training

opportunities for users

Maintaining the pool for only 5 days

will be similar as heating it for 7 days.

Having it open all week would

allow the flexibility of

patrons to be able to use the

facility.

Trying to maintain a full staff for a 7 day

whole week.

Trying to find staff who would

only want to work for 3 days a week could be

difficult.

Staffing maybe easier

to find as it can be a

weekly job,.

Difficulty of setting the 5 days to suit all users.

Running it all 7 days will be

similar to heat the pool for any shorter

period.

3 days would not meet the needs of club and training members.

Difficulty of setting the 3

days to gain the best use of the

pool facility.

2. Season Length

The three recommended options for the extended pool season run time are: Option 1: Start the summer season earlier, so rather than November the season starts in September. This will run through to May rather than finishing in late March. This does limit


Page 3 of 6

any opportunities for doing any maintenance work that requires fine weather as June through to August are usually the wettest times of the year. One solution to get around this would be to wait for the year that the pool needs to be painted and open another pool in the District for a limited period while works are being undertaken. Any other works that needs to be done are not so reliant on weather. Option 2: We keep the summer season from November to March. Option 3: Encourage our off season swimming groups to use pools in neighbouring districts. This may involve an arrangement with these Councils and potential funding.

3. Recommended opening times: With the majority of morning swimmers being those who want a session prior to work and school, staff suggest that the pool be open from 6am – 8.30am and then close for the day till the afternoon session. This session would run from 4pm – 6.30pm. The reason these times were selected was based off the low numbers that attended the lunch time swimming during the summer season. The operational aspect of accommodating public, sports clubs and swim club users will need to be determined once numbers of each group are known.

4. Life guarding requirements and costs. As a public pool we have to provide lifeguards on duty when someone is in the pool to be able to maintain a safe environment and to oversee the operational aspects of the facility such as dealing with all money exchanges, customer needs and maintaining the water quality. There needs to be at least one life guard on duty at all times although having two members of staff per shift would be highly recommended as it allows for there to be someone always maintain watch over the pool while the other staff member does jobs around the facility and cover for breaks. To have a fully staffed team for a 5-7day operational week a recommendation of having 4 staff to cover shifts and leave. A way to reduce costs for the overall budget would be to invest in training of the lifeguards in water care reducing the outgoing costs for work currently undertaken by C&M. These figures are based on having 1 life guard with a working day of 7 hours (5.30am-9.00am and 3.30pm – 7pm)

3 DAYS 5 DAYS 7 DAYS Per

Week For additional period Season

Per Week

For additional

period Season

Per Week

For additional period Season

Cost to supply 1

Life guard

$630 $13,860 1 Life guard

$1,050 $23,100 1 Life guard

$1,470 $32,340

An estimated cost to train a lifeguard in water care would be $3,500 is in addition to these figures.


Page 4 of 6

5. Heating Costs.

As mentioned earlier, to heat the pool to 28˚ over 3 days would cost a similar amount to maintain it for 7 days. With that being said staff have based the figures off the Te Aroha leisure pool. Although they are a smaller volume of pool water they run their temperature at a higher setting allowing the figures to equate to a close proximity. The reason staff recommend the pool temperature to be set at 28˚ is because the temperature has enough warmth to keep the slower paced swimmers at a comfortable level yet be cool enough for the faster paced swimmers to train effectively. One unknown about this is the capacity of the heat pump and its ability to be able to run and keep the pool to temperature. After having a discussion with the heat pump company, currently the unit is underutilised as it is sized tor run from mid-October through to mid-April and they did say it has the capabilities to run the colder months of April and September but they could not guarantee it. Energy costs estimates

Months: CostMarch: $5,700 April: $6,200 May: $6,300

September: $5,600 October: $4,800 Total: $28,600

6. Water treatment costs. After having a discussion with the Matamata Piako District Council about the treatment costs, they indicated that it would be the same if not less than the cost to treat the water over the summer months, due to the sun breaking down the chlorine. Below is a simple chart that has the costs of treating the water weekly and also for the additional season. The weekly price will remain the same regardless of how many days you are open for. Treatment Cost Per Week Treatment Cost for

additional Season $395 $8,690

7. Lighting of the pool area. Currently the pool is sufficiently covered by the lights but would benefit from an upgrade.

User Groups At this stage it is unknown who would actually use the pool regularly as we have not approached the public and key users. It would most likely be pitched to the swimming clubs of the District so that they can all work together and train for nationals. Other sporting clubs could be approached as a training tool or rehab for their players. Local physios could be approached to help with rehabilitation for injured members of the public. Council could look at introducing fitness classes for the public to encourage being more physically active.


Page 5 of 6

New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision involves a new project. It is therefore considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as it provides: • local public service Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to involve (i.e. a participatory process to identify aspirations prior to decision-making) the public and key stakeholders. If funding was provided for the sub- regional pool it may deemed to be significant and trigger certain requirements of consultation. Budget Implications Any increase in opening days for the Paeroa Pool in the winter season is an unbudgeted item and would need to be considered as part of the Long Term Plan process. There Costs per week: 3 Days 5 Days 7 Days: Cost per Season:

3 Days 5 Days 7 Days Life Guards: $1,260 $2,100 $2,940 $27,720 $46,200 $64,680

Heating Costs: $1,300 $1,300 $1300 $28,600 $28,600 $28,600Water Treatment: $395 $395 $395 $8,690 $8,690 $8,690

Totals: $2,955 $3,795 $4,635 $65,010 $83,490 $101,970 Due to having permanent lifeguards trained for water care, some of the cost increase can be offset by not having to fund C&M to come in and undertake this work. This increase level of service is unbudgeted and not allowed for in the 2017/18 Annual Plan. It would need to be considered within the Long Term Plan process. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). If Council chooses to open the Paeroa Pool for an extended season, the staff recommendation is to be open for the 5 days (Monday through to Friday) and that the pool is open from 6am – 8.30am and 4pm – 6.30pm. It is recommended that the season to be extended from five months to nine and that those nine months are mid-September through to mid-May.


Page 6 of 6

Additional operational and usage planning will need to be undertaken to provide and accurate cost and justification for the extended season. At this stage staff are seeking a resolution from Council whether to progress or not progress with further planning and costings to allow for one extended season District Pool. Staff are also seeking a resolution from Council whether to progress or not progress with a sub- regional partnership with Thames Coromandel District Council for a new standard configuration indoor community pool. Shane Hornby Community Pools, Events and Facilities Officer Steve Fabish Group Manager- Community Services and Development


Page 1 of 4

Decision Report







Subject: Ngatea Scout Hall Demolition

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council support the removal of the Ngatea Scout Hall from the Hugh Hayward Domain, and THAT Council contribute $3,000 towards the cost of the removal, and THAT this be funded from the existing Hugh Hayward operational budget.

Purpose This report to seek Council’s approval to contribute towards the cost of the demolition of the unused Ngatea Scout Hall. The matter or suggested decision does involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background In 1957 the original Scout Hall was constructed on the Hugh Hayward Domain, Ngatea with the Hauraki Scout Group operating out of this building until they moved to their present building. This prefabricated building was placed on the Domain in 1970 and operated as the Ngatea Playcentre facility. Hauraki Scout Group moved into this building after becoming vacant when Ngatea Playcentre no longer had a use for the building as they moved to a new facility. The Hauraki Scout Group was granted a lease, from Hauraki District Council, for the building to be on Hugh Hayward domain for the use of Scouting activities. One of the conditions of the lease was,


Page 2 of 4

Should the lessee not exercise its option to renew the lease hereby created all improvements effected by the Leasee on the said land may be taken over by the Council at its valuation to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be fixed by arbitration as hereinafter provided. If no such agreement is made, then the leasee shall remove all improvements from the leased area at the leasees costs and reinstate the area to the satisfaction of the lessor. The Hauraki Scout Group has not operated in Ngatea for a number of years and the building has been left unoccupied. Due to its age and condition, it has continued to deteriorate and be subject to minor vandalism and roofing issues. Scouts New Zealand contacted Council informing them that they wish to not continue with their lease, asking Council if it had an alternative use for the building. If no future use was found to the building, then they wish to discuss removal options. Due to the poor condition of the building and no alternative use identified by both parties, Scouts New Zealand have formally written to Council seeking financial assistance for the removal and reinstatement of the site. Council staff have received a quotation, of $10,665.00 plus GST for the removal of the building from a specialist asbestos removal company as the building has an asbestos roof. Scouts New Zealand have offered to pay $8,000 plus GST towards the removal cost. Council staff will manage the removal process.


Page 3 of 4

Scout Hall, Hugh Hayward Domain, Ngatea Issues and options Due to the poor condition of the building and no identifiable community group willing to take on the use of the building, staff are recommending the building be removed and the site reinstated to grass. New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision involves a new expenditure or other deliverable. It is therefore considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as it provides: • local public service Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to inform (i.e. one-way communication disseminating information) Scouts New Zealand and the Hauraki District community.


Page 4 of 4

Budget Implications This report is highlighting a shortfall of approximately $3,000 for the removal of the building. Staff are recommending that this be funded from the existing Hugh Hayward operational budget, which may result in this budget being over by end of this financial year. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). The portfolio holder and staff are recommending to Council that the Ngatea Scout Hall, be removed from the Hugh Hayward Domain and that Council contribute $3,000 towards the cost of the removal. This is to be funded from the existing Hugh Hayward operational budget. Steve Fabish Group Manager- Community Services and Development


Page 1 of 2

Decision Report





Portfolio holders: Councillors Max McLean, Carole Daley, Anne Marie Spicer


Subject: Investigation phase for future Ngatea Library Services Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT staff commence the options investigation phase for the future Ngatea Library Service, and THAT a working party consisting of Plains Ward members, Recreation, Initiative and Property Portfolio Holders be formed to work with the staff, and THAT regular update reports are presented back to the Committee.

Purpose This report is to seek approval from the Community Services and Development Committee to form a working party to advance the options investigation stage for the delivery of future library services in Ngatea. The matter or suggested decision does involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background In the 2015-25 Hauraki Long Term Plan it signalled that the future options for the Ngatea Library building and services will be considered and addressed within the life of the plan. The feasibility investigation could include a number of options, such as a new library building on another site, building a new shared public/ college library on the Hauraki Plains College site, or renovating and /or extending within the current building. With the new Paeroa Library completed and operating, Council has signalled a desire to start the investigation stage for the delivery of future library services in Ngatea in 2017/18, as highlighted in the Hauraki District Council 2017/18 Annual Plan. A sum of $50,000 has been identified for the options investigation phase.


Page 2 of 2

Issues and options With the construction of new libraries in Waihi and Paeroa, it has been found to be of great benefit to establish a Council working party to work with the relevant staff, in all phases of the project. Staff are suggesting that the working party consist of Plains Ward members, Recreation, Initiative and Property Portfolio Holders to work with the relevant staff as a team. Options identified at this stage, for investigation are,

1. The existing library space and service delivery remain as current 2. The existing library space be increased and changes to the current service delivery 3. Build a new library on a new site with or without the option of HDC Area Office service 4. Partner with the Hauraki Plains College to deliver a joint library service 5. Partner with the Hauraki Plains College to deliver a joint library service, community space

and HDC Area Office service At this stage approval is only being sort to form a working party and undertake the options investigation phase with regular update reports presented back to the Community Services and Development Committee. New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision involves a new project. It is therefore considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as it provides: • local public service Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to involve (i.e. a participatory process to identify aspirations prior to decision-making) the public and key stakeholders. Budget Implications A sum of $50,000 has been identified, for the options investigation stage, in the Hauraki District Council 2017/18 Annual Plan. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). The Portfolio Holders and staff are recommending to the Community Services and Development Committee that it form a working party and undertake the options investigation phase with regular update reports presented back to the Committee. Steve Fabish Group Manager- Community Services and Development


Page 1 of 3

Decision Report


From: Parks & Reserves Manager





Subject: Cycleway for Hugh Hayward Domain Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council support the installation of the Cycleway at the Hugh Hayward Domain

Purpose The purpose of this report is to present to the Community Services and Development Committee, the concept of installing a cycleway around the perimeter of the Hugh Hayward Domain in Ngatea. Background The idea of installing an all-weather perimeter track at the Hugh Hayward is not a new one, with the concept being floated at Ngatea Domain meetings in June of 2004 and March of 2006. New impetus has been created for this project with Ngatea Primary School having been given $5000 in funding to contribute to the creation of a cycleway as part of the Bikes in Schools initiative. The school already has the bikes and associated equipment, but lacks an adequate track for children to practice their cycling skills. It is proposed that a 930m long track be installed as per the diagram below. This would be seen as stage one of the development, providing an all-year-round hard surface for cyclists and pedestrians on what is currently a grass surface. A link to Mahana Rd would also be installed to allow ease of access from the northern side of the Domain. Benefits Although the Ngatea Primary School is the catalyst for this project, it would be something that would be of universal use and benefit of the Ngatea community and the wider Hauraki District. It is undisputed that the health and wellness benefits of cycling are profound, but the following are additional benefits that would result:


Page 2 of 3

• Provides a place for wheelchair users and the disabled • Caters to the needs of a growing population • Provides a safe place to cycle and develop skills when the close proximity of SH2 would

otherwise make it unsafe • Provide a reason for travelers to stop in Ngatea

Future Development Options for future development would include skills and activities stations, and the completion of a link to the primary school that excluded the Domain car park.

Potential Issues & Mitigating Factors It is recognised that the construction of this project may have an impact on residents who live adjacent to the Domain. This will be mitigated by close communication and liaison with those who will be potentially affected. The Hugh Hayward Domain is a facility that already has a high number of users (rugby, touch rugby, soccer, netball, athletics, and others) that could potentially be affected by the project. A special meeting of the Domain Users Committee determined that all existing users were universally in favour of the cycleway construction. Budget Implications The estimated cost of construction is approximately $20 per metre. The Plains Ward have pledged $20,000 from the Plains Community facility and Recreation Development Fund, but further funding would be required for the construction of skills & confidence courses, and ongoing maintenance. Future development would be evaluated on the basis of how well the facility is being utilised, with funding options to be determined at that time. Maintenance would be paid for from within existing budgets. Recommendation It is recommended that Council support the installation of the Cycleway at the Hugh Hayward Domain. Paul Matthews Parks & Reserves Manager


Page 3 of 3

Map Key _________ Proposed route for cycleway (approx. length = 930m)


Page 1 of 3

Decision Report


From: Parks & Reserves Manager





Subject: Installation of Cricket Nets at the Hugh Hayward Domain

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council support the proposal to install cricket nets at the Hugh Hayward Domain.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Community Services and Development Committee for the installation of cricket nets for batting and bowling practice, at the Hugh Hayward Domain in Ngatea. Background Cricket in Ngatea is gaining in popularity with two junior teams, four college teams, and one adult team currently playing and it is expected that there will be an additional six primary school teams for the 2017/18 season. At present there is only one set of practice nets located at the Hauraki Plains College, which will not be sufficient to meet demand. Hauraki Youth Cricket have approached Hauraki District Council staff with a proposal for the installation of cricket practice nets at the location indicated in the diagram below. They have developed a relationship with Kaihere Cricket Club which will enable them to apply for funding. NZ cricket have already pledged $1,500 per bay (the nets will most probably have three bays) towards the cost of construction. Total cost for three bay practice nets is in the vicinity of $40,000 which will be wholly paid for from fundraising by Hauraki Youth Cricket. Potential Issues & Mitigating Factors To reduce the potential impact on neighbouring properties, the direction of orientation for the nets has been angled such that no balls would land on private property.


Page 2 of 3

To extend hours of available use, lights may need to be installed at some future date. This would be easily addressed as the existing lights at the hockey ground can be added on to. The Domain already is a facility that already has a high number of users (rugby, touch rugby, soccer, netball, athletics, and others) that could potentially be affected by the project. A special meeting of the Domain Users Committee determined that all existing users were universally in favour of the cricket net construction. There is a raised soil bund behind the swimming pool that is the result of excavations at the time that the water main was installed through the Domain. A machine would need to be used to level out this soil onsite so that soil removal costs would not be incurred. Budget Implications There are no perceived impacts on budgets regarding installation of the nets or ongoing maintenance. There may be some cost associated with the levelling of the soil bund. It is expected that this can be funded from existing budgets. Recommendation It is recommended that Council support the proposal to install cricket nets at the Hugh Hayward Domain, but that no construction work be undertaken until the all the necessary funds have been raised. Paul Matthews Parks & Reserves Manager


Page 3 of 3

Map Key _______ Location of proposed cricket nets _ _ _ _ _ Location of soil bund


Information Report


From: Community Services Manager

Date: 9 May 2017

File reference: Portfolio holder:

Document: 2210529 Councillor McLean


Subject:

Financial Update on Morgan Park redevelopment

Recommendation: THAT the report be received. Purpose The Community Services Department are responsible for the delivery of Council’s Community Recreation activity. This report is to update the Community Services and Development Committee on the Morgan Park redevelopment project. Overview/Background For a number of years, the Waihi Sport n Action Trust have been actively involved in planning towards a central community and multi-sport hub based at Morgan Park. This has involved an extensive amount of sport groups and community consultation to determine the sporting needs of the residents of both Waihi township and surrounding areas. The overall project is divided into 2 stages. Stage one:

• Construct new netball and tennis surfaces • Construct new bowls and croquet surfaces • Move netball and croquet pavilions as temporary hubs • Reconfigure the rugby and football fields • Look to relocate skate park to ex netball court site • Move football clubhouse


Stage two:

• Squash/gym multi-area • Reception area, social and toilet facilities • Remove netball and croquet pavilions • Car parking. Roads, and landscaping

The project components included for Stage 1 in the contract were: -

• Establishment, preliminary and general conditions of the contractor • Demolition of field lighting, existing water line and reconnection, vegetation and tree

removal • Earthworks • Base works and courts construction • Water reticulation • Line marking

Additional components of this project not covered in the tender are

• Lighting- originally estimated at $148,000 is now likely to be approximately $185,000 with increased foundations required

• Sports surface-estimated at $135,000 • Project Management-estimated at $15,000

Budget Implications Council have been a key financial supporter of the overall Morgan Park redevelopment project and have committed significant funds towards the project. Balances of Council’s preapproved funding for this project as of 8th May are below: -

Fund Original amount Balance availableWaihi Community Facilities, Recreation and Development

455,000 368,900

Funds brought forward form 2016/17

320,000 300,000

2016/17 LTP 192,000 192,000 Total available 860,900

Waihi Sport n Action Trust, who has been the key driver of the project, raised over $100,000 in pledges towards stage one physical works and over $200,000 towards the construction of the hub building. Sport n Action will cover the cost of the sports surfacing, estimated at $135,000 and have received funding from Trust Waikato of $80,000 to assist with this and will be lodging another application with Lotteries, before the end of this year, for the completion of stage one. Council committed $800,000 towards the Tennis and Netball facility. This covered the cost of:

• Establishment, preliminary and general conditions of the contractor • Demolition of field lighting, existing water line and reconnection, vegetation and tree

removal • Earthworks • Base works and courts construction


• Water reticulation • Line marking • Lighting • Project management

Costs to date The original estimate was approximately $574,500 for this stage, the Schick tender came in at $577,720 which was considered very good value, and most of this work is now complete. Schick now estimate that the final amount will be around $654,000, the main reason for the additional over spend is that additional fill was required for the South end of the Park, this work would have to had been done at some stage, it did not make financial sense to stockpile the additional material and then for the earth moving equipment to be brought back on site at a later date to re-spread the soil (this would in effect be double handling) it made sense whilst all the earth moving equipment was on site to do it there and then. Additionally, extra excavation and light removal was required to enable football to continue on the park. This also would have needed to be done at the next stage if not done now. Some of the other costs have increased marginally (refurbishment of the firefighting practice area) but the cost of the Tennis / Netball courts has not increased. The physical works has an increase of approx. 13% over our original budget, which exceeds the normal 10% contingency; the 1st claim was made during the week of 12th December 2016. Staff are working with Sport n Action to identify funding options for the completion of stage 1 Costs Remaining Council funds still available for the project: $325,000 Costs Remaining: Schick Contract $154,000 Lighting $185,000 Project management (est) $ 5,000 $344,000 Current shortfall $ 19,000 Sport n Action have approved $20,000 from their current fundraising to be utilised to fund the shortfall. Commencement following the Easter holiday The asphalt has now been laid for netball and tennis and the line marking will be done soon after sealing, the external fence can then be erected to prevent unwanted access to the courts. Construction of the courts had been delayed due to the adverse weather, heavy rain on the dates we had planned to lay the asphalt prevented this from happening. Since then a combination of sealing crew’s schedules and more heavy rain prevented the sealing, it was reported Hauraki had the wettest March and April on record. A meeting was held in January between Sport n Action, Council representative (Daniel Sales) and all the sports clubs involved (with only football and the rugby clubs in none attendance), the clubs were updated with the developments and further meetings were planned for every 6


weeks or so, but due to the adverse weather conditions, it was deemed unnecessary to meet until we had something to report, a meeting is planned for later this month. Mark Skinner has had regular contact with both netball and football as these were the most effected by the earthworks. Sport n Action issued a newsletter at the beginning of the year and continue to use Facebook to keep the clubs and the public up to date when there is something to report. Both Netball and Tennis are organising the installation of the posts and nets once the line-marking is done. We are finalising the lighting layout with Energy Services. We have narrowed this down to 2 options, each with different pole heights but both with the LED lighting. Sport N Action Trust is discussing the proposals with Energy Services to obtain the best outcome. The temporary soccer field has been marked out and services to the soccer clubhouse including lighting is now complete. We have obtained another quote for moving the Netball Clubhouse, however though lower than Schick's quote this is still extremely high at $131k. This will not be moved until spring (as agreed with netball) as they have commenced their season and will need the clubhouse in its current location until the end of this season. To ensure the site is secure, we have introduced additional patrols with Safe n Sound security now driving through twice every night. Summary The Morgan Park project is now back on track following the delay with asphalting and further updates will continue to be reported to the committee. Daniel Sales Community Services Manager


Information Report


From: Community Facilities & Administration Manager and Parks & Reserves Manager

Date: 9 May 2017

File reference: Portfolio holder:

Document: 2195813 Cr Gill Leonard


Subject:

Community Facilities Monthly Report on Activities for the month of May 2017


Purpose The Community Services Department is responsible for the delivery of Council’s Community Facilities activities, including community halls, rural halls, pensioner housing, public toilets, cemeteries and non-recreational reserves. A report on these activities will be presented to the Community Services and Development Committee on a monthly basis. Over the next 6 months’ additional asset/activity information will be included for one activity in more detail. This will help provide Councillors with a more in depth knowledge of the delivery of Community Recreation. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Community Halls There are no items of significance to report. Rural Halls A separate report is included in the agenda seeking Council’s support and funding for the condition grading and producing of a 10-year renewal plan for the District’s community halls to assist the Hall Committees with their building maintenance planning.


Pensioner Housing In February 2017 a Council initiated customer satisfaction survey was completed by some of the tenants of Councils Housing for the Elderly. The majority completed the survey, not always answering all of the questions and for some making a comment was more important. There were 39 responses from 56 tenants.

The overall satisfaction of the tenants that responded to the survey is very encouraging and we will continue to support the tenants with regular site visits and continue with the work programme of upgrades on an ‘at needs’ basis.


Cemeteries There are no items of significance to report. General Information

Cemeteries are required by legislation to be managed by local authorities. The Council operates three cemeteries in the district; at Waihi, Miranda and Paeroa. Both Waihi and Paeroa incorporate an RSA section and in Waihi a section is set aside for Maori, called the ‘Marae Block’ (M Block). Within all cemeteries there are gardens available for ashes to be laid and plots for casket and ashes burials.

In order to provide this service, the Council owns the land, installs the berms and ashes gardens for burials, has toilet facilities in both Waihi and Paeroa cemeteries and undertakes the ongoing maintenance of the cemeteries, which includes mowing, drainage, vegetation and roading maintenance along with general upkeep. There are two Memorial Walls within the Hauraki District, one at the Waihi Cemetery, the other at Hugh Hayward Domain in Ngatea. Also located in Hugh Hayward Domain is a newly constructed Columbarium Ashes Wall, built in 2010, for the placement of ashes. In November 2010 the Kaiaua Coast was amalgamated with the Hauraki District and as a part of this amalgamation Hauraki District Council obtained the Miranda Cemetery. This provided the Plains community with an alternative burial option to the current agreement with Thames-Coromandel District Council, whereby Plains residents can be buried at the Totara Cemetery near Thames.

Cemetery Names and Locations

Formal Name

Common Names Status* Location Description Town

Area Allocated for Expansion

Total Area

Waihi Cemetery

-

Open State Highway 2

Monumental, Lawn and Memorial Wall

Waihi 0.66ha 5.23ha

Pukerimu Cemetery

Paeroa

Open Reservoir Road

Monumental and Lawn

Paeroa

1.40ha 6ha

Ngatea Ashes Wall

Open

Orchard East Road – State Highway

Ashes Wall Vaults only And Memorial Wall

Ngatea

0.07ha 0.08ha

Miranda Cemetery - Open

Miranda Road, Miranda

Monumental and Lawn Miranda 0.87ha 1.93ha

Total 13.23ha


Cemetery Sections Cemetery Lawn

Cemetery Standard Ashes Wall

Ashes Garden

RSA Plaques Headstones

Paeroa Public & Paeroa RSA Cemetery

Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Waihi Cemetery Yes No No Yes Yes Ngatea Ashes Wall & Ngatea Memorial Wall

N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A

Miranda Cemetery Yes No Yes No Yes

Non-recreational Reserves There are no items of significance to report. Planned Projects Facilities Carry Forward Projects 2015/16

Cemetery Capital Works 15/16


Approved Funding

Project: Paeroa Cemetery Development Planning

Apr 2017 July 2017 $8,000

Project Status: This project will be managed by the Parks and Reserves Manager. Consultation on the design and layout is underway. Facility Projects 2015/16 – Carry Forwards


Approved Funding

Project: Paeroa Domain Toilet Replacement On hold On hold $150,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by Councils Property Manager. The Paeroa Ward Committee wish to see this project delayed until the new public toilets are in place and operating in the new Paeroa Library. $30,000 has been allowed to paint the facility. The painting of the Domain toilets has been completed Facility Projects 2015/16 Start Date Completion


Project: Shift Dump Station at Railway Reserve Toilets

May 2017 July 2017 $12,000

Project Status: Work is set to commence in May, with the new site being to the southern end of the current parking area.


Facility Projects 2015/16 Start Date Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Shift Dump Station at Victoria park, Waihi Nov 2017 Dec 2017 $5,000

Project Status: Various options are now being finalised.

Facilities New Projects 2016/17

Facilities Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: Pukerimu Development

April 2017 November 2017

$149,000

Project Status: The Parks and Reserves Manager will manage this project and work with the Paeroa Ward on designs. Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion


Project: Ashes walk at Pukerimu

April 2017 July 2017 $31,000

Project Status: The Parks and Reserves Manager will manage this project and work with the Paeroa Ward on designs. Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion


Project: Waihi cemetery ashes garden

May 2017 July 2017 $13,000

Project Status: The Parks and Reserves Manager will manage this project and work with the Waihi Ward on designs. Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion


Project: Waihi cemetery fence on Tauranga Road boundary

April 2017 July 2017 $29,000

Project Status: The Parks and Reserves Manager will manage this project and work with the Waihi Ward on designs. Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion


Project: Lights in Cherry trees at Ngatea Memorial Hall

May 2017 Dec 2017 $7,000

Project Status: The Parks and Reserves Manager will manage this project. The budget for this project is to be increased to $10,000 and will be combined with the budget for the Ngatea Christmas Lights project. Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion


Project: Portable staging for district halls

Mar 2017 April 2017 $3,000

Project Status: The portable stage has arrived and is stored at the Paeroa Hall


Facility Projects 2016/17 Start Date Completion Date

Approved Funding

Project: New Kaiaua toilets

On hold On hold $160,000

Project Status: The Facilities Manager will manage this project which is on hold until such time as an infrastructure needs assessment is completed for the K2K trail, in the meantime Council has agreed to monies being spent to upgrade the existing toilets. A $20,000 budget has been allowed for the upgrade,$10,000 from the operation budget and $10,000 from the capital budget. Waihi Facilities 16-17 Projects Start Date Completion


Project: Pohutukawa Reserve change rooms conversion

June 2017 July 2017 $15,000

Project Status: This project will be completed by the Property Manager. Staff will discuss conversion options with the Waihi Ward at their May meeting. Community Facilities Projects 15-16Non Recreational Reserves


Approved Funding

Project: Hutchinson Reserve projects March 2017 Ongoing

$44,000 (15-16) $51,000 (16-17) $6,000 (16-17)

Project Status: The fencing for this project is complete. This project will be completed in liaison with a Paeroa Service Club. The resource consent application will be for the installation of a toilet adjacent to the car park. Preparation for external funding applications is underway. Robyn Kirby Community Facilities & Administration Manager and Paul Matthews Parks & Reserves Manager


Page 1 of 3

Decision Report





Portfolio holder: Councillor Gill Leonard


Subject: Assistance with Condition Assessment of Community Halls

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council approach the District’s Community Hall Committees’ with the offer to undertake the condition grading and production of a 10-year renewal plan for their Hall, and THAT that this be funded proportionally from the relevant Ward Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund.

Purpose This report is to seek Council’s support and funding for the condition grading and producing of a 10-year renewal plan for the District’s community halls to assist the Hall Committees with their building maintenance planning. The matter or suggested decision does involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background In Hauraki District there are 10 community halls that are of varying age, condition and usage. These are,

• Kaiaua Hall • Kaihere Hall • Kerepehi Hall • Kopuarahi Hall • Mangatarata Hall • Netherton Hall • Patetonga Hall


Page 2 of 3

• Turua hall • Waikino Hall • Waitakaruru Hall

These halls are managed by committees made up of community members, with a varying level of facility management and building maintenance skills. A number of committees have approached both staff and Councillors expressing concern that they don’t have the necessary skills to assess, plan and cost for what building maintenance works are needed in the future. A recent Long Term Plan workshop Council expressed a desire to assist the Hall Committees in this area by offering each Hall Committee to have their building condition graded and produce a 10 year renewal plan to assist them in their long term planning and budgeting. Issues and options To provide this service staff are recommending Council use the same consultant that undertakes 3-yearly condition grading of all Council building to assist it with its renewal budgets for the Long Term Plan. The condition grading information is loaded into the Council building asset data base which will also provide the 10-year renewal report. Staff also recommend that they run a 2 yearly workshop with the hall committees and provide information to provide guidance and assistance where needed in facility management and building maintenance. New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision involves a new service. It is therefore considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as it provides: • local public service Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to consult (i.e. two-way communication to obtain public feedback) with the hall committees. . Budget Implications The cost estimate to provide this service is $1,000 per hall. This is an unbudgeted item and it is recommended that this be funded proportionally from the relevant Ward Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund.


Page 3 of 3

Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). Staff and the Portfolio Holder are recommending that Council approach the District’s Community Hall Committees’ with the offer to undertake the condition grading and production of a 10-year renewal plan for their Hall, and that this be funded proportionally from the relevant Ward Community Facilities Recreation Development Fund. Steve Fabish Group Manager- Community Services


Page 1 of 3

Decision Report



Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2017

File reference: Document: 2210883 Appendix A: 2211032

Portfolio holder: Mayor John Tregidga


Subject: Remuneration Authority 2017/18 Determination Feedback

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT the Councillor Remuneration Working party, work with staff to provide feedback for Part Two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination): by 5pm Monday 19th June 2017 and Part Three – Longer Term Proposals: by Friday October 20th 2017 to the Remuneration Authority.

Purpose The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) is required to issue a new determination, taking effect from 1st July 2017, covering local government elected members. In considering how they should approach this in future, they have concluded that there is an opportunity for both short term improvements to the system, including some clarification of current policies, as well as some deeper changes which they propose introducing in 2019. This item would normally be considered by Council but due to the feedback timeframes, it is being presented to the Community Services and Development Committee. The matter or suggested decision does not involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background The Authority has written to New Zealand local government authorities seeking their views on proposals for both this year and longer term. Attached to this report is the full Consultation Document which outlines the proposes and feedback required.


Page 2 of 3

The Authority is seeking the views of local government (i.e. territorial authorities, unitary councils and regional councils) on the proposals set out below in this section of the paper. These changes will affect elected mayors, chairs and councillors from each council including Auckland.

Part Two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination): by 5pm Monday 19th June 2017

1. RMA Plan hearing fees 2. Leave of absence for elected members and acting mayor/chair payments 3. Approach to expense policies 4. Provision of and allowances for information and communication technology and services 5. ICT hardware 6. Internet usage and phone plans 7. Travel time allowance 8. Mileage claims 9. 30km rule

Part Three – Longer Term Proposals: by Friday October 20th 2017.

1. Council Sizing with regards to remuneration setting 2. Mayor/chair remuneration 3. Councillor remuneration 4. External representation roles 5. Elected members who are appointed to CCOs 6. Community Board remuneration 7. A local government pay scale

Issues and options Council has formed a Councillor Remuneration Working party, whose members include, Mayor (Chairperson), Deputy Mayor (Deputy Chairperson) and Ward Chairs. Council delegates to this working party the following powers, duties and responsibilities: To review and make recommendations to Council on the remuneration of Elected Members in accordance with Remuneration Authority Determinations. The Mayor is recommending that the Councillor Remuneration Working party, work with staff to provide feedback for Part Two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination): by 5pm Monday 19th June 2017 and Part Three – Longer Term Proposals: by Friday October 20th 2017, to the Remuneration Authority.

New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to inform (i.e. one-way communication disseminating information) the Remuneration Authority.


Page 3 of 3

Budget Implications No funds are required to provide feedback. The resulting 2017/18 determination may result in additional costs to the democracy budget. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). The Mayor and staff are recommending to Council that the Councillor Remuneration Working party, work with staff to provide feedback for Part Two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination): by 5pm Monday 19th June 2017 and Part Three – Longer Term Proposals: by Friday October 20th 2017 to the Remuneration Authority.

Steve Fabish Group Manager- Community Services and Development


Consultation Document Remuneration Authority 1

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

Part One - General Introduction

Introduction

1. The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) is required to issue a new determination, taking effect from 1st July 2017, covering local government elected members. In considering how we should approach this in future, we have concluded that there is an opportunity for both short term improvements to the system, including some clarification of current policies, as well as some deeper changes which we propose introducing in 2019.

2. Hence this paper has two substantive sections – Part Two covering proposals for this year and Part Three covering the longer term. We are seeking views of councils on both. The timetable for responses on the shorter-term proposals is unfortunately short. This is because as we got deeper into our review we saw the need for more fundamental change which, had we waited till we had all detail finalised, would have delayed our release of this paper. However, we feel that the issues in Part Two are sufficiently familiar for councils that they will be able to provide reasonably rapid responses. In contrast, Part Three contains more fundamental change proposals and we believe that the local government sector needs time to contemplate these. We have provided a window of several months and during that time we would anticipate attending either zone or sector meetings to discuss the proposals with you.

3. Recently the issue of the potential provision of child care subsidies or services has been raised. We have not addressed it in this paper but will be consulting the sector shortly about this issue.

4. The Authority would like to thank a number of people who have assisted us with the review so far. We commissioned ErnstYoung to provide facilitation, research and analysis. The following people also provided assistance and we very much appreciated their insights and information:

• Local Government Leadership Group: o David Ayers, Mayor, Waimakariri District o Jan Barnes, Mayor, Matamata-Piako District o Brendan Duffy, Independent Consultant and former Vice-President LGNZ o Justin Lester, Mayor, Wellington City o Jane Nees, Deputy Chair, Bay of Plenty Regional Council o Rachel Reese, Mayor, Nelson City

• Local Government New Zealand:


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX A

carol

Typewritten Text


o Lawrence Yule, President o Mike Reid, Principal Policy Advisor

• Local Government Commission: o Suzanne Doig, Chief Executive Officer o Donald Riezebos, Principal Advisor

• Local Government Officials: o Dennis Bush-King, Tasman District Council o Miranda Cross, Greater Wellington Regional Council o John O’Shaughnessy, Hastings District Council

• Central Government Officials o Deborah Brunning, Statistics New Zealand o Sarah Lineham, Office of the Auditor-General o James Stratford, Department of Internal Affairs

• Alistair Gray, Statistics Research Associates Limited

Legal requirements for the Authority when setting remuneration

5. The work of the Authority is governed by the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, which has had several amendments since it was first enacted. This act and the Local Government Act 2002 contain the statutory requirements which the Authority must follow when making determinations for local government elected members. They are summarised below:



Role of local government

6. In undertaking this review the Authority has looked at past thinking on local government remuneration. One particular document1, issued by Local Government NZ in 1997, contained a thoughtful summary of the role of local government.

7. The document said:

“The strength of representative democracy ultimately depends on two factors. One is the level of citizen participation and trust in democratic institutions. The other is the ability and commitment of elected representatives and their role in encouraging participation and promoting levels of trust.

Local government constitutes one of the underpinning structures of democratic society, providing ‘voice and choice’ to citizens and communities, and the mechanism for making decisions about local needs and preferences. It also provides a forum to debate issues of mutual interest and concern.

Good local government depends upon the goodwill and understanding of it citizens, and the quality of its staff. Most of all, however, it depends on the ability of those elected to govern. Attracting people with the capacity to lead and govern at local level involves a number of factors. These include:

• The opportunity to contribute effectively, be professionally valued and receive a sense of satisfaction at achieving a job well done

• The existence of structures and processes to support and professionally advise elected members and enable them to contribute constructively on matters of community importance

• The presence of consultative and participative arrangements that strengthen relationships between and with their communities

• The existence of a remuneration system that enables people from all sectors of the community to commit time and effort necessary to fulfil their responsibilities as elected members without being unduly disadvantaged.”

8. In our view, this characterisation of local government has not changed since it was written

twenty years ago.

1 Options for Setting Elected Members’ Remuneration – A Discussion Document for Local Government and Stakeholders, prepared by the Local Government New Zealand Elected Members’ Remuneration Working Party (1997)



Part Two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination)

Introduction 9. The Authority is seeking the views of local government (i.e. territorial authorities, unitary

councils and regional councils) on the proposals set out below in this section of the paper. These changes will affect elected mayors, chairs and councillors from each council including Auckland (councillors and local board members). Part of it will also affect community board members.

10. Please note that we are seeking the views of councils, not of individual elected members or staff.

11. We would appreciate any feedback that councils wish to give to be emailed to us by 5pm Monday 19th June 2017 or earlier if you can. Please email to [email protected]

RMA Plan hearing fees

12. Current practice is that those elected representatives who are undertaking resource consent hearings can receive an hourly fee which is determined three-yearly by the Authority and which is not included in the council’s pool of money to cover payment for additional positions of responsibility. This has not applied to other hearings conducted under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Nor does it apply to hearings for a plethora of other plans or policies developed by councils under different pieces of legislation.

13. The Authority has received many enquiries and suggestions from councils on this issue. In

particular, there is growing concern about the treatment of often-protracted hearings of District Plans, Regional Policy Statements and other land, air, coastal and water plans under the RMA.

14. We have looked at the range of council plans that involve hearings and believe that many of

them could be considered part of “business as usual” for councillors.

15. However, of particular concern is that councillors who sit on RMA plan hearings are required to be accredited commissioners. This means that they must have undertaken the Making Good Decisions course and they must renew their credentials every three years. The requirements for councillors are in this respect the same as for non-councillor commissioners and there is a cost in both time and money to gain and maintain the accreditation.

16. Because of the technical and legal nature of plan hearings, they tend to take months and, in

some cases, can span an election period. This is especially the case if the hearing covers a review of the whole plan.



17. The Authority is aware of the increasing trend for councils to engage external

commissioners as members of the panel for these plan hearings. This use of external contractors is being driven by several considerations, including time requirements, unavailability of sufficient numbers of councillors who are qualified commissioners, or a view that because councillors have developed the plans as part of their core business, the hearings should be conducted by a different set of independent commissioners. External commissioners are paid an hourly rate for the work. In some cases, a council will use a mixed panel of external commissioners and councillors, which clearly creates a disparity between panel members.

18. Because of these factors, we agree that any such hearings should be treated in the same

way as resource consent hearings under the RMA insofar as councillor remuneration is concerned.

19. The Authority is proposing that an hourly rate should be paid to councillors who are

members of such hearing panels.

20. The rate would be set every three years by the Authority, as with payments for consent hearings. It will apply to site visits, reading (not to exceed the hearing time) and, in the case of an elected person chairing such a committee, the hourly rate would also cover the time spent in writing the decisions. For clarity, we also propose that this last provision be included for elected members who are chairing resource consent hearings.

• Do you agree that elected members who are sitting on plan hearings

under the RMA should be remunerated in the same way as elected members who are sitting on resource consent hearings?

• Do you agree that elected members who chair such hearings should be

remunerated for time spent writing up decisions?

Leave of absence for elected members and acting mayor/chair payments

21. From time to time a councillor or mayor/chair needs extended leave of absence from council work. This could be for personal reasons such as family/ parental leave, extended holiday, illness or, in some cases, when standing for another public office. On these occasions the Authority is asked whether or not a council can grant such leave and, if it involves a mayor or chair, whether an additional payment can be made to the person (legally prescribed as the deputy) who is acting in place of the mayor/chair.



22. We have looked at the rules for governance boards in the state sector for guidance and adapted those rules for local government elected members. Rather than an ad hoc approach, we propose the following:

Councillors:

• Leave of absence without pay can be granted for a period of up to six months (maximum) by formal resolution of the council.

• The leave must involve total absence. The councillor cannot be present for any duties either formal or informal – this includes council meetings, meetings with external parties and constituent work. Nor can the councillor speak publicly on behalf of the council or represent it on any issues.

• The councillor’s remuneration and allowances ceases during the period for which leave of absence is granted.

Mayors/Chairs:

• Leave of absence without pay can be granted for a period of up to six months (maximum) by formal resolution of the council.

• Notwithstanding the above, the period must be longer than a single cycle of council meetings, whether that be monthly or six weekly or whatever. This is because we consider that one of the key roles of a deputy mayor/chair is to cover for short absences by the mayor/chair, but that a longer absence would necessarily put an unexpected extended work burden on the deputy.

• If the deputy is to be paid extra remuneration for the period concerned, the leave must involve total absence. The mayor/chair cannot be present for any duties either formal or informal – this includes council meetings, meetings with external parties and constituent work. Nor can the mayor/chair speak publicly on behalf of the council or represent it on any issues.

• The remuneration to mayor/chair ceases during the whole of the period for which leave of absence is granted and the deputy is acting in the role.

• Allowances including a mayor/chair vehicle will also be unavailable to the mayor/chair during that period, but would be available to the acting mayor/chair.

• We propose that under these circumstances the council may pay that deputy a sum up to the normal remuneration of the mayor/chair in place of the normal remuneration received by the deputy.

23. Councils may make decisions within the parameters of these rules but must inform the Authority as soon as possible.

24. We have reflected on the proposed six-month period and consider that it is likely to require

exceptional circumstances for an absence of that period to be granted, especially to someone in a leadership positon on a council. It would mean that the constituents who elected that person would be unrepresented or, under a multiple-member ward, less represented, than would normally be the case. This would be an electoral risk that the



person concerned would need to consider carefully. However there may be circumstances where it is appropriate so we are proposing that the maximum period would be six months.

25. A further issue is the extension of an acting role beyond the anticipated length of time – for example, if the incumbent were elected to another role and there needed to be a by-election. Under those circumstances, if the incumbent is the mayor or chair, and the deputy was acting in the role, that the acting role may need to be extended for a further period, perhaps up to three months. In that case, we advise that councils make a new, separate decision regarding the remuneration and allowances.

• Do you agree that there should be provision for elected members to

be granted up to six months leave of absence without pay? If not, what should be the maximum length of time?

• Do you agree that additional remuneration can be made to the deputy mayor or chair to act in the role under the circumstances outlined?

• If you disagree with any of the conditions, please state why.

• Are there any other conditions that should apply?

Approach to expense policies

26. The current approach is for each council to send in their policy to the Authority every three years for approval. In between we often receive requests for assistance in interpreting the provisions in the determination. We are aware of the need for policies to be more transparent and for greater clarity in the explanatory notes, both in determination and on our website.

27. We have looked at many council expense policies and it is clear that some are struggling to

develop them, possibly because small staff size does not provide any depth of expertise in this area. On the other hand, some policies are highly developed and contain clear guidance as to what is permitted and under what circumstances.

28. We are thus proposing that instead of each council needing to develop a policy from scratch

and then gain approval from us, we work with local government to develop a prototype policy that could be adopted by all councils.



29. The metrics in such a prototype would obviously be the top (maximum) of the allowed range, so any council wanting to pay/reimburse less (or even nothing at all) would be free to do so.

30. With respect to the current role of the Authority in authorising or checking such policies, this is enabled by the legislation and has been required in our previous determinations. However, the Authority proposes that such compliance audits should be part of the role of local government auditors who should check council expenses policies to ensure conformity to the Determination. Auditors should also be assessing whether councils are actually following their own agreed policies in this area.

• Do you agree that the Remuneration Authority should supply a

prototype expenses policy that will cover all councils and that councils should be able to adopt any or all of it to the upper limit of the metrics within the policy?

• Do you agree that each council’s auditor should review their policy and also the application of the policy?

Provision of and allowances for information and communication technology and services

31. A communications allowance has been included in the determination since 2008, and was introduced to bring some equity across the country in the reimbursement of costs and the provision of such support to elected members.

32. The continuing development of information and communication technology (ICT) has led

the Authority to reconsider the allowance. Our view is that elected members should not carry the costs of communicating with councils or with residents.

33. Mobile technology is now ubiquitous and so much business is now conducted digitally that

mobile phones and tablets are considered tools of trade in many businesses, in both the private and public sectors. It is no longer considered to be a personal benefit for a person to have her/his basic technology integrated with that of the business.

34. The Authority’s preferred approach in the past was that councils provided the necessary

equipment, consumables and servicing, as well as reimbursement (on proof of expenditure) of other costs that might occur. However, there was also provision for hardware costs incurred by elected members to be partly reimbursed.

35. Given recent changes in both the business environment and in technology, we are now of

the view that all councils should provide an appropriate council-owned technology suite for their elected members. The two exceptions to this are payment for the use of broadband,



which can vary greatly depending on the nature of the household of the elected member, and payment for phone usage.

36. The complexities of ensuring that security is kept up to date mean that elected members

are likely to find it increasingly difficult to manage the technical demands of being part of a larger organisation, which may have more stringent standards than they would have for their own personal technology. For the councils, there should be a major benefit in having all elected members using identical technology and systems, managed efficiently and effectively by the council’s ICT officials. Councils often have complex software driving different parts of their systems (e.g. water plants) and possess large databases of residents and ratepayers. Managing these systems in a robust way and decreasing the possibility of cyber-attack is a challenge and will be assisted if there are fewer different entry points into the main system. This is also a protection for both the council and for residents/ratepayers who may have privacy concerns.

ICT hardware

37. It is the responsibility of each council to decide the communications equipment needed to carry out its business effectively and efficiently. Decisions about equipment for individual councillors should flow from that. We note that councils should be able to get good purchasing leverage on equipment and on usage plans to keep costs down.

38. We propose that councils provide all elected members with the following equipment:

• a mobile phone • a tablet or laptop • a monitor and keyboard if required, plus the hardware to connect the various pieces

of equipment • a printer • a connection to the internet.

39. Consumables such as paper and ink should also be supplied by the council as required by

the elected member.

40. In the past, there has been a desire by some elected members to utilise their own communication equipment to undertake council business, possibly because of unwillingness to segregate personal and council usage on the same device. Now it is commonplace for people to have more than one account on one computer, so the issue of carrying round an additional tablet should no longer apply.

41. Equipment would remain the property of the council and be replaced or updated as part of

the council’s asset renewal programme – presumably triennially. This would allow councils to obtain the advantages of bulk purchase and ensure maximum efficiency by providing equipment that is consistent across the organisation, fit for purpose and adequately protected to provide security and privacy for ratepayers, elected members and staff.



42. Where there is a strong reason for the council not to supply the technology, the Authority

would need to make a decision allowing that council to put in place a reimbursement system. We note that there is a cost in time and money to all parties in managing such a system and it would have the inherent technology security weaknesses described above. In such cases, exceptional circumstances would need to exist before the Authority was prepared to move to a reimbursement system. In addition, in the interests of efficiency, the reimbursement system would need to apply to the whole council, not just to a few councillors.

43. Where council decided to provide an allowance for the use of personal ICT hardware, it

should cover all ICT equipment used by members and the Authority would prescribe an upper limit for expenditure. This would represent three years’ depreciation on the hardware (mobile phone, tablet/laptop, printer, monitor, keyboard, installation of an internet connection) plus an assumption that half the usage would be on council business. The allowance can be paid monthly or at the beginning of a triennium.

Internet usage and phone plans

44. Previously the Authority considered the extent to which the costs of data and phone use were apportioned between council and elected member. This can be complex and will reflect differing household usage as well as council usage. For example, in a household which already has personal usage close to their broadband cap, the increased traffic required to move to electronic papers may require an increase in monthly band usage, even though the data transmitted is modest compared to other internet and electronic traffic.

45. With regard to home broadband, we propose that elected members should be responsible

for their own plan. The Authority previously determined that no more than 25% of the usage charges could be regarded as bona fide additional costs incurred by an elected member in carrying out council business. We accept that this is still the case but note that there is now a huge variety and combination of plans available for home broadband, so arriving at an “average” is simply not possible. We therefore propose that councils continue to reimburse up to 25% of a maximum dollar amount to each elected member to cover internet usage costs, on production of receipts. The Authority would review the percentage and the maximum amount every three years.

46. The use of mobile phones as a primary form of communication is increasing exponentially.

Alongside this is a proliferation of different types of plans for mobile phones, paralleling what is happening in home broadband connections. The difference between home internet use and phone use is that for the home broadband, anyone else in the household can access the internet connection, whereas a phone is a personal device. We therefore consider that, except for mayors and chairs, elected members should receive reimbursement of up to half the cost of their personal mobile phone usage up to a maximum dollar amount, on production of receipts. If the council owns the plan, the same rule would apply as for home broadband use - the council would pay for half the annual



usage cost with a capped dollar amount and the elected member would need to reimburse the council for the rest. Elected members would be charged for all private international calls.

47. For mayors and chairs the council should cover the total cost of the plan, except that the

user will be charged for private international calls.

Unusual circumstances

48. Over the years the Authority has occasionally been approached to cover the one-off costs of providing connection access or non-standard equipment where regular landline or mobile coverage is not available. We propose to continue the current policy, which is that where such circumstances exist, the council may put a costed recommendation to the Authority for approval to make a one-off payment for installation and either a reimbursement or allowance for on-going maintenance and support reflecting the costs involved. It is anticipated this allowance will normally reflect no more than 75% of the costs involved.

• Do you agree that it should be common policy for councils to provide the ICT hardware proposed above for all elected members?

• Do you agree that exemptions to this policy would be limited to exceptional circumstances?

• Do you agree that a proportion of the ongoing cost of the use of home internet and personal mobile phones should be reimbursed as outlined above?

• If you disagree with either of these proposals, please give reasons and outline your alternatives.

• Do you agree with the “unusual circumstance” provision in para 49 above?

Travel time allowance

49. We do not propose to make any changes to the approach on travel time allowances. This provides for all elected members who are not full time to be eligible for an hourly allowance when travelling on business for the council or community board in respect of any travel exceeding an hour and assuming the fastest form of transport. The rate is set by the Authority and is reviewed each three years.



• Do you agree that the current policy on travel time allowance should be

continued? • If not, please state reasons for change.

Mileage claims

50. About two thirds of all mayors/chairs take up their entitlement to have a dedicated vehicle provided for them by the council. Others choose to use their own vehicle for a variety of reasons but often, we understand, because of a belief that their constituents will not approve of them having the “perk” of a council vehicle. Our view is that for mayors/chairs, who normally travel great distances each year, the car is a “tool of trade” and an entitlement rather than a “perk”. In any other occupation, people who travelled the distances clocked up by most mayors/chairs would be provided with a company car rather than having to use their own.

51. We have checked the distances travelled annually by mayors/chairs. The average and the

median are both around 22,000 to 23,000km a year. Unsurprisingly the distances vary greatly – from 35,000km down to a few thousand – though we wonder if the lower level reflects the fact that some who use their own vehicles claim very little. In fact at least three make no claims whatsoever.

52. Currently we utilise NZ Automobile Association metrics regarding the cost of running a

vehicle and we use IRD formula for mileage rate reimbursement. We propose to continue to use these benchmarks, which will be updated as appropriate. The one exception is that in recognition of the fact that mayors/chairs using their private vehicles are likely to be in the medium/high group of users of their own cars for work purposes, we propose to alter the formula around the application of the higher and lower IRD rates.

53. At present the higher rate (currently 74 cents per km) applies to the first 5000km travelled

on council business and the remaining distance on council business is reimbursed at a rate of 37 cents per km. We propose that above that first 5000km, which would act as a base, mayors/chairs using their own vehicles should be reimbursed at the higher rate for the first 25% of the remaining distance they travel on council business.

54. We have no data about councillor use of personal vehicles on council business and we

assume that distances travelled would normally be less than that of a mayor - but not always, especially in the case of a “distant” ward. Regardless, we propose that the formula outlined above also applies to councillor travel reimbursement.



• Do you agree with the proposed change to the current 5000km rule? • If not, what should it be and why?

55. The other issue which we are frequently asked to clarify is the “30km rule”. We propose to keep this approach. Basically it recognises that virtually all New Zealanders have to pay the cost of their own transport to and from their work place. However, elected members also have other work in other places. The 30 km rule is based on an assessment that most people would live within 15 km of their work place. That means that a “round trip” to and from the “work place” – i.e. the normal council meeting place – can be claimed only if it is above 30km. If the trip to and from the council’s normal meeting place is above 30km, the first 30km are always deducted. This means that if an elected member lives closer than 15km, then no claim can be made for attending a meeting at the council office. If a member must come to the office twice in one day, if she/he is not simply taking the opportunity to go home for lunch, then the whole of the distance for the second trip may be claimed. This assumes that most workers travel to and from work only once per day, but recognises that elected members may have a formal meeting, say in the morning, then another meeting much later in the afternoon. We except common sense to prevail in councils when authorising such claims.

56. With regard to work of elected members outside of the normal council meeting place, the

full mileage can be claimed. That means that the elected member may claim from her or his home to the address of the meeting or event and back again by the shortest route.

57. If an elected member has an additional place of residence (e.g. a holiday home) the primary

place of residence, normally identified by being her/his address on the electoral role, will be considered the official residence.

58. If a council is holding one of its normal meetings in a different venue - for example in an

outlying town - then the full mileage can be claimed. However, we expect common sense to prevail. If the exceptional meeting place is just down the road from the normal venue then the 30km rule would apply.

• Do you agree with the proposal to retain the 30km rule in its current

form?

• If not, what should this rule be?



Mayor/chair car valuations

59. We do not propose to make any changes to the valuation of the mayor/chair motor vehicle at this stage. The formula is consistent with the methodologies applied to valuing motor vehicles for full private use in public sector roles. The Authority’s formula goes one step further in that it recognises that a greater proportion of vehicle usage by a mayor/chair is spent on council business rather than on personal use.

60. The formula and associated variables used to value mayor/chair motor vehicles will be

reviewed with the main determination triennially. Any changes will be applied in election year.

Annual changes in remuneration

61. The main local government determination will usually be applied in election year, then in the intervening two years we propose to change remuneration to reflect changes in the Labour Market Statistics (LMS) – (see Part Three for more details on the timetable).

Changes following an election

62. The Authority is aware that there has been some confusion in the past regarding the exact days on which payment ceases for outgoing elected representatives and commences for those who are newly elected, and around remuneration continuing for those who are re-elected.

63. The following outlines the legal situation:

• All newly elected and re-elected local government members come into office the day after the results are publicly notified under S.86 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

• All sitting members vacate office on the same day.



Part Three – Longer Term Proposals

Introduction

64. The Authority is seeking the views of local government (i.e. territorial authorities, unitary councils and regional councils) on the proposals set out below in this section of the paper. These changes will affect elected mayors, chairs and councillors, as well as community bard members, from every council except Auckland. Later this year we will be issuing an additional consultation paper on the Auckland Council, following the completion of its governance review. However, we are proposing that the general principles outlined in this paper around council sizing should apply to Auckland.

65. Please note that we are seeking the views of councils, not of individual elected members or

staff.

66. We would appreciate feedback to [email protected] by Friday October 20th 2017. Please email to [email protected]

Recent history of local government remuneration setting by the Authority

67. In late 2011 the Authority issued a discussion document - Review of Local Authority Remuneration Setting. This was followed in November 2012 by a further document - Remuneration Setting Proposals for Local Authorities - which outlined the system that the Authority was proposing to institute from the 2013 election. A copy of that document is attached as Appendix 1. It transpired that for a variety of reasons in the years 2014 to 2016 the Authority did not completely implement the proposed process. However, significant elements are in place. Importantly, the work which the Authority commissioned from the Hay Group in 2015 remains current in our view and has provided useful data to assist with our current considerations.

68. To assist with context, the main elements of the 2013 proposal are summarised below.

They were: a) Moving away from the traditional salary/meeting fee mix for local government

remuneration.

b) Creating a size index for councils derived from population and council expenditure.

c) Basing the remuneration for councillors/mayors/chairs on: • the relative place of the council in the size index; • the job size of the positions as assessed for sample councils; • the proportion of full time work as demonstrated by survey results; • the Authority’s pay scale.

d) Providing a pool for each council equivalent to one councillor’s remuneration to be allocated for additional positions of responsibility.



e) Reviewing local government remuneration approximately two years after each election and setting the base remuneration for councillor and mayor/chair roles at the beginning of each election year, together with provision for changes in positions of responsibility within each council.

f) Recalculating annually each council’s place on the size index and, in the following July determination, automatically applying any increase warranted, with the proviso that any reductions in the base remuneration would not be implemented during the term of that council.

g) Providing a loading of 12.5% for unitary council remuneration to recognise their additional regional responsibilities.

h) Retaining arrangements for resource consent hearings whereby elected members can be paid an hourly fee in addition to their base remuneration.

i) Requiring councils to confirm their expenses policies only in election year rather than annually.

j) Retaining valuation methodology for mayor/chair vehicles with adjustments made each year on July 1 to coincide with the determination.

k) Various changes to community board remuneration setting.

69. The new system was in place for the 2013 Determination in which the Authority made the following comment: “Aware of its responsibility of fairness to both elected members and ratepayers, the Authority moderated both increases and decreases to smooth the transition to the new system”.

70. In the 2014 Determination, the same comment was made with the additional comment that

“this approach was continued, with moderation to reflect wage growth, this year”.

71. In 2015 the same comment was again made. However, in issuing that Determination the Authority said the following: “The relationships between council size and remuneration, as well as any necessity for moderation of large increases or decreases, will be reassessed during the 2015/16 year ready for implementation at the time of the 2016 local body elections”.

72. During 2015 the Authority reviewed the framework again, including job-sizing the positions

of a representative group of councils and assessing workloads. In issuing its 2016 Determination the Authority made the following comment: “The Authority found clear evidence regarding the size of positions but has less confidence in the evidence relating to workload. Given that uncertainty, the Authority has not proceeded to fully or partially implement increases that would in many cases have been well in excess of 10%. It has instead applied increases to the base remuneration payable to councillors ranging from 1.5% to 3% depending on the size of the council. This reflects at the higher level the movements in the public sector remuneration more generally.” The following comment was also made: “The Authority is also concerned that the expectations placed on local representatives continue to increase and remuneration does not in all circumstances reflect the skill and effort required from members. It will therefore begin further work this year to



establish an ongoing basis for remuneration that treats both the ratepayer and the elected member fairly”.

Rationale behind current proposal

73. While the legal requirements are set out above in paragraph 2 of Part One (above), the Authority members have also decided that these legal requirements (including attraction and retention of competent people) should be aimed at attracting a wide variety of competent people and balanced by the need to have a local government remuneration system that is accepted in the wider community. To enable this, we require a robust process that is as transparent as possible, intuitively plausible and sustainable for the foreseeable future.

74. We recognise that whether or not the level of financial reward matches the personal contribution of any elected member is not necessarily a significant determinant of the willingness of many people to stand for election. However, remuneration may be an issue for some, depending on personal circumstances, and it may also become an issue for an incumbent deciding whether or not to continue.

75. In considering this proposal, the Authority has decided to maintain a number of existing

approaches. The principal ones are: a) Maintaining a “total remuneration” approach rather than meeting fees.

b) Using a size index to determine relativity between various councils.

c) Adopting a “pay scale” for local government that is fair and seen to be fair.

d) Reviewing the components of the council size index every three years and applying appropriate factors to territorial authorities and regional authorities.

e) Recognising that unitary councils have dual responsibilities and sizing them accordingly.

Council Sizing

76. Overview

We define council size as the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry. The size of councils varies considerably. The most obvious difference is in the size of population with the biggest council (Auckland) having 1,614,300 citizens and the smallest (the Chatham Islands) just 610 at the last census. Even outside of these two, there still a wide population range from Christchurch (375,000) to Kaikoura (3,740).

77. However, despite their differences, there are also many similarities between different councils and the roles of elected representatives.

78. All local government representatives have a basic workload that includes decision-making

around local plans, policies and regulations; civic representation; assisting constituents; and



working with other organisations (public and private sector). Importantly, councils are also tasked with employing a chief executive and monitoring performance and delivery.

79. With regard to differences, as noted above, the starkest is in population, but even then

there is not an exact connection between population and work load. We have taken account of several characteristics in addition to population to compare the size of each council. We are limited by the ready availability of information. However, with the information that is available, we have been able to use statistical methods to identify several factors that are significant influences on the workload of Councils.

80. We can identify councils that are most likely to be comparable in size, despite differences in

what brings this about. Such comparisons can never be exact, because amongst all the councils there are influences on their size that are either unique or unable to be quantified using existing evidence. The analytical approach taken this year by the Authority will be further developed whenever the information base is able to reflect such situations.

81. We considered a variety of factors that could be used for sizing councils and, after

consultation and further analysis, we are proposing several factors, with some differences between territorial authorities and regional/unitary councils. The indicators for each factor came from official statistics and departmental reports, and they were analysed by standard statistical methods which enabled the variety of demands on councils from different sources to be compared and accumulated. The initial list of factors and the modelling was identified with a representative group of elected local authority leaders, and then developed further by the Authority.

82. The strong direct effects on size from population, assets and operational expenditure were

modified by differences in guest night stays, social deprivation levels and physical size.

Factors proposed to be used in sizing

83. Territorial authorities: a) Population. This factor not only determines the scale of services that a council will

provide, but also the rating base by which activities are funded. Population is most likely to be the indicator that most New Zealanders would use when asked to distinguish between various councils. The statistics we are using are the most recent population estimates by Statistics New Zealand.

b) Operational expenditure. In many cases, operational expenditure correlates with population, but there are also some differences - in particular when a council may be in the midst of a specific expansion programme in a particular area of activity. Our data is taken from the annual accounts of councils.

c) Asset size. This represents the capital base of the council that the council is required to manage, providing essential service such as water, wastewater, roads and flood protection, and also social infrastructure. One of the challenges in asset management is to ensure that assets do not lose value. In recent years there has been greater focus on asset management in the sector, requiring (if it is undertaken rigorously) a higher degree



of attention to detail on the part of elected members, not just the asset managers in the organisation. The data on asset size is also extracted from the consolidated annual accounts of councils and includes the value of their council controlled organisations (CCOs).

We acknowledge that there are different degrees of assets held by local government. Some have highly commercial assets with commercial boards comprising directors selected for their relevant competencies and business experience. Others have land holdings that are long-term and more “passive” investments. Others again are assets such as ports which although highly commercial and competitive are often also strategic assets for their local government owners.

There are also different degrees of oversight. Some councils are extremely “hands on” with their assets and others are more arms-length in their relationships, particularly with CCOs. We recognise that whatever measure of asset size is used, its relevance will differ somewhat among councils to a greater extent than is likely with other factors.

d) Social deprivation. This measures the differences between councils in their need to take account of economic disadvantage among citizens. We recognise that in many council districts the high level of social deprivation in some areas is counterbalanced by a higher economic status in others. However, we believe there are some councils that do not have this balance and that, given the reliance of many councils on rates income, for those councils a high level of social deprivation will have a significant impact. Data is drawn from the third quartile of the NZDEP index prepared from the last population census.

e) Number of guest nights. This represents the demands on councils (e.g. infrastructure development and service provision) resulting from visitors. We recognise that this is a current issue which may in future years be resolved and that it is but one sector in New Zealand’s economy which is of concern to local government. However, it has been raised with us on many occasions and we believe it is relevant to allow for such demands being faced by council at present. It may be that it is replaced by another factor in future years. For this factor we use the Monthly Accommodation Survey of Statistics New Zealand. We were unable to find any data on visitors who may pass through a district and use facilities but not stay overnight, or on the current vexed issue of freedom campers.

84. Regional councils:

Although all councils (territorial, regional and unitary) have a power of general competence, the legal responsibilities of regional councils and unitary councils differ from those of territorial authorities. The breadth of their mandate in national legal instruments (such as the Resource Management Act) requires regional and unitary councils to operate at a different scale from that of territorial authorities, especially in their focus on regulating and managing land and water. For example, regional and unitary councils must develop and administer Regional Plans and Unitary Plans, and territorial authorities must give effect to these plans, which drives behaviour around issues such as water quality (i.e. storm water



and waste water). In contrast, regional councils do not have the significant focus on social issues that is required from either unitary or territorial councils. Hence land size is inherently important to the work of a regional or unitary council. In measuring size, we are proposing to eliminate the deprivation index factor for regional councils and add a land area factor.

85. Unitary councils:

For some years, the Authority has added a loading of 12.5% to account for the additional regional council responsibilities of the four smaller unitary councils – Gisborne, Marlborough, Nelson and Tasman. This did not include Auckland, even though it is also a unitary council, because the remuneration for Auckland was considered separately when it was set up.

We are uncertain as to the basis for the 12.5%, and are thus proposing that this loading now be removed and that instead the size of these four unitary councils be measured by both the regional and the territorial authority factors. Thus the factors by which we measure the size of unitary councils would include both land area and social deprivation.

The Authority believes that with the additional regional council factor of land area included, this is a fairer way of sizing unitary councils.

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils • Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by

the factors identified? • Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not

be used and why? • When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all

council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

• If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of

assets?

Weighting

86. The weight given to each factor was assessed intuitively by the Local Government Leadership Group, drawing on their knowledge and experience. These weights were then further refined by formal statistical analysis. The Authority has not yet completed this part of the exercise and, before we do, we would like to hear views on the proposed factors. Nevertheless, in our work to date, the following “order of magnitude” listing indicates what



we consider to be the relative importance of the various factors in determining size. They are listed here in terms of our current view of the highest to lowest influence on size.

87. Territorial authorities:

• Population; operational expenditure • Assets • Deprivation index; visitor nights

88. Regional councils:

• Operational expenditure; geographic size • Assets; population • Visitor nights

89. Unitary authorities:

• Population; operational expenditure; geographic size • Assets • Deprivation index; visitor nights

90. When the weighting exercise is completed, the size of each council estimated in this way will become the size index.

• Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity

of the factors for each type of council? • If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would

they sit relative to others?

Mayor/chair remuneration

91. The work that the Authority commissioned from the HayGroup in 2015 included a review and evaluation of the roles of mayor, regional council chair, committee chair and councillor across 20 councils.

92. The evidence reported by Hay was that mayor and regional council chair roles generally

require a full-time commitment, though this is not true in absolutely al cases. Even in smaller authorities where the mayor’s role may not be full time, the nature of the job means that it is usually difficult to get another job to supplement what might nt be a fulltime income. From the knowledge of members of the Authority and advice from a range of participants in local government, including the Advisory Panel, the Authority accepts that mayors/chairs are full time and we propose that mayor/chair remuneration be determined on this basis.



93. We are also proposing that there should be a “base pay” for all mayors/chairs. Additional

remuneration would then be on top of this, depending on the size of the council.

• Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time? • If not, how should they be treated? • Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with

additional remuneration added according to the size of the council? • If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

Councillor remuneration

94. The relativity between mayor/chair and councillors is somewhat more difficult to determine and we note that in 2015 the Authority suggested that although there was evidence about the size of positions, there was less evidence about workload.

95. We are aware that there are clear differences in both the job size and the workload of

councillors on different councils for a several reasons. There can also be significant differences in workloads of councillors within a single council. The influences on a councillor workload obviously include measurable factors such as population and the other indicators we have outlined above in paragraph 5, as well as the number of councillors, which varies from council to council.

96. However, other influences include current issues within a council area and individual

councillor interest in or affiliation to different interest groups. The latter also applies to workload differences amongst councillors on a single council, as does the appetite for work amongst different councillors. The Authority is not able to take account of such differences in our determinations. Nor are we able to provide for “performance pay”. This means that on any single council the remuneration of the hardest working councillor will be the same as that of the lowest contributor.

97. Having looked carefully at the sizing factors, and discussed mayor/chair and councillor

relativity with a variety of people, we have formed a view that we are unable to accommodate the differences between councillors on different councils with sufficient granularity to have a single national approach. The large metropolitan councils, for example, seem to have a higher councillor workload than of smaller rural and provincial councils, though this is not a universal rule. Additionally, there are differences between



similar sized councils which are addressed at council level by the allocation of committee and portfolio responsibilities.

98. We are also conscious of the discrepancies amongst councils in the current relationships

between councillor remuneration and that of the mayor/chair. The range is from 54% down to 21%, and in some cases the proportion appears to be arbitrary. Discrepancies are also evident where councils of similar size (population) show variances of up to 10% in the ratio between councillors and mayors/chairs remuneration. Some of this may be historical - the legacy of previous approaches - or the result of councils having decreased or increased the number of councillors over time.

99. The Authority is looking at a new approach that, while providing a fiscal framework, would

put the decisions round the details of councillor remuneration into the hands of the local council, which we believe is better able to understand and reflect community needs than we are on a national basis.

100. We are looking at setting a total “governance/representation pool” that each council

would distribute. The pool would be linked to the size of the council and thus be irrespective of the number of elected members. Because we are now proposing formally that all mayor/chair roles be considered full time, the Authority would be in a positon to set the salary for that positon. Thus the mayor/chair remuneration would be separately allocated by the Authority, but included in the governance/representation pool allocated to each council. However, remuneration for all other positions – councillors, deputy mayor/chair, chairs of committees, portfolio holders etc and community board members – would be allocated from its own pool by each council. The council’s proposed allocations would be forwarded to the Authority for inclusion in the Determination.

101. The pool proposal was included as one alternative in the 1997 LGNZ consultation paper,

albeit the remuneration framework then was very different from how it has evolved today.

102. The advantages of this approach are that it focusses on the total governance and representation cost for each council (minus the mayor/chair) and that it allows each council to decide its own councillor and community board remuneration levels, including for positons of responsibility, reflecting its priorities for the current triennium. The total pool would be relative to the size of the council rather than to the number of elected members. Consequentially, if a council wished to increase its numbers via a representation review, and thus spread the workload, the allocated pool would need to be spread amongst more people. The reverse would also apply. It should be noted that if the workload for the whole council increased because of a change in the metrics of any factor(s) by which the council is sized, then the council would move to a higher ranking on the scale which would provide overall higher total remuneration pool.

103. The disadvantage is that no council is necessarily the master of its own destiny in terms of

numbers of councillors. It must convince the Local Government Commission of the need to increase or decrease numbers. However, we do note that where representation changes



reflect changes in what we call the “size” of the council (as described above in para 77-91), any changes should also be reflected in the remuneration pool available to the council so there would then be a direct connection.

104. The pool approach provides councils with the flexibility to provide differences in positons

of responsibility in a nuanced way. Because each council varies in terms of its committee/portfolio structure, this is an area where councils need discretion to decide. Current practice is for the Authority so set the councillor remuneration for each council, then to provide each council a “pool” equivalent to twice the base remuneration of one of its councillors to allocate to those undertaking specific positons of responsibility. These may include deputy mayor, committee chair, portfolio holder or other specifically designated roles. We have had no significant advice that the size of this extra pool is inadequate. However, we are aware that the provisions are applied in slightly different ways by different councils and that there are some councils that find the current provisions restrictive.

105. For example, there has been some confusion in the past as to whether every single

councillor on a council can receive part of this additional pool by being allocated a positon of responsibility. Generally, the Authority has not agreed to this when the council has proposed sharing the addition pool equally because this has simply amounted to a pay-rise for all councillors to move them above the level applied in the Determination. However, we have had enquiries about this and also observed current practice.

106. We propose that under the new regime (i.e. a total governance/representation pool for

each council) the following rules should apply: a) All roles and remuneration levels will need to be agreed by formal resolution of the

council, with a 75% majority.

b) A remuneration rate must be set for the base councillor role

c) The council needs to have a formal written role description for each additional positon of responsibility above that of the base councillor role.

d) The Authority will expect that any such roles within a council will have different levels of additional remuneration, depending on the nature and workload involved. In particular this needs to apply where every single councillor is allocated an additional position (as distinct from a more usual practice of having a deputy mayor/chair and a handful of committee chairs).

• Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the

parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

• If so, should each additional positon of responsibility, above a base



councillor role, require a formal role description? • Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine

the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

107. We also note that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent their council on various outside committees and bodies. We propose that if any council wishes to do so, such appointments can also be captured under the process outlined above.

• Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a

similar way to council positions of responsibility?

108. The issue of director’s fees for elected members who are appointed to CCOs is a difficult one. On the one hand it could be said that a councillor sitting on a CCO is doing work that is similar to that of another councillor who may have a specified position of responsibility – or even less if the second councillor is, for example, a committee chair. However, the legal liabilities of CCO directors have become more onerous in recent years and may be more than those of elected members.

109. Those appointed as directors of CCOs need to be aware of the specific legislative duties

and regulatory obligations that are imposed on them, in their capacity as directors, by the various acts, including the Local Government Act 2002, the Companies Act 1993, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the Charities Act 2005 and the Public Audit Act 2001.

110. It is not for the Authority to determine whether or not elected members should be

directors of a CCO, but we do recognise the additional responsibility that is taken on in those cases and that it may require developing capabilities to meet obligations that are different from those required of other elected members. We also observe the increasing trend towards the appointment of external professional directors to such roles.

• Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair

for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?



Community Board remuneration

111. We note that 40 councils (more than half the territorial authorities) have community boards. We also note that there is a huge variety in the nature of the work undertaken by community boards and in the powers delegated to them. Some undertake substantial and substantive governance work on behalf of the council, whereas others are more in the nature of community representatives and advocates.

112. We are also aware that in some places community board members are doing work that

elsewhere might be undertaken by council officers. However, assuming that community boards are part of the governance/representation structure of a council, then this means that, all else being equal, the current cost of governance and representation for these councils could be relatively higher than that of councils which do not have them. Some councils fund the boards out of a targeted rate applied to the area that the board represents, whereas others use a general rate – i.e. the same as for funding the remuneration of councillors.

113. We suggest that if a council wishes to not cover remuneration for its community board

members from the proposed governance/representation pool, then a targeted rate should apply to the area represented by the particular community board. However, councillors appointed to represent the council on the community board would be paid from the governance/representation pool.

114. We also consider that is important that the functions undertaken by any community board are clearly and transparently defined by the council concerned and consider that all community board delegations should be by way of a formal council resolution.

• Should community board remuneration always come out of the council

governance/representation pool? • If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community

concerned? • If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding

the remuneration of community board members?

A local government pay scale



115. Local government has no exact equivalent. The nearest that we have in New Zealand is central government, yet even that is not an exact match.

116. Section 2 of this paper sets out the legal requirements that the Authority is required to

consider in making determinations. The first of those requires that the Authority “shall have regard in particular to the need to achieve and maintain fair relativity with remuneration received elsewhere”. This is particularly difficult in determining the remuneration for local government elected members because there is no obviously relevant comparator group. The Authority considered and rejected as inappropriate the following:

a) Local government senior managers’ salaries.

Information on local government management remuneration is readily available in market salary surveys and through councils’ annual reports. However employees of councils are selected for the knowledge, skills and experience they hold relative to the needs of the employment role. Elected members do not fit that profile at all. They are democratically chosen by the electors to represent the interests of the people of a particular area and provide governance over the council’s operations. There is no logical alignment that would connect the remuneration of the two groups.

b) Central government sector senior managers’ remuneration. Information on public sector management remuneration is readily available in market salary surveys and the State Services Commission’s annual reports but this option suffers from exactly the same difficulties as option (a) above.

c) Remuneration of directors on boards, including public sector boards, commercial boards and large not-for-profit boards. A significant part of the work of elected members consists of representational activities of one sort or another. Most boards of directors do not have this role. Those that do are often in the not-for-profit or NGO sector and, even there, the nature and time requirements of the representational work, including managing constituency issues, is different. Further, most boards are governing an enterprise that is essentially focused on a single group of goods or services within one industry, whereas councils have a significant array of services that are not necessarily similar in any manner – for example, providing building consents compared to social services.

117. Other aspects of local government elected roles which differ from the above are:

• The sheer “visibility” of the people involved, resulting in a lack of privacy. In some cases where the elected person is very high profile or important in a community, or



when the community is very small, this is extreme and often their close family members are also impacted by this.

• This visibility is associated with the need for publicly elected representatives to “front” on difficult issues. This is less common amongst other boards members and managers. When something goes wrong on a council the councillors and mayor/chair are held to account by the public, whereas on a board it would normally (though we recognise not always) be the CEO.

• The meeting requirements on local government are more onerous than they are in other sectors. The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and public expectation is that meetings will be held in public and that information behind decisions and actions will be readily available.

• Finally, and perhaps related to all the above, local government entities hold far more frequent meetings/workshops than do other governance boards and the distinction between governance and management is less clear than it is in most other models.

118. In the light of this, the Authority looked at a possible alignment with parliamentary

remuneration for comparative purposes. Even though (as we note above) local government is not an exact match to central government, parliamentarians are also democratically elected to represent sections of the populace, and those who are members of the Government of the day also exercise governance over the public service. Within the parliamentary group there are different levels of remuneration between backbenchers, ministers and some other identifiable roles.

119. Given the obvious difference between central and local government elected members, any remuneration alignment could not be a direct one-on-one relationship. However, the nature of the roles is such that there are also similarities and this is the closest the Authority can find to “fair relativity with remuneration received elsewhere”. As in other areas of our work, this decision involved a degree of judgement – there is no exact science here and we would observe that the utility and value of any elected person is in the eye of the beholder.

120. We therefore propose that mayor/chair remuneration be related to that of MPs, but

capped so that the highest remuneration for any individual mayor or chair cannot be more than that of a cabinet minister. All other mayor/chair roles would be provided with a relative alignment below that upper limit.

• Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to

parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

• If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest

role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?



• If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

Timetable

121. The current practice of the Authority – major three-yearly reviews with annual updating in non-review years – has been a sensible approach. We propose to continue it in the interests of efficiency and also to reflect the fact that the data we are using for sizing is not necessarily available annually.

122. In the intervening years, we propose that any change in local government remuneration

reflect the change in the salary and wage rates for the public sector as shown in Statistics NZ’s Labour Market Statistics (LMS) which are produced quarterly. In 2014 the LMS replaced the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES), which was the mechanism chosen as the reference index when Parliament passed the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Act 2015. Therefore, changes in MP remuneration are also tied to the change in salary and wage rates as published in the LMS. In addition to salary and wage rates, the LMS contain information on New Zealand's official employment and unemployment statistics, number of filled jobs by industry group, total hours worked, levels of income, total gross earnings and paid hours, and average hourly rates by sector.

123. The cycle adopted by the Authority for setting local government remuneration will be as

follows: • The first year of the cycle will be the local government election year. In that year the

Authority will undertake a full review of council sizes, utilising the indicators described above. Prior to applying the result of the review, the Authority will apply the LMS changes to all local government remuneration, and the council sizing results will then be applied.

• This determination will be issued on or about July 1 for implementation from the date the council formally takes office following the local government election later that year. At that time the Mayor/chair remuneration will be applied but the remuneration for all other positions to be decided out of the “governance/representation pool” will be applied on the day following the day on which the council formally resolves its remuneration policy for that triennium. Until then, from the day of assuming office, all councillors will be paid the base councillor remuneration that applied in the preceding triennium. The new determination will apply till the council ceases to formally hold office at the next local government election.

• Meeting fees for RMA plan or consent hearings, as well as the parameters for expense reimbursement, will also be assessed at that time and any changes will apply to all councils at the same time as the remuneration changes.

• In the subsequent two years, the determination will again be issued on or about July 1 but on these occasions for immediate implementation. For all councils, it will



contain adjustments reflecting the change in the LMS. There will be no changes in plan or consent hearing fees or expenses policies at this time.

This consultation process from now on

124. This proposal is being circulated to all councils to obtain feedback on the approach. The Authority would need to receive any written feedback that councils wish to make by 30 October 2017. We look forward to hearing from you.

125. For this year (2017) the Authority proposes to change remuneration according to the LMS

change and we also propose to introduce the new provisions outlined in Section Two of this paper. All other changes would be introduced for the year 2019. This timetable allows time for councils to fully discuss the proposals and give us their responses. It allows us to then refine and test our final model for the “governance/representation pool” prior to implementation.

126. We are conscious that 2019 is three years after the local government sector would have

been expecting changes. However, with our proposal to change the model for sizing councils and to radically change the way councillor remuneration is decided, we believe that such a time period is justified.


1

Decision Report

To: Mayor and Councillors

From: Strategic Planning Projects Manager

Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2017

File reference: Document: #2209699 Appendix A: #2209710 Final draft of Bill and explanatory notes.

Portfolio holder: Mayor


Subject: Proposal for Local Bill – Control of Mangroves Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT The Hauraki District Council confirms its support to co-sponsor the Local Bill – Control of Mangroves, and THAT the Thames Coromandel District Council be advised accordingly. Purpose Council has previously supported in principle its support to co-sponsor a Local Bill that would allow the Thames Coromandel (TCDC) and Hauraki District Council’s (HDC) to introduce controls on the expansion of mangroves in specified areas of their Districts. A final draft version of the proposed Local Bill has now been received along with its explanatory notes which are attached as appendix A. The Council is requested to consider confirming its support for the draft Bill in order that the Local Bill process can proceed. Background Council, at its meeting of 29 March 2017, considered a report that sought Council’s support for a Local Bill that would allow TCDC and HDC to develop Mangrove Management Plans that would allow the control of the expansion of mangroves in specified areas of their Districts. The Council resolved:

• That the Hauraki District Council support in principle the co-sponsoring of a Local Bill that will define the process and procedure for territorial authorities to control mangroves within their Districts; and

• That the Thames Coromandel District be advised accordingly.


2

Based on the support in principle the draft Local Bill includes HDC. The final version of the Local Bill has been received along with its explanatory notes which are attached as appendix A and the Council is requested to consider confirming its support for the Bill. The Member of Parliament for Coromandel has agreed to sponsor the Bill to Parliament. Issues and options The general scientific view on New Zealand mangroves is that there is only one species (Avicenna marina var. Australasia), that they indigenous and are intolerant of severe frost this limiting their distribution to northern New Zealand. There is clear evidence that the spread of mangroves is increasing, particularly in northern harbours and there is likely to be an expansion in their spread further south as a result of climate change. There is also clear international and national evidence that the spread of mangroves is has a direct causal relationship with activities on the land based portion of harbour catchments and estuaries and the contribution of these to increased sediment load in harbours – thus creating ideal mangrove habitat. The control of mangroves has been a particularly contentious and vexatious matter for the TCDC since the first two consent application for the removal of mangroves – the first being the removal of mature mangroves in Patiki Bay (Whangamata Harbour) and mangrove seedlings in Moanaanuanu Harbour in 2003. Subsequent consent applications have gone to WRC and then the Environment Court and the costs for consenting for even control of a small area of mangroves have become prohibitive for community groups. As result of the difficulty in obtaining resource consents for mangrove control/removal and the costs associated in obtaining these consents TCDC and the WRC have become aware of many instances where mature mangroves and mangrove seedlings have been removed without appropriate approvals and it is difficult to take enforcement actions these removals are often undertaken with subterfuge. The Local Bill provides each Council the discretionary power to develop mangrove management plans for specified parts of their area subject to the provisions contained in the Bill. All mangrove management plans would be subject to the Special Consultative process before their adoption. HDC and Mangroves While mangroves have not been a particularly contentious issue for HDC there are issues developing with the spread of mangroves in HDC; particularly in the lower boundary in the Firth of Thames – Miranda to Kopu. There is no question that mangroves are spreading north into the Firth and also spreading up the Waihou and Piako rivers and up the drainage canals. At present the mangroves in canals are controlled as part of Councils land drainage maintenance programme. Future WRC policy development however may make permission for these maintenance works more difficult. The explanatory notes to the proposed Bill refer to the RAMSAR site and the potential spread of mangroves causing issues with the feeding (and roosting) areas


3

of the many migratory shorebirds. This is not causing any major issue at the moment as the Miranda Naturalists Trust has a 35 year from WRC to remove seedling and juvenile mangroves from the small area involved at present. However, the rate of mangrove expansion is increasing and the Trust may need the ability to control mangroves over a larger area than presently consented which would be more easily addressed under the provisions of the Local Bill and there could well be further issues arise for the Council in the future that could be addressed by the provisions of the Local Bill if it is enacted. Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. In terms of engagement the Local Bill will be the subject of a public submissions process (should it get that far). Budget Implications There are no budget implications for the Council. TCDC has undertaken to meet all costs. Recommendation Since the consideration of the Local Bill by Council in March the key change to the draft Local Bill has been that mangrove management plans are now discretionary (rather than compulsory). Given Council’s earlier support I am recommending that Council now confirm its support for this Local Bill. Mark Buttimore Strategic Planning Projects Manager


4

Appendix A

Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

Local Bill

Explanatory note

General policy statement

The spread of mangroves in the coastal area of the districts of the two councils is increasingly becoming a concern for local communities.

Aerial photography from the 1940s shows minimal mangrove incursions into the districts' harbours and the Firth of Thames with white sandy beaches being the norm.

The lower Firth of Thames is an internationally significant tidal wetland protected by the Ramsar Convention and is an important wintering ground attracting thousands of Arctic nesting shorebirds such as the Bar-tailed Godwit and Lesser or Red Knot. The seaward advance of mangroves since the 1940s has considerably reduced the feeding habitat available to the birds.

Evident community concern about the impacts of mangroves dates from the early 2000s with, notably, the concerted effort since 2005 by the Whangamata community to address the spread of mangroves and restoration of harbour amenity.

To date, that process has consumed over a decade and in excess of $1,500,000.

Mechanisms allowing a transfer of authority under the Resource Management Act 1991 from regional to district councils do not adequately address the timing and resourcing concerns.

The district councils desire to see limited resources more effectively and efficiently utilised in the provision of core infrastructure and services, such as waste water treatment plants and catchment sediment management schemes to further protect estuarine environments.


5

The process undertaken so far under the Resource Management Act 1991 has been costly, time-consuming and has not delivered outcomes. A stream-lined, cost-effective, efficient and community-based process is required to ensure that the councils are mandated to implement a plan that reduces mangrove growth to acceptable levels to improve access, recreation, amenity and/or ecosystem values. The bill empowers each council to prepare a draft mangrove management plan in relation to the coastal area of its district to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of mangrove vegetation in order to restore, protect or enhance the amenity values and/or ecosystems of the coastal area. The draft plan is approved through the special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill provides that the councils, if they agree, may prepare a mangrove management plan collaboratively, including by adopting a single integrated plan for both districts. The bill empowers each council to implement an approved mangrove management plan.

Clause by clause analysis

Clause 1 is the title clause.

Clause 2 provides that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.

Clause 3 defines the terms used in the Bill. Most do not require explanation. The definition of coastal area (being the area in which a mangrove management plan may operate) is linked to the definition of coastal marine area in Section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991. This definition in turn covers not only the foreshore and seabed but adjacent parts of rivers that flow into the sea.

Clause 4 sets out the purposes of the Act which are to remove mangrove vegetation from the coastal area and restore, protect and enhance amenity values and/or ecosystems of the coastal areas.

Clause 5 empowers each council to implement a mangrove management plan if it decides to do so. Any plan must achieve the purposes of the Act and must include the following:

• a description of specific areas where mangrove management activities are to take place:

• a description of the objectives of the plan, including a description of appropriate levels of mangrove vegetation; and

• a description of methods to be used:

• a statement of rules and restrictions applying to mangrove management activities:

• an identification of the amenity values and ecosystems to be restored or protected:

• review mechanisms.

Clause 6 provides for the method by which a mangrove management plan of a council is to become operative. The process is to be overseen by a committee


6

including at least one mana whenua representative. The committee prepares a first draft of the mangrove management plan which is then adopted through the special consultative procedure of the Local Government Act 2002. This includes public notification and the opportunity for interested persons to express their views, and have them considered. The clause also enables the two councils to prepare their plans collaboratively, including, if they agree, to prepare a single integrated plan.

Clause 7 empowers the councils to carry out mangrove management activities in accordance with the operative plan. In doing so, a council is not required to comply with any other enactment that would otherwise regulate or apply to mangrove management activities.


Scott Simpson

Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

Local Bill

Contents Page Preamble 1 Title 5 2 Commencement 5 3 Interpretation 5 4 Purposes of Act 5 5 Purpose and content of mangrove management plan 6 6 Adoption and review of mangrove management plan 6 7 Powers of councils 7


The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

Title This Act is the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Act 2017.

Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.

Interpretation In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - council means-

(a) the Thames-Coromandel District Council; and

(b) the Hauraki District Council coastal area means the coastal marine area within the district of each council, other than land in private ownership coastal marine area has the meaning given in section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 mangrove management activity –

(a) means the removal, prevention, monitoring, detection, control, destruction or disposal of mangrove vegetation; and

(b) includes the following:

(i) hand removal of mangrove vegetation:

(ii) mechanised removal of mangrove vegetation:

(iii) whole tree removal:

(iv) maintenance dredging mangrove management plan means the plan that has become operative under section 6(9) mangrove vegetation means any seed, seedling, plant or remains of mangrove plants that exists in the coastal area

Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are –

(1) to facilitate the removal of mangrove vegetation in the coastal area of each council to appropriate levels; and

(2) to restore, protect and enhance the amenity values and/or ecosystems of the coastal area from which mangrove vegetation is removed.

Purpose and content of mangrove management plan

(1) Each council may adopt a mangrove management plan in relation to the coastal area of its district.

(2) The purpose of the mangrove management plan is to achieve and maintain appropriate levels of mangrove vegetation in the coastal area of the council district in accordance with the purpose of this Act.


(3) The mangrove management plan must achieve the purposes of this Act.

(4) The mangrove management plan –

(a) must include each of the following:

(i) the identification of areas within the coastal area, by reference to maps, in which mangrove management activities are to take place:

(ii) a statement of the objectives of the plan, including a description of appropriate levels of mangrove vegetation in the identified areas:

(iii) a description of the methods to be used in achieving the objectives of the plan:

(iv) a statement of rules and restrictions applying to the undertaking of mangrove management activities:

(v) an identification of the amenity values and/or ecosystems of the identified areas for the purposes of section 4(2):

(vi) a description of mechanisms the council intends to use to assess the effectiveness of the mangrove management activities in achieving the objective of the plan; and

(b) may include any other matter the council considers desirable or necessary to give effect to the purposes of this Act.

Adoption and review of mangrove management plan

(1) This section applies if a council decides to adopt a mangrove management plan in relation to the coastal area of its district.

(2) Each council shall establish a committee of the council to prepare, adopt and implement the mangrove management plan.

(3) The committee must include at least one iwi representative.

(4) The committee must prepare a first draft of the mangrove management plan.

(5) The council must use the special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 in adopting the mangrove management plan, as if references in that section to “a statement of proposal” were references to the draft mangrove management plan.

(6) The council must commence the special consultative procedure within 6 months of completion of the draft of the mangrove management plan by the committee.

(7) Within 3 months of completion of the special consultative procedure, the council must prepare the final mangrove management plan and make it publicly available in the same manner it made the draft mangrove management plan publicly available as part of the special consultative procedure.

(8) The council must have regard to the views expressed during the special consultative procedure in preparing the final mangrove management plan, to the extent the views are relevant to the purposes of this Act.


(9) The mangrove management plan becomes operative on the day it is made publicly available.

(10) Each council may review its mangrove management plan at any time by conducting the process set out in sections 6 (1) to (9).

(11) The councils may prepare, adopt and review mangrove management plans collaboratively.

(12) Without limitation, the councils may:

(a) prepare a single integrated mangrove management plan covering both districts; and

(b) establish a joint committee under clauses 30 and 30A of schedule 7 of the Local Government act 2002 to prepare the integrated management plan; and

(c) adopt a joint special consultative procedure covering both districts.

Powers of the councils

(1) Each council has the power to carry out, and to contract for the carrying out of, mangrove management activities in accordance with the mangrove management plan.

(2) In exercising the powers conferred by section 7(1), a council is not required to comply with any other enactment that would otherwise regulate or apply to mangrove management activities.

(3) Each council must comply with the rules and reporting requirements in the mangrove management plan.


Documents

A G E N D A - Hauraki District · 28 March 2017 are received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. CSDC17/52 Milner/Harris CARRIED Cr Smeaton attended the meeting