Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.2 Waimea Water Limited - Half Year Report 31 December 2023

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-6

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The Waimea Water Ltd (WWL) Half Year Report ended 31 December 2023 to shareholders was delivered on 27 February 2024. The Half Year Report is attached as Attachment 1.

1.1 The Half Year Report has been published on Waimea Water Ltd’s website and is available to the public.

1.2 Te Kurawai o Pūhanga (the dam) construction progress is set out on Section 5 (page 9) and costs and risks in Section 7 (page 18). The estimated cost to complete remains at $198.2 million as was forecast in February 2023. As of 31 December 2023, the project spend to date was $185.7 million.

1.3 The SOI notes that WWL was preparing for dam operations in early 2024, following replacement of the temporary facilities and commissioning of the permanent facilities. In the report, WWL updated that estimate and noted that it was preparing for dam operations from March 2024, following replacement of the temporary facilities and commissioning of the permanent facilities for water discharges.

1.4 On Sunday, January 21, 2024, the dam reached its full capacity, and the spillway started flowing. This was a milestone event for the project.

1.5 Since the receipt of the report, the company has commenced release of water from the dam to augment river flows. This release has resulted in the removal of the water restrictions in place at the time benefitting all water users.

1.6 The company will be attending this Council meeting to present an update. It is recommended that the Council take advantage of that opportunity to ask the company any questions they may have in relation to this Half Yearly report.

1.7 There are no new matters reported that staff need to bring to the Council’s attention.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Waimea Water Limited - Half Year Report 31 December 2023 report, RCN23-03-6; and

2. notes the receipt of the Half Year Report for the period ended 31 December 2023 from Waimea Water Ltd; and

3. notes the Waimea Water Ltd Half Year Report (or a link to the report) will be published on the Council’s website within seven (7) days of this meeting.

3. Purpose of Report

3.1 To formally receive the Waimea Water Ltd Half Year Report for the period ended 31 December 2023.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1 The Company is required under the terms of its Statement of Intent (and Section 66 of the Local Government Act 2002) to provide half year reports to shareholders. These reports are also made available to the public via both the Council and the Waimea Water Ltd websites.

4.2 The report provides information regarding:

4.2.1 A commentary on the results for the period.

4.2.2 Health, safety and wellbeing;

4.2.3 Update on construction progress;

4.2.4 Update on operational readiness;

4.2.5 Update on the project performance;

4.2.6 Update on expected cost and risk;

4.2.7 Statement of comprehensive revenue and expense, disclosing actual and comparative figures;

4.2.8 Statement of financial position at the end of the period; and

4.2.9 Statement of cashflows.

4.3 The dam construction progress is set out on Section 5 (page 9) and costs and risks in Section 7 (page 18). The estimated cost to complete remains at $198.2 million as forecast in February 2023. At December 2023, the spend to date was $185.7 million.

4.3.1 Under the SOI, WWL was preparing for dam operations in early 2024, following replacement of the temporary facilities and commissioning of the permanent facilities. The report notes that WWL had updated that estimate and was prepared for dam operations from March 2024, following replacement of the temporary facilities and commissioning of the permanent facilities.

4.4 The report identified the key significant residual risks. Shareholders have a particular interest in these risks which due to their nature do not have a monetary estimate. These are:

· Commercial risks associated with an unexpected outcome from the Contractor-initiated arbitration and adjudication that differs from the decisions of both the engineer and adjudication. WWL continues to prepare for both arbitration and adjudication.

· Greater embankment settlement than expected could put the dam face mechanical systems out of alignment. Greater seepage than expected may also require post construction intervention. In such eventualities, WWL would plan to lower the dam in the winter 2024 to address any issues. To date, engineering analysis and verification at the hold points has not indicated any significant issues.

5. December Company update to the Council

5.1 The Company has provided the required half year update. The information in the update is in line with the presentation made to the Council 13 December 2023.

6. Next Step | Timeline

6.1 Staff will provide a link to the report on the Council’s website within seven days of this meeting.

7. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Waimea Water Limited - Half Year Report ended 31 December 2023

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.3 Waimea Water Ltd - Draft Statement of Intent 2024/25

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Acting Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-7

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To present to the Council the Waimea Water Ltd (WWL) draft Statement of Intent 2024-2025 and to provide shareholder comment (if any) on the draft SOI to the Company.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Waimea Water Ltd initial draft Statement of Intent was provided to shareholders on
27 February 2024 (Attachment 1).

2.2 The statement of Intent is a shareholder matter that requires agreement between both Tasman District Council and Waimea Irrigators Ltd as shareholders. The draft Statement of Intent (SOI) remains sensitive while the Council undertakes any negotiations with Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL) and ultimately with Waimea Water Ltd (WWL) in the case any material changes are requested either by the Council or by WIL.

2.3 The SOI has been reviewed by staff for compliance with the Local Government Act (LGA).

2.4 The Council takes the lead on responding to the draft SOI. Feedback to the company on the draft SOI is required from both shareholders as this is a shareholder matter. Staff have approached the Board of Waimea Irrigators Ltd to confirm it has considered the draft SOI and has obtained the following feedback “WIL are comfortable with the draft SOI and would encourage the re-evaluation of retrofitting hydro generation capability to the Dam.”

2.5 If the Council wishes to make material changes to the draft SOI that will require negotiations with WIL and WWL. For any discussion of these material changes and the Council’s negotiating position, the meeting should move into a public excluded session.

2.6 Following the staff review of the draft SOI there are no specific matters outside of the forecast increase in water charges that staff need to bring to the Council’s attention. The estimated cost to complete the project has not changed from the $198.2 million previously. The company has provided draft financial estimates as of February 2024. These estimates will be updated for the final SOI. These estimates include increases in the operating and financing costs consistent with the current business environment. The Council’s share of financing and operating costs is forecast to be c$3,429,000 for the 2024/25 year. This is an increase of $502,000 on the $2,927,000 forecast for 2024/25 in last year’s SOI.

2.7 The SOI assumes that there will be no change to the company ownership structure arising from the Local Water Done Well reforms. This is the correct approach given the uncertainty surrounding the reforms and if the Council’s interest, rights, and responsibilities will transfer and, if so, in what form to a Water Services CCO.

2.8 Waimea Water Ltd staff will attend the meeting to present their regular update. This is the opportunity for the Council to engage the company over any matters or ask any questions on the draft SOI.

2.9 It is recommended that the Council consider the draft SOI as a whole and provide commentary (if any) to WWL for consideration in its drafting the final 2024-2025 SOI.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Waimea Water Ltd - Draft Statement of Intent 2024/25 report, RCN24-03-7; and

2. notes that the final 2024-34 Long Term Plan will be updated to reflect the increased Council water charges (financing and operating costs) from Waimea Water Ltd; and

3. provides the following comments and feedback to the Waimea Water Ltd Board –

3.1 that the Statement of Intent (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) meets Tasman District Council’s shareholder expectations; or

3.2 requests the Board considers the following matters before providing shareholders with the final Statement of Intent;

… (to be determined at the meeting)

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Waimea Water Ltd (WWL), along with other Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs), is required to complete an SOI by 30 June each year. The draft SOIs are required to be delivered to shareholders by 1 March each year. The WWL draft SOI was received by the Council within the statutory timeframe. This draft SOI covers the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. It also includes prospective financial information for the three years out to June 2027.

4.2 Shareholders issued a Statement of Expectation (SoE) to the company in December 2023. (Attachment 2) The SoE sets out the shareholders expectation on the matters to be included in the draft SOI. The general matters in the SoE are consistent across all the Councils CCO’s. The draft SOI addresses the matters raised in the SoE.

4.3 The purpose of an SOI is set out in the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 8. This purpose is repeated here as a background for the Council’s discussion on the draft SOI presented by WWL.

Purpose of statement of intent

4.4 The purpose of the Statement of Intent is to:

(a) state publicly the activities and intentions of a council-controlled organisation for the year and the objectives to which those activities will contribute; and

(b) provide an opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation; and

(c) provide a basis for the accountability of the directors to their shareholders for the performance of the organisation.

4.5 The SOI has been checked for compliance with the statutory requirements and there are no matters to bring to the Council’s attention.

4.6 The company will continue to provide quarterly, mid-year and annual results on the same timeline as in the past.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Prior to the commencement of the period covered by this SOI the construction of the project will be completed and the with dam provisions in the TRMP will be in force. The contractor will still be in the defects period where they are responsible for necessary repairs related to teething issues.

5.2 WWL will during the first year continue to develop and implement is operating systems and processes. It is expected that these processes will evolve over time.

5.3 While the draft SOI includes estimates for operating costs post dam completion, these matters are still being finalised between the company and its shareholders, due to 2024/25 being a final transitional year. This is a shareholder reserved matter requiring a shareholder resolution supported by both Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL) and the Council. These matters are expected to be settled by 30 June 2024.

5.4 Waimea Water Ltd have advised that the proposed operating costs will evolve before they submit their final SOI as they procure operating services and insurances. Also, the financing costs will also evolve before they submit their final SOI as they agree the new terms and lock in the refinanced shareholder advance loan rates.

5.5 Operating costs and project costs are defined within the project funding agreements. The two biggest operational items are Council rates and Insurance.

5.6 The Council is undertaking its three yearly rating re-valuations. These are undertaken by Quotable Value (QV) and audited by the Office of the Valuer-General (OVG). The valuations will be as of September 2023. The updated valuations will be issued late March 2024 and will establish the updated rating valuation for the dam. The new valuation will impact rates from the 2024/25 rating year which commences on 1 July 2024.

5.7 As with the Council, the company has seen a dramatic increase in its insurance costs. The company is undertaking a risk and insurance strategy to understand options around risk and insurance mitigation. In the draft SOI it has reduced its estimated insurance costs by $329,000 on the 2025 estimate in last year’s SOI. To meet this reduction, it is likely that shareholders will be asked to approve a reduced insurance cover.

5.8 The company operates on a cost recovery basis. The company recovers its financing costs and operating costs through the water charges to the Council and Waimea Irrigators Ltd. Waimea Irrigators will be using the $3 million shareholder advance facility C to smooth their water charges.

5.9 The forecast finance and operating costs have increased 14.3% from previous estimates. This increase sees the Council’s share of financing and operating costs increase to c$3,429,000 for the 2024/25 year. This is an increase of $502,000 on the $2,927,000 forecast for 2024/25 in last year’s final SOI.

5.10 There are increases in operating costs across most categories compared to last year’s SOI estimates including a significant increase in the cost of dam operations. A direct analysis is difficult due to changes in the overview provided and the classification of expenses.

5.11 These updated estimates of WWL water charges (financing and operating costs) detailed in the draft SOI will be incorporated in to the final 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

5.12 Waimea Irrigators Ltd, as the other shareholder, have been approached for any feedback or comments on the draft SOI. The company has advised that the draft SOI has been briefly reviewed and “WIL are comfortable with the draft SOI and would encourage the re-evaluation of retrofitting hydro generation capability to the Dam.”

5.13 While the further increase in WWL water charges over last year’s forecast for 2024/25 is challenging, the Council has a limited ability to influence those charges. It is recommended that the draft SOI be accepted.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Option 1 - To formally refer the SOI back to the WWL Board with comments on the areas of the SOI that need attention prior to reconsideration of the final SOI by the shareholders.	Allows shareholder concerns in relation to the SOI to be considered by the WWL Board.	None
2.	Option 2 – to accept the draft SOI and advise the company that the Council has no specific changes it wishes them to consider in drafting the final SOI.	If there are no material changes required, this is the appropriate response.	If there are material shareholder concerns, then this does not allow for those concerns in relation to the SOI to be considered by the WWL Board.

6.2 Option 2 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 A Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) must have an SOI that complies with
clauses 7 to 10 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

7.2 The principal objective of a CCO is set out in Section 59 (1) of the LGA.

7.3 SOIs must not be inconsistent with the CCO’s Constitution.

7.4 Draft SOIs must be delivered to the Council on or before 1 March each year. Shareholders may extend the deadline for a period or periods not exceeding one calendar month.

7.5 The LGA Schedule 8(2) requires the Board to consider any comments on the draft SOI that are made to it by the first of May and deliver a completed SOI to Shareholders on or before 30 June each year.

7.6 Section 65 (2) of the LGA requires the Council, as soon as practicable after receiving a statement of intent for a CCO, to agree to the SOI or, if it does not agree, to take all practicable steps under clause 6 of schedule 8 of the LGA to require the SOI to be modified.

7.7 If an agreement with the Board of WWL on the SOI is not reached, the shareholders will need to consider imposing a modification of the SOI by resolution of the shareholders using their powers under the LGA schedule 8 (6). This would be a last resort approach as it would signal a breakdown in the relationship between the shareholders and the WWL Board.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No engagement with wider iwi has taken place on this routine matter. However, Ngāti Koata are involved in the SOI process by virtue of their seat on the Waimea Water Ltd Board.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The adoption of the SOI for Waimea Water Ltd is considered of low significance to ratepayers. The SOI is consistent with arrangements entered into at financial close in December 2018. The project and the formation of WWL have been consulted on through formal engagement and consultation processes. The Council has been updated on the progress of the project at this Council meeting. The public has also been provided with an update on the project through the presentation to the Council and the issue of the company’s mid-year report. Further engagement, other than with WIL, on the draft SOI is not required.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The project is of a moderate to high public interest, but the completion of the SOI is largely an administrative matter.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes, the investment in the Waimea Community Dam.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Following feedback to WWL and WIL, the draft SOI will be made available on the Council’s website. This decision is considered routine and of low public interest.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 There are no financial or budgetary implications arising from this decision.

11.2 Any changes to projected operating costs (from previous estimates) have not been provided for in the draft LTP 2024-2034. These will be updated in the final Long Term Plan 2024-34 prior to adoption by the Council.

11.3 The costs of the review of the draft SOI and engagement with WWL and WIL are met from within the Finance Group’s existing budgets.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There is no identified change in risks associated with the WWL operations and this draft SOI.

12.2 The company will provide a six-monthly update presentation at today’s Council meeting. This will cover financial, administration and project activity, and provide an opportunity to cover off the issues arising with the construction project and the transition into operations. In addition, the briefing will also cover the revised estimate of the cost to complete the project and the completion and commissioning dates.

12.3 There is a risk that the relationship between the shareholders and WWL could be significantly damaged if there is a failure of WWL and both shareholders to agree on the 2024-2025 SOI.

12.4 As WWL is a joint venture partnership with WIL, the Council will need to consider the views and preferences of WIL in providing feedback to the company.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 There are no climate change considerations relevant to this decision.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 Decisions on CCO Statements of Intent are a Council matter.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The draft WWL SOI was received in accordance with the statutory timeframe. The draft SOI meets statutory requirements. The Council should turn its mind to the matters included in the SOI and determine what, if any, comment needs to be provided to the WWL and the WIL Boards.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Staff will communicate the Council’s decision and comments to Waimea Irrigators Limited and to the Waimea Water Ltd Board.

16.2 A link to the draft SOI will be placed on the Council’s website within seven days.

16.3 On receipt of a revised (final) SOI, it will be presented to the shareholders for formal review and adoption.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Waimea Water Limited Draft Statement of Intent 2024-2025	57
2.⇩	Letter of Expectations - Waimea Water Limited	86

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.4 Referral from Motueka Community Board - increase to eight-week Tasman Resource Management Plan rule for temporary housing

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Jeremy Butler, Team Leader - Urban and Rural Policy; Mary Honey, Senior Policy Planner; Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-03-8

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To provide a recommendation to the Council from the 20 February 2024 Motueka Community Board meeting regarding increasing the TRMP 8-week rule to 108 weeks relating to temporary housing.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At its 20 February 2024 meeting, the Motueka Community Board made a recommendation to the Council:

That the Motueka Community Board

1. recommends that the Council increases the TRMP 8-week rule to 108 weeks for the benefit of inhabitants in temporary housing which refers to anything that is lived in for more than 8-weeks is deemed a dwelling and therefore requires resource consent.

2.2 This recommendation was an item (7) in the Chair’s report (Attachment 1) from Board Member Hughes and was not supported by an agenda report to satisfy the decision-making requirements in Section 6, clause 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Context and clarification

2.3 It is important to clarify the “8-week rule” as this, as stated in the recommendation above, is a misnomer. The reference to eight weeks – or more correctly “two calendar months” – appears in the definition of a Building.

2.4 The TRMP provides a definition of a Building as:

Building – means any structure (as defined in the Act) or part of a structure whether temporary or permanent, movable, or immovable, including accessory buildings but does not include:

(a) coastal protection structures

(b) any scaffolding or falsework erected temporarily for maintenance or construction purposes;

(c) fences, walls or retaining walls of up to 1.8 metres in height, not used for advertising or for any purpose other than as a fence or wall;

(d) structures that are both less than five square metres in area and less than 1.2 metres in height, except where such structures are for the purposes of damming, diverting, taking, or using water;

(e) free-standing masts, towers, pylons, poles, radio and television aerials (excluding dish antennae for receiving satellite television), less than 10 metres above mean ground level;

(f) fan blades of any tower-mounted frost protection device;

(g) any vehicle, trailer, tent, caravan or boat whether fixed or movable, unless it is used as a place of long term accommodation (for two calendar months or more in any year), business or storage;

(h) overhead lines;

(i) in relation to any building setback requirement, any eaves, spouting, or bay windows projecting 1 metre or less from any exterior wall.

2.5 Therefore, this discussion only relates to vehicles, trailers, tents, caravans, and boats. Any structure that is not one of those (and not excluded by another condition in the definition) is a building. For any of those specified structures, if it is lived in for more than two months, then it is defined as a building and therefore a dwelling and therefore triggers the building and construction rules in the TRMP.

2.6 As a dwelling it may trigger the need for a resource consent and reserve financial contributions under the TRMP.

Workshops

2.7 Council staff will provide background on the origins and implications of the two-calendar month trigger at a future workshop. This will enable discussion of the request and help to clearly identify the problem the request is seeking to address, prior to any decision-making on the matter.

2.8 For staff to provide more specific and helpful advice, it is recommended that clarification is sought from the Motueka Community Board as to the nature of the problem that the request is trying to solve.

2.9 Staff propose two workshops to work through the request. The first, currently scheduled for 18 April 2024, will focus on the background to the “8 week rule” and working with the Council and Community Board members to clearly define the problem and the outcomes that they are seeking to achieve. The second workshop (not yet scheduled) can then provide advice on options and any recommended interventions to achieve those outcomes.

2.10 The Motueka Community Board and Golden Bay Community Board will be invited to attend the workshops alongside the Council.

2.11 Under the Resource Management Act (RMA), rules in a plan such as the TRMP are considered regulations. Any change to rules regardless of size must follow the process set out in the RMA. In summary, that process requires:

1..1 Public notification of a proposed change and call for submissions (at least 20 working days).

1..2 Release of a summary of submission and call for further submissions (10 working days).

1..3 Usually, a hearing so submitters can present and hearing panel can consider the change and submissions.

1..4 Hearing panel’s decision has to be adopted by the Council.

1..5 Decision is publicly notified and open to appeals to the Environment Court if any submitter doesn’t agree with the decision (30 working days).

1..6 If no appeals, the change becomes legally operative.

2.12 The process up to release of a decision takes between six months and two years. If there are environment court appeals, then the process can take considerably longer.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Referral from Motueka Community Board - increase to eight-week Tasman Resource Management Plan rule for temporary housing report RCN24-03-8; and

2. notes that two Council workshops are proposed to clearly define the problem and the outcomes that the request is seeking to achieve and to provide advice on options and any recommended interventions to achieve those outcomes.

4. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Motueka Community Board Chair's Report 20 February 2024

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.5 2023/24 Financial Year End Forecast

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance; Paul Egan, Management Accounting Manager
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-9

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This report provides a forecast of the Council’s Financial Performance and Position to
30 June 2024. It is based on the seven months actual results to 31 January 2024, and forecasts the remaining five months through to 30 June 2024.

1.2 The Councils projected financial position raises several concerns as financial pressures and unbudgeted expenditure impact on the Council. The Council, when considering requests for additional unbudgeted expenditure, will need to carefully consider the financial impacts this will have on the Council.

1.3 The Council’s borrowing position, compliance with covenants and projected debt levels are covered at a summary level in this report.

1.4 Capital expenditure and forecast carry forwards to the 2024/25 year are included at a summary level.

1.5 Additional capital expenditure budget authorised during the year by the Council is described.

1.6 Joint ventures and certain other items whose value can only be confirmed at year end are included at budget.

1.7 The report includes some additional definition and descriptive detail to make it more accessible for readers with less familiarity with local government finances.

1.8 The results of this forecast will be used to inform the opening position for the final 2024-34 Long Term (LTP) financials, including incorporating the forecast capital projects carried into
year 1 of the LTP.

1.9 This will necessitate some re prioritisation and timing changes for the current draft LTP capital works programme and revising the opening debt and activity balances.

1.10 The first reference point when making decisions should be the Council’s Financial Strategy.

1.11 The Executive Leadership Teams further commitment to transparency, fiscal prudence, and strategic leadership will pave the way forward and help the Council respond to these financial challenges.

1.12 The Council, as community guardians, will need to play a pivotal role during these tough financial times. Your active engagement with the Executive Leadership Team is crucial for steering through these fiscal challenges. Constructive debate on fiscal matters, critical assessment of funding proposals, and a shift toward sustainable solutions are essential. Supporting the Executive Leadership Team’s focus on efforts to enhance income and control spending is vital.

2. Summary of Forecast Results / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The forecast Accounting Surplus in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2024 is behind budget. This includes “controllable” and “non-controllable” elements.

2.2 The forecast Accounting Surplus after tax is $14.4 million compared to $31.6 million full year budget, with the controllable Surplus/Deficit being $5.9 million unfavourable to budget.

2.3 The Forecast Net Debt position is $250.5 million compared to the budget of $249.9 million against the Treasury policy net debt cap of $250 million. Careful management will be required to prevent a breach of the cap.

2.4 The Council is forecast to remain within its external Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) debt compliance requirements.

2.5 Forecast capital expenditure is at a high for recent years, at $95.7 million.

2.6 Capital expenditure of $9.4 million has been forecast to be carried forward to future years and will need to be incorporated into the final 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

2.7 Additional capital expenditure to the Annual Plan approved to date by the Council this financial year is $15.9 million. This has been included in the capital expenditure budget amounts.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the 2023/24 Financial Year End Forecast report, RCN23-03-9; and

2. notes the forecast net debt position when considering decisions proposing un-forecast additional expenditure in the remainder of the financial year

4. Purpose of the Report

4.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on the forecast financial results for the financial year ended 30 June 2024, providing a further update to the half year financial report presented at the Council meeting on 15 February 2024.

5. Statement Of Comprehensive Income

5.1 The Statement of Financial Performance follows.

5.2 The forecast Accounting Surplus for the year is $14.3 million vs a budget of $31.6 million, creating an unfavourable variance of $17.3 million – this can be broken into “controllable” and “non-controllable” portions.

5.3 Major variance items in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense include:

5.3.1 Capital subsidies and grants – impacted by cuts to Government externally funded capital projects.

5.3.2 Fees and charges – impacted by lower economic activity, especially in the building and industrial sectors.

5.3.3 Fair value gain on revaluation – impacted by lower than budgeted unrealised gains on interest rate swaps used to hedge interest rate costs.

5.3.4 Finance income and expense – higher interest rates have led to higher interest on both deposits for prefunding loan renewals, and on borrowings.

5.3.5 Employee related expense – forecast is lower than budget, as several budgeted roles have not been hired, providing a partial offset to cost overruns elsewhere.

Controllable and Non-controllable Surplus/Deficit

	Forecast 2024 *$000*	Budget 2024 *$000*	Variance *$000*
Accounting Surplus	14,316	31,588	(17,271)
Non-controllable Surplus	46,840	58,218	11,377
Controllable Deficit	(32,524)	(26,630)	(5,894)

5.4 The forecast controllable deficit is $5.9 million, due largely to increased maintenance costs, and reduced fees and charges.

5.5 Non-controllable items are certain types of transaction which the Council has little influence over due to their dependency on the market, or decisions of other parties. These include development contributions, and market revaluations.

5.6 Controllable items are everything else, most of which the Council can at least strongly influence, and include, rates, fees and charges, and most operating expenditure including reactive maintenance.

5.7 Though the forecast Controllable Deficit is less than budget or last year, it firmly illustrates that the surplus in forecast and recent years is dependent on income from non-controllable items, which tend to be either:

5.7.1 Non-cash items (eg revaluations, movement in swap values, vested assets)

5.7.2 For capital expenditure.

5.7.3 Maintenance has been impacted by ongoing roading maintenance costs to repair damage from weather related events in previous years, higher costs. This includes items such as landslips where damage was done by a past weather event, and a small trigger event later releases the landslip. Water supply was the other area where there were many breakages and much reactive work required.

6. Statement of Financial Position

6.1 The Statement of Financial Position follows.

7. Net Debt and Funding

7.1 This section describes the forecast net debt position of the Council, the role of treasury management, and Activity Balances/Reserve funds.

7.2 The focus of the commentary in relation to the Council’s debt position is net debt, the range of facilities that the Council uses in its treasury management and funding.

7.3 The Council undertakes treasury management, the accepted approach to minimise the overall financing costs associated with operating a local authority. This includes:

7.3.1 Income received from all sources is kept in/applied to deposit, and debt facilities.

7.3.2 While the income and expenses are tracked, and are reportable, if it is often of a special nature to specific purpose funds, the cash itself is received into and paid out of the central bank facilities.

7.3.2.1 This means that Development Contributions, closed account balances, past profits from forestry, and other activity balances, while accounted for, are not held in separate cash reserves.

7.3.2.2 When received the cash is absorbed into the treasury facilities and is used for operating expenditure, capital expenditure, and debt repayments.

7.3.2.3 The overall cash and net debt position of the Council is budgeted, including expenditure drawing on the reserves mentioned above.

7.3.2.4 This means that when unbudgeted expenditure drawing on these funds is made it means additional unbudgeted borrowing is required (other things being equal).

7.3.2.5 If the abovementioned reserves were to be pulled out of the centralised treasury facility and held in ring-fenced cash accounts, this would require additional borrowing to provide the cash to set up the ring-fenced accounts, and higher borrowing costs overall for ratepayers.

7.3.3 The facilities available to the Council are reviewed when budgets are approved, and a mix of different facilities are put in place to balance availability of cash with minimising net borrowing costs in line with that budget.

7.3.4 Unbudgeted capital expenditure of $15.9 million has been approved year to date. Though not all of this has/will be spent this financial year, this unbudgeted expenditure has at times resulted in pressure on borrowing facilities, causing higher cost short-term borrowing to have to be used at times.

7.4 Net Debt is forecast to be $250.5 million at 30 June 2024, compared to a full-year budget of $249.9 million. Based on forecast, a breach of the self-imposed net debt cap of $250 million is expected, though whether this occurs, and the actual amount will depend on factors such as transaction timing and whether there are further unplanned expenditures.

· Opening Net Debt July 2023 $201.4 million

· Net Debt 30 September 2023 $207.4 million

· Net Debt 31 December 2023 $225.4 million

· Budgeted Net Debt June 2024 per 2023/24 Annual Plan $249.9 million

· Forecast Net Debt 30 June 2024 $250.5 million

7.4.1 The forecast net debt has been impacted by unbudgeted capital and additional operating expenditure (particularly maintenance), and reduced income year to date.

7.5 A breach of the net debt cap would draw Standard and Poors (S&P) attention to the Council which has recently had its credit outlook reduced from stable to negative. S&P has raised its concerns over the sector as a whole that includes current and projected debt levels in relation to rates income.

7.6 A breach of the net debt cap would need to be explained in the 2023/24 Annual Report. It may also draw further discussion with our auditor over the Councils view on financial prudence and sustainability.

8. Capital Expenditure

8.1 Capital expenditure is presented in the tables below. Analysis of the capital expenditure is provided, both including and excluding joint ventures.

8.2 Due to the multi-year nature of some projects, carry forwards and budget movements between years, and the Council’s ability to approve additional capital expenditure (including budget) a reconciliation between the annual plan capital budget and the updated capital budget is provided.

8.3 Analysis of the capital expenditure is provided, both including and excluding joint ventures.

8.4 The forecast expenditure is less than previously expected due to the reduction in scope of the Transport Choices programmes for Richmond and Motueka, as the Government funding for this was reduced by $9 million post-election.

8.5 The amount forecast to be carried forward is $9.4 million.

8.5.1 This amount is less than actual gross carry forwards of $27.4 million in 2022/23, and $21.7 million in the 2021/22 year.

8.5.2 While capital expenditure year to date is ahead of the three-year average, the budget is higher this year. It must be noted that the higher expenditure is partially due to additional items including property approved and purchased in the current year.

8.6 The additional capital expenditure approved year to date is summarised below.

Material Additional Capital Expenditure	Amount Authorised
Port Tarakohe Phase 2 funded by Kanoa Loan (Part 2024/25)	$                 6,000,000
Strategic Land Purchase – Motueka	$                 5,100,000
Commercial Property Development on Existing Enterprise Land	$                 1,043,726
Land Purchases for Roading	$                    850,000
Port Tarakohe Phase 1 Additional Scope	$                    836,000
Port Tarakohe Temporary Toilet block	$                    210,000
Waimea Water Strategy items	$                    500,000
Murchison Road Maintenance Depot Improvements	$                   464,000
Other	$                    926,031
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AUTHORISED*	$               15,929,757

8.7 Of the $6 million Port Tarakohe Phase 2 capital expenditure approved, approximately
$3 million was planned from the outset to be spent in the 2024/25 financial year.

9. Management response

9.1 The Executive Leadership Team are regularly working to remain within the current fiscal envelope. This involves robust discussions with the whole organisation as some past practices cannot be sustained in this more challenging fiscal environment.

9.2 We will be running a larger than budgeted deficit, which must be cash funded. This places even greater pressure on our net debt cap and on the long term plan opening position for the LTP. Management is focused on where we may be able to increase income streams, improve debt collection and trim non-essential expenditure.

9.3 The recent re-structuring of the Finance department is assisting staff focus on improving our forecasting and budgeting systems including improved cash flow management. Despite the limitations posed by an outdated FMIS, we believe that with additional training and focus, our teams can achieve ongoing improvements.

9.5 We are working to improve current practices that are creating a lack of transparency in our funding and over our financial standards. Historically, operating in departmental silos has obscured the complete financial landscape. These improvements are focused on each Leader (ELT/SLT) running their unit more efficiently and effectively. This approach will assist in making more informed decisions on how we can be more financially effective as an organisation.

10. Councillor support

10.1 As the Mayor and Councillors are guardians of our community’s wellbeing, your role is pivotal during these increasingly challenging financial times. The organisation looks to you for leadership and support. By actively engaging with the Executive Leadership Team, you can help steer us through these turbulent financial waters.

10.2 In our perspective our Council meetings should see more attention to and constructive debate on financial matters. These discussions are not just formalities; they are the lifeblood of effective governance. We are looking for a renewed focus on fiscal matters including budgets, additional funding requests and exploring innovative solutions.

10.3 Our financial decisions should be framed by the Financial Strategy including maintaining our operations within the fiscal envelope and balancing current and future demands on ratepayers.

10.4 We will continue to see numerous Council funding proposals in these more difficult times. For every good idea, there’s a scarcity of available funds. As a Council your critical assessment of these requests is essential. That involves regular and robust discussions. We need to move away from past practices and toward financially sustainable solutions.

10.5 The Council needs to critically access requests for funding or additional expenditure. You will receive many more good ideas for funding then we have funds available. Regular and robust discussions on these requests are pivotal as we navigate through this challenging fiscal environment, where adherence to past practices and approaches is no longer viable.

10.6 The Executive Leadership Team’s attention is directed toward identifying opportunities to augment income, enhance debt collection, and curtail non-essential spending. These efforts will impact various groups within our communities. Your support will be crucial when the resultant lobbying begins.

11. Assumptions and Forecasting Limitations

11.1 The reforecasting process relies on many assumptions and inputs, some of the more material ones are listed below:

11.1.1 Interest rates stay close to levels disclosed in the last Treasury report.

11.1.2 There is no material additional expenditure not previously budgeted.

11.1.3 Open staff vacancies remain around current levels.

11.1.4 Operating subsidy rates from NZTA / Waka Kotahi remain at the same levels, despite higher than budgeted maintenance expenditure.

11.1.5 Capital budgets are expended in line with forecast.

11.1.6 Timing of receipt of capital subsidies is not materially mismatched with the related capital expenditure.

11.1.7 Joint venture related revenue and expenditure has been included at budget.

11.1.8 Share of JV and Associates Surplus / Deficit has not been included.

11.1.9 There is no significant weather related or emergency events in the remainder of the forecast period.

11.1.10 There are no significant legislative changes not already signalled that impact the Council operations or funding in the remainder of the forecast period.

11.1.11 These forecast financial statements have not been subject to audit or external review.

12. Year End Reporting

12.1 There are two reports that are normally completed after financial year end, the Carry Forwards report, and the Activity Balances report. These reports identify two main things:

12.1.1 Budget items that need to be moved between years – for example a capital project that is not yet complete, and needs its remaining budget moved to the next financial year where it will be competed. The Council resolving to do this is necessary to add these to the annual plan budget.

12.1.2 Activity balances for different activities the Council undertakes. Legislation requires the Council to track equity relating to certain activities, especially when they have targeted funding.

12.2 These reports can only be done definitively when the financial year is complete, so are usually reported to the Council in September.

12.3 It is proposed to prepare an initial report for a Council decision on the Capital Carry Forwards, and some Activity Balances items in July 2024. This will allow key decisions to be included in the Annual Report financials.

13. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.6 Richmond Athletic Association Football Club - Request for Funding

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-10

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 This purpose of this report is to request funding for the Richmond Athletic Association Football Club (RAAFC) for new changing rooms and clubrooms upgrade of $650,000 with the Council’s contribution being two-thirds or $435,000.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Richmond Athletic Association Football Club has a ground lease on an area of Jubilee Park, Richmond for their existing Clubrooms. This is a community lease at a nominal rental.

2.2 The club has approached the Council requesting funding for new changing rooms, toilets, and a clubroom upgrade. The current facilities are poorly located within the clubrooms, inadequate for the number of teams and in need of upgrading. The clubrooms and any upgraded facilities would be owned by the club.

2.3 The Council currently has $12.6 million in its Richmond Ward Reserves Financial Contributions account. It is proposed that this funding comes from that fund.

2.4 The current Annual Plan included $1.062 million for the Joint Cemetery property purchases. While this fund was earmarked for the Joint Cemetery that is not likely to occur in this financial year. It is proposed that this funds the $435,000 Council contribution.

2.5 The Council can only use RFC funds for capital projects linked to growth. Councillors need to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient nexus between this project and population growth in Richmond.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Richmond Athletic Association Football Club - Request for Funding report RCN24-03-10; and

2. approves grant funding from the Richmond Reserves Financial Contributions budget of $435,000, towards the cost of new changing rooms and a clubroom upgrade at the Richmond Athletic Association Football Club facilities at Jubilee Park, Richmond, subject to the Richmond Athletic Association Football Club raising the balance of $215,000 for the upgraded facility prior to any release of Council funding; and

3. requests staff to draft and authorise the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a formal written funding agreement with the club that covers the approved Council funding and also provides the terms and conditions including undertakings, reporting and conditions precedent to any funding payments prior to any release of Council funding; and

4. authorises the payment of the Council funding over time and commensurate with the agreed stages of the new changing rooms and a clubroom upgrade at Jubilee Park being completed; and

5. notes that this project funding was not included in the 2023/24 Annual plan and further notes that additional capital expenditure will need to be included in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan to accommodate the Joint Cemetery property purchases if this grant proceeds; and

6. notes the term of the intended ground lease renewal referred to in this report could be from currently offered standard five (5) years to the maximum term of 33 years permitted under the Reserves Act 1977.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Richmond Athletic Association Football Club (RAAFC) shares its Jubilee Park clubrooms with Waimea Toi Toi United Cricket Club.

4.2 The football club was established in 1964 and the existing clubrooms, an old timber farmhouse, was moved to Jubilee Park around the same time.

4.3 The RAAFC currently has a membership of over 570 comprising 270 senior and 300 junior players.

4.4 There is now a new women’s league with 85 members as well as walking football with 60 playing. In terms of the cricket club membership there are six teams comprising 150 players.

4.5 Based on demographic projections, the club has ascertained that there could be an increase of 308 people who play football in the next decade. This is potentially an increase of 20 new teams.

4.6 Because of the current and future projected growth of the football club it has started preparing plans in the past few years for additional changing rooms, toilets and an upgrade of the clubrooms building.

4.7 The club presented their proposal for clubrooms and changing room facilities at the Operations Committee meeting on 7 December 2023. It was well received by elected members and since then Council’s the Chief Executive Officer sent a letter of support for the club to use for its external funding applications.

4.8 The club advised in January 2024 that it has since been successful with an application and has received confirmation of $50,000 in funding from Pub Charity Ltd that needs to be spent on the build and within three months. We understand this is being used to fund the detailed design drawings which are almost completed.

4.9 So that the club does not lose the funding already secured, it has requested that the Council confirm whether it will contribute to the project. In considering that request, the Council must balance this request against the other requests for funding received from other community and sports groups that have been either approved or turned down.

4.10 The club has confirmed that it currently has two additional external funding applications being considered.

4.11 The club leases reserve land from the Council that the building is located on and if a building extension was to occur the lease area would also need to be extended.

4.12 The current lease which expired in December 2023 has been rolled over on a month-to-month basis while a new lease is being negotiated. As part of the new lease, it is proposed that the ‘footprint’ of the lease be extended to accommodate the proposed building extension. Staff have written to the club offering the standard a 5-year lease term. This term is not likely to be acceptable to the club given the investment proposed and we expect they will respond with a request for a longer term.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Council has been approached by the RAAFC and requested a two third funding contribution toward the cost of the clubrooms upgrade. The contribution would need to be in line with the Council’s Community Funding Policy. The Policy currently has clubs or community groups contributing one third cost and the Council two thirds towards new developments.

5.2 The club had the total cost of the extension including scope risk recently assessed at $650,000.

5.3 Based on this project costing, the Council maximum two-thirds contribution would be $435,000 on condition that the club has raised the $215,000 balance before the Council advances any funds. It is proposed that the Council contribution is funded from Richmond Reserves Financial Contributions.

5.4 There is the potential to create a community ‘hub’ at Jubilee Park and encourage the sports clubs to appeal to wider audiences and allow their facilities to be used more frequently by many diverse community groups. At the same time this will enable the clubs to be more financially resilient and enterprising. This ‘community hub’ could be a cost-effective opportunity for the Council to meet the growing needs of the community and complement existing Council facilities such as the Richmond Town Hall and Library.

5.5 Jubilee Park has several ageing facilities and given the residential development occurring in the adjacent Berryfields and Meadows subdivisions, it would make sense to ensure that these facilities are future-proofed and meet the needs of the community.

5.6 Should the building extension proceed, the facilities would be available for club members and visiting teams and the club would be responsible for future maintenance and cleaning.

5.7 The club has advised that it has members with strong project management and construction experience who would be responsible for project management of the proposed build.

5.8 The existing public toilets will remain at Jubilee Park and are reasonably well used by the public.

5.9 There is currently a new Richmond Ward Reserves Management Plan being prepared, however the Jubilee Park section has not yet been drafted.

5.10 The existing Reserves Management Plan allows for the RAAFC clubrooms but does not specifically address expansion of buildings on the reserve.

5.11 This application aligns with Council’s Parks and Facilities Activity Management Plan, the Richmond Ward Reserves Management Plan, and the Reserves General Policies for the use of reserves.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the funding	Would provide for a future-proofed clubrooms with changing rooms, toilets, and storage for two clubs that already provide good community benefits. The reserve is an appropriate location for new changing rooms and a clubrooms upgrade on a reserve that is a hub for other recreational activities.	Adds additional building area to the reserve. Additional maintenance and operating costs must be met.
2.	Decline the funding	Allows the available RFC funds to be utilised for other projects.	The club will potentially struggle to grow membership and become more established without adequate facilities. Risks players leaving with the inadequate clubroom facilities. Less opportunity for the wider community for meeting/community space

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the funding

Would provide for a future-proofed clubrooms with changing rooms, toilets, and storage for two clubs that already provide good community benefits.

The reserve is an appropriate location for new changing rooms and a clubrooms upgrade on a reserve that is a hub for other recreational activities.

Adds additional building area to the reserve. Additional maintenance and operating costs must be met.

Decline the funding

Allows the available RFC funds to be utilised for other projects.

The club will potentially struggle to grow membership and become more established without adequate facilities. Risks players leaving with the inadequate clubroom facilities. Less opportunity for the wider community for meeting/community space

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no specific legislative requirements associated with this decision. The Council has the delegated authority to approve the contribution from the Reserves Financial Contributions provided it is satisfied that the funding request is capital in nature and has a sufficient nexus to population growth.

7.2 The Council should not advance funding without drafting and entering into a formal written agreement with the club that covers the approved funding and also provides the terms and conditions including undertakings, reporting and conditions precedent to any funding payments.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitwhit ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Given there is currently a clubroom building on site and any building extension would be considered a relatively minor change, no wider consultation has taken place.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The overall significance is considered low to moderate.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	There could be a moderate level of public interest due to the proposed level of funding of the clubroom extension and a new lease being granted.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The activities of the club provide recreational and social benefits to participants
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low to moderate	The lease could be for a term of up to 33-years. A longer-term lease >5 years may be offset by community benefits generated by the activity.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	The Council’s Reserves and Facilities as a whole are a strategic asset, but this proposal only involves a lease of a small area of reserve for a community use.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	No change to level of service provided by this activity.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates, or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	No real impact on rates, the renewed lease will be subject to a community lease rental. This decision will require the deferred funding for the Regional Cemetery land purchase to be approved in the 2024-34 LTP
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No	The facility would require connection to existing water and wastewater services which already consider TMOTW.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 No formal communication within the community has been undertaken, however staff have met and consulted with the club.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

Where are we at?

11.1 The Council is not in a strong position to fund unbudgeted expenditure. In the current 2023/24 Annual Plan Council debt was budgeted to peak just under the $250 million net debt cap. We are still forecasting to be just within the Net Debt cap. The Council is also forecasting to have an operating deficit i.e., an unbalanced budget in 2023/2024. The funding for this unbudgeted expenditure is being met by deferring the budgeted land purchase for the Regional Cemetery project.

11.2 As we fund the balance sheet as a whole the Reserve Financial Contributions are not held in cash and any unbudgeted expenditure will directly increase our debt unless there is budgeted expenditure that is deferred into a future year. The Council has already authorised unbudgeted capital expenditure of c$15 million this year (2023/24) including strategic land in Motueka $5.5 million, Port Tarakohe $6 million and Motueka aerodrome developments
$1 million. These additional purchases have put considerable pressure on our net debt cap and are reliant on offsetting reductions within the wider capital works programme.

11.3 However, because there are delays with the creation of a Joint Cemetery, the Council will be able to prioritise this expenditure and likely remain within the $250 million net debt cap.

11.4 By reprioritising the 2023/2024 spend there will be flow on impacts to the LTP. These will be managed, along with other expected carryovers, while the LTP is out for consultation.

11.5 It is proposed to fund this unbudgeted grant from Reserve Financial Contributions.

11.6 The Richmond RFC account currently has a $126 million balance as at March 2024. The draft LTP expects it to have a balance of $18 million at the end of the ten years. The reprioritisation will reduce this closing balance and will be reported back when the LTP is adopted.

What does it mean?

11.7 Given current pressures on the Council including the operational deficit, the Council could still breach its Net Debt cap of $250 million. Financial caution is paramount.

11.8 A breach of the net debt cap will draw Standard and Poors (S&P) attention to the Council which has recently had its credit outlook reduced from stable to negative. S&P has raised its concerns over the sector as a whole that includes current and projected debt levels in relation to rates.

11.9 A breach of the net debt cap will need to be explained in the 2023/24 Annual Report. It may also draw further discussion with our auditor over the Councils view on financial prudence, given their engagement on this in the preparation of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan Consultation Document.

What do you want to do?

11.10 If the decision to proceed with a grant is one for the Mayor and Councillors, additional consideration should be given to the financial implications inherent in providing the grant at this time. While some risks can be mitigated others could manifest at a future cost to the Council.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 This is a low-moderate risk decision that considers the use of an existing reserve by a club that has occupied the site for many years and continues to grow its membership which has wider recreational and other benefits to the community.

12.2 The risks inherent in the club meeting its obligations over the proposed funding can be mitigated by ensuring there is an appropriate funding agreement in place covering the approved Council funding and also providing the terms and conditions including undertakings, reporting and conditions precedent to any funding payments prior to any release of Council funding.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This decision will potentially result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions through building materials used in construction. The club will be encouraged to discuss waste minimisation and try and select building materials that minimise emissions.

13.2 Providing small local facilities for community recreation is preferable to people travelling further afield. The nearest alternative in terms of football and cricket clubs is at Saxton Field. There is a potentially a small reduction in vehicle emissions from this proposal.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere RautakiTūraru

14.1 The application aligns with the Council’s Parks and Facilities Activity Management Plan, the Richmond Ward Reserves Management Plan, and the Reserves General Policies for the use of reserves.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The RAAFC are seeking funding to extend their clubrooms building at Jubilee Park. The extension is required to meet increasing demands from a growing club located close to a large and expanding residential area.

15.2 The proposed extension is appropriate at the park and is considered good use of reserve land.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The RAAFC will continue to raise funds for their proposed building work, complete any detailed design and obtain any necessary consents. Once the club has reached the funding target it will schedule the build. Commencement of this work is likely to be within the 2024 calendar year dependant on funding from the Council and other sources.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Richmond RFC Design

116

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.7 Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Marie Callander, Corporate Counsel; Anna Gerraty, Senior Community & Reserves Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-11

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 This report has been prepared to:

1.1.1 provide a summary of, and enable the Council to undertake deliberations on, all submissions received on the draft Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy (the Draft Policy) that was publicly notified in late October 2021; and

1.1.2 seek the Council’s agreement to adopt a revised version of the Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy (the Revised Policy), included as Attachment 1 to this report. A marked-up version showing the changes from the Draft Policy is included as Attachment 2 of this report.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 A report on the Draft Policy was discussed at the Council meeting on 23 September 2021 (RCN21-09-4).

2.2 The Draft Policy was publicly notified on the Council’s website in late October 2021 and an article advertising the consultation opportunity was published in Newsline on 12 November 2021. Submissions were open between 29 October and 26 November 2021.

2.3 Five written submissions were received by the closing date. A copy of all submissions is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

2.4 Although the Council had resolved to form a Hearings Panel at its meeting in 2021
(RCN21-09-4), no hearing was held following receipt of the submissions.

2.5 This report provides a summary of the submissions received on the Draft Policy and discusses the few matters raised.

2.6 Matters raised by submitters included:

2.6.1 Recognition of the need for, and value of, adoption and implementation of a policy addressing the issue.

2.6.2 Opposition to the Council’s preferred approach of soft engineering solutions and suggestions that Council land is protected by hard structures such as rock walls.

2.6.3 Opposition to the inference that approval is unlikely to be granted if the sole purpose of a coastal erosion structure is to protect property.

2.6.4 A request for an explanation of how the proposed policy would apply to specific situations at Pakawau and Awaroa where the esplanade reserve has eroded away.

2.6.5 A suggestion that landowners be required to pay a bond to cover the costs of removing any structures that fail, and that the size of the bond reflects the likely costs over time.

2.6.6 A request that Appendix 1 contains “as much as practicable to satisfy most applications” (i.e. clearly specify all matters that applicants need to address) and an indication of likely processing time.

2.6.7 A request that, if the Council is at any time considering coastal erosion protection work, the safety of little penguins/Korora is ensured and that the protection works be notified for public consultation.

2.7 The Draft Policy has now been amended to include a requirement for a bond (or other security arrangement) and generally updated to:

2.7.1 reflect changes to some of the reserve management plans referred to in the Appendices; and

2.7.2 more clearly distinguish the Council’s landowner role (as owner or administrator of Council reserves) from its regulatory role; and

2.7.3 recommend that applicants seeking to construct a coastal erosion protection structure on reserve land seek the Council’s landowner approval before incurring the costs of seeking any necessary resource consent.

2.8 The Revised Policy (see Attachment 1) clarifies the wording of the document and incorporates the request from a submitter to require landowners to provide a bond.

2.9 Given that:

2.9.1 no hearing was held after submissions were received;

2.9.2 one member of the Hearings Panel appointed in September 2021 is no longer an elected member;

2.9.3 Tasman District’s extensive coastline is subject to coastal erosion and rising sea levels, causing concerns for seaside communities; and

2.9.4 the consequent need for the Council to have a Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land policy in place to guide:

· potential applicants seeking to construct coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land; and

· Council decision making when processing these applications,

staff recommend that the Council as a whole takes on the role of the Hearing Panel to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the Draft Policy, and the amended wording proposed by staff in response, before adopting the Revised Policy.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy report, RCN24-03-11; and

2. notes that, under resolutions 4 to 6 of agenda item RCN21-09-4, a Hearing Panel was delegated the task of considering and deliberating on submissions received on the Draft Policy and reporting recommended changes to the Draft Policy back to Council; and

3. notes that this Hearing Panel was never convened, no submitters requested to be heard, and no hearing has been held on the Draft Policy; and

4. agrees the Council as a whole will now take on the role of the Hearing Panel; and

5. considers all submissions received on the Draft Policy, included as Attachment 3 to this report; and

6. notes the summary of all submissions received on the Draft Policy and recommended response to these matters outlined in sections 4 and 5 of this report; and

7. deliberates on the submissions received and the amended wording that has been incorporated into the Revised Policy presented in Attachment 1 of this report; and

8. agrees to adopt the Revised Policy [as presented in Attachment 1 of this report] OR [subject to staff revising the policy wording as follows ….]

as the final Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy; and

9. requests staff to publish the final Policy on the Council’s website.

4. Background / Horopaki

Development a draft Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy

4.1 A report on this topic, with the Draft Policy appended, was discussed at the Council meeting on 23 September 2021 (RCN21-09-4). That report is available to view online at: https://tasman.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/09/CN_20210923_AGN_4005_AT_WEB.htm.

4.2 The report, authored by Mr Hollier (the Council’s former Reserves & Facilities Manager), noted that:

i. The Council has, for several years, been grappling with the issue of whether, from a landowners’ perspective, coastal erosion protection structures can be established on reserve land.

ii. This is an incredibly complicated area for the Council, with many competing factors to be considered.

iii. There have been requests from many landowners to build structures on Council reserves, to protect these reserves from further coastal erosion – thereby protecting adjacent private property from coastal erosion.

iv. A draft Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy (the Draft Policy) was developed to provide some clarity for both the Council, in its role as decision maker, and for applicants on how to apply (and the information required as part of an application so that applicants may put their best foot forward).

v. The landowner approval process needs to consider several factors – some of these are matters of law and fact and others are matters of policy. Not all these matters are aligned and so a hierarchy of factors that need to be considered has been developed so that legalities can be considered before considering matters of policy.

4.3 The complexity identified by Mr Hollier, and the varying situations of the applicants for landowner approval, mean that it is essential that the Council has an appropriate policy in place and that the policy is followed by those making decisions on applications, to reduce the risk for the Council of its decisions being challenged in the courts.

4.4 The minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 September 2021 (RCN21-09-4) state:

Moved Cr Hill/Cr Butler

CN21-09-7

That the Full Council

1. receives the draft Coastal erosion protection structures on Council Reserve Land Policy RCN21-09-4 report; and

2. adopts the draft Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy contained in Attachment 1 to this report dated March 2021 as a draft for community consultation; and

3. agrees to publicly notify the draft policy for a period of four (4) weeks; and

4. delegates the task of hearing and considering submissions on the draft policy to a Hearings Panel; and

5. appoints a Hearings Panel consisting of Councilors Maling (Chair), Hill and, Mackenzie and Ogilvie plus a mātauranga Māori representative appointed by the Mayor, with the Chair having the ability to appoint another Councilor should a member of the panel be unavailable; and

6. agrees that the Hearing Panel will report back to the Council with recommendations on changes to the draft policy, for a decision around its adoption.

CARRIED

4.5 The Draft Policy was publicly notified on the Council’s website in late October 2021 and an article advertising the consultation opportunity was published in Newsline on 12 November 2021. Submissions were open between 29 October and 26 November 2021.

4.6 Although the Council had resolved to form a Hearings Panel at its meeting in 2021
(RCN21-09-4), no hearing was held following receipt of the submissions.

Summary of submissions

4.7 Five written submissions were received by the closing date. A copy of all submissions received is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

4.8 Matters raised by submitters included:

4.8.1 Recognition of the need for, and value of, adoption and implementation of a policy addressing the issue.

4.8.2 Opposition to the Council’s preferred approach of soft engineering solutions and suggestions that Council land is protected by hard structures such as rock walls.

4.8.3 Opposition to the inference that approval is unlikely to be granted if the sole purpose of a coastal erosion structure is to protect property.

4.8.4 A request for an explanation of how the proposed policy would apply to specific situations at Pakawau and Awaroa where the esplanade reserve has eroded away.

4.8.5 A suggestion that landowners be required to pay a bond to cover the costs of removing any structures that fail, and that the size of the bond reflects the likely costs over time.

4.8.6 A request that the relevant appendix to the policy contains “as much as practicable to satisfy most applications” (i.e. clearly specify all matters that applicants need to address) and an indication of likely processing time.

4.8.7 A request that, if the Council is at any time considering coastal erosion protection work, the safety of little penguins/Korora is ensured and that the protection works be notified for public consultation.

4.9 Staff have analysed these submission points and prepared recommended responses to these for the the Council’s consideration in section 5 of this report.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 One submitter opposed the Council’s preferred approach of soft engineering solutions and requested this wording be deleted from the policy, as they believe such an approach is unlikely to be effective. Staff do not recommend that this change be made, as it would be inconsistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and other plans and policies of Council relating to coastal erosion which specify that soft engineering solutions are preferred.

5.2 The same submitter also requested that the policy include examples of how the policy would be applied to specific situations such as at Pakawau and Awaroa. Given the variation, complexity and constant changing nature of our coastline, staff do not recommend that this change be made as each application for landowner consent must be treated individually on its own merits and in its own context. The Revised Policy cannot anticipate all possibilities, so it would be unsafe to set out examples that may apply in one context but set an inappropriate precedent for how the Revised Policy would be applied in another context.

5.3 The submitter suggestion that a bond requirement be added into the Draft Policy has been actioned (see Step 6 Liability and Risk on page 16 of the Revised Policy in Attachment 1). Staff recommend adopting this suggestion to ensure that there is a fund available to cover any maintenance and or claims made against the Council due to end wall effects that may arise as a result of the construction of a coastal erosion protection structure being constructed or failing. The Draft Policy provided for the landowners constructing a coastal erosion protection structure to be liable for any damage caused by such a structure and to indemnify Council against any such claims. However, the Draft Policy did not provide for any security to support that indemnity. Where the landowners cannot or will not pay, the Council/ratepayers could be exposed to significant costs in the future if a coastal erosion protection structure failed or caused harm to other properties (especially if those properties are high value properties).

5.4 Another submitter emphasised the importance of the Appendix (by which we take the submitter to be referring to Appendix 2 which contains the application form) containing as much as practicable to satisfy most applications, hence avoid the need for requests for further information. As part of updating the Revised Policy, we have reviewed Appendix 2 and made some changes to improve clarity, but the uniqueness of each application is likely to mean that there will be requests for further information as we cannot anticipate the level/standard of information that will be provided by each applicant or all of the unique issues that each particular location and context may raise.

5.5 That submitter also requested an indication of how long it would take for Council staff to process an application be included in the policy. Given the complexity of information that may be required, and the limited number of landowner consent applications for coastal erosion protection structures that are received, it is not possible to predict a likely/reasonable processing time. Accordingly, staff recommend that such an indication not be included.

5.6 Two submitters requested that the policy ensures protection of Korora/little blue penguins, and one requested that any application for landowner consent be notified for public consultation. Step 4 on page 12 of the Revised Policy (see Attachment 1) sets out the requirement to consider potential adverse effects, which may include any impacts on penguins. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) principles govern whether the Council should undertake a consultation process (see Step 8 of the Revised Policy in Attachment 1). Any decision to undertake consultation will need be taken on a case-by-case basis in accordance with those LGA principles. Accordingly, staff do not recommend that the policy include a requirement to consult on every application for landowner consent as that may not be consistent with the LGA principles.

5.7 Based on the analysis of submissions, staff have amended the Draft Policy to include a requirement for a bond (or other security arrangement). The document text has also been updated to:

5.7.1 reflect changes to some of the reserve management plans referred to in the Appendices;

5.7.2 more clearly distinguish Council’s landowner role (as owner or administrator of Council reserves) from its regulatory role; and

5.7.3 recommend that applicants seeking to construct a coastal erosion protection structure on reserve land seek the Council’s landowner approval before incurring the costs of seeking any necessary resource consent.

5.8 To summarise, the Revised Policy (see Attachment 1) clarifies the wording of the document and incorporates the request from a submitter to require landowners to provide a bond.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 Given that:

6.1.1 no hearing was held after submissions were received;

6.1.2 one member of the Hearings Panel appointed in September 2021 is no longer an elected member;

6.1.3 Tasman District’s extensive coastline is subject to coastal erosion and rising sea levels, causing concerns for seaside communities; and

6.1.4 the consequent need for the Council to have a Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land policy in place to guide:

· potential applicants seeking to construct coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land; and

· Council decision making when processing these applications,

6.2 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	That the Council as a whole takes on the role of the Hearing Panel to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the Draft Policy, and the amended wording proposed by staff in response, before adopting the Revised Policy. Note that the Revised Policy contains amended wording recommended by staff based on submissions, and to deal with the changes in reserve management plans and to provide greater clarity around Council’s role as landowner.	A policy will be adopted and implemented, providing much-needed guidance to both applicants and Council staff responsible for processing and decision-making on applications for construction of coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land.	None. Given the few submissions received on the Draft Policy, adoption of the Revised Policy which incorporates submitter feedback and updates and clarifies content, providing consistency with relevant reserve management plans, is necessary and appropriate.
2.	That the Council delegates the task of considering and deliberating on submissions received on the Draft Policy and reporting recommended changes to the Draft Policy back to Council to a Hearing Panel. Note that one member of the original Hearing Panel is no longer an elected member, hence a new panel would need to be appointed.	This would align with the resolutions of the Council made in September 2021.	This would delay adoption of a final policy and increase the risk of challenge to the Council decision making around coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land.
3.	Not adopt the Draft Policy	None	Increased risk of challenge to the Council decision making around coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land.

6.3 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Reserves Act 1977 governs activities on Council owned/administered reserves and the LGA sets out requirements for Council decision making.

7.2 The Revised Policy has been prepared to reflect the requirements of the Reserves Act and the LGA.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi were contacted around the time of the public notification of the Draft Policy and those who responded were supportive of the Draft Policy since it specifically provides for their active involvement in relation to each application for Council’s landowner consent.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The significance of engagement is generally low but may be greater for some coastal communities.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	low	Only five submissions were received. There will be greater interest in coastal communities (e.g. some residents of Pakawau and Awaroa).
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Once the Revised Policy is adopted, staff will add details into the document about the process used to create and adopt the policy as contemplated on page 23 of the Revised Policy. It will then be published on the Council’s website and have immediate effect.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 The costs associated with public notification and receiving submissions were absorbed within the Reserves & Facilities budget.

11.2 There are no financial or budgetary implications of adopting the Revised Policy.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Adopting the Revised Policy is a low-risk decision which will assist in mitigating the risks posed for the Council due to sea level rise.

12.2 Tasman District’s extensive coastline means that, without a policy in place around coastal erosion protection structures on Council reserve land:

12.2.1 if the Council makes any decision not to give its landowner consent to construct coastal erosion protection structures or to impose conditions on such consent that the applicants find unacceptable, the Council is more likely to be exposed to challenges from landowners; and

12.2.2 if any landowner challenge to a Council involved judicial review proceedings, the Council would be in a much safer position if it has a policy in place and it can show that it has followed that policy in its decision-making.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Revised Policy is a direct response to the need to deal with the implications of climate change on sea levels and inundation and erosion of coastal reserves.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The Revised Policy is consistent with the TRMP and takes account of relevant reserve management plans.

14.2 The process of approving the Draft Policy for consultation, and public consultation on that Draft Policy, was undertaken in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 2002.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Staff recommend that the Council as a whole takes on the role of the Hearing Panel to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the Draft Policy, and the amended wording proposed by staff in response, before adopting the Revised Policy.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Once the Revised Policy is adopted, staff will finalise the Revised Policy document in accordance with the resolutions of this meeting and publish it on the Council’s website.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Revised Policy	129
2.⇩	Revised Policy (marked up version)	168
3.⇩	Submissions received on draft Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy (2021)	209

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.8 Coastal Protection Policy Confirmation

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Ian McComb, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-03-12

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval for the Interim Coastal Protection Policy of 2014 to become the confirmed overarching Coastal Protection Policy and approve a supplementary policy/process that considers privately initiated coastal protection works within Tasman District Council’s controlled roads.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 In response to increasing pressure from private landholders to spend public money to protect their private coastal lands from erosion and inundation, the Council adopted the Interim Coastal Protection Policy in 2014. This policy, in summary, said that the Council would:

2.1.1 only maintain Council-owned costal protection structures (CPS);

2.1.2 only invest in new CPS to protect Council owned assets;

2.1.3 not fund or maintain CPS that protect private property; and

2.1.4 only consider privately funded CPS on Council land where these complied with all relevant rules and policies.

2.2 Since 2014, the interim policy has successfully guided staff on response to public enquiries and works planning and no substantial changes are required.

2.3 To supplement this overarching policy a new policy/process related to privately initiated works in Council controlled road reserves has been prepared and is ready for adoption.

2.4 Similarly, a new detailed policy/process for consideration of privately initiated CPS on Council reserve land managed under the Reserves Act has been prepared and is the subject of a separate report to this meeting.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Coastal Protection Policy Confirmation Report RCN24-03-12; and

2. adopts the Coastal Protection Policy; and

3. adopts the Coastal Protection Works within Road Reserves Policy.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 During preparation of the Coastal Assets Activity Management Plan 2024-2054, a staff decision was made to seek confirmation of the interim Coastal Protection Policy of 2014. Concurrently, the Reserves team were also finalising their process to recommend adoption of a Coastal Protection Policy Confirmation. An opportunity was identified during the collaboration on this policy to also include a policy that related to Council road reserves and thereby have comprehensive coverage of coastal protection policy and the associated process to deal with privately initiated requests to utilise Council land.

Proposed overarching Coastal Protection Policy

4.2 The Council will maintain or repair only existing Council-owned coastal protection structures (CPS) (subject to a review of economic benefit and affordability and compliance with New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP)).

4.3 The Council will consider new investment in coastal protection works only where there are substantial Council-owned capital works, assets, or infrastructure at risk, and it is impracticable to relocate the Council assets (subject to compliance with the NZCPS and the TRMP. This Coastal Protection Policy relates to the protection of all vulnerable Council-owned assets regardless of which activity management plan is responsible for the structure except for the Council-administered reserve land.

4.4 The Council will not invest in or maintain any new Council-owned coastal structures or works to protect private property, nor will it accept responsibility for repair or maintenance of existing private coastal works.

4.5 The Council will only give consideration to allow any privately funded construction of shoreline protection structures on the Council-owned land, for the purposes of protecting the Council-owned land or private property, where a proposal is substantially compliant with the objectives and policies of the NZCPS and objectives, policies and rules of the TRMP, and the Council’s Reserves General Policies document. In any event, the Council retains complete discretion regarding authorisation of private structures on the Council-owned land.

4.6 This overarching policy is supported by the following two polices that outline the process details to manage privately initiated proposals that impact reserves and roads:

· Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy

· Draft Coastal Protection Works with Road Reserve Policy

Proposed Draft Coastal Protection Works with Road Reserve Policy

Introduction

4.7 Due to increasing weather events, there is rising pressure from the public for the Council to allow coastal protection works within Council road reserve to protect private land and assets. This policy outlines the process and considerations for approving privately initiated coastal protection works within a road reserve managed by Tasman District Council. It aims to balance the need to protect infrastructure and property from erosion and inundation with the preservation of the precious natural coastal environment and public access for future generations.

4.8 Generally, policy relating to approving works within a road is covered by the Council’s Transportation Policies and Procedures Manual (TPPM). The TPPM outlines the management of roads including the approval process for structures and activities within the road reserve. A chapter will be added to the TPPM at its next update to specifically address privately initiated coastal protection works based on this policy.

4.9 This policy requires that any privately initiated coastal protection works within a road reserve be assessed on a case-by-case basis as generally, road reserve is not an appropriate location for private coastal protection structures.

4.10 The assessment shall consider the potential impact of the coastal protection works (including installation and maintenance) on the current and future environment, compliance with regulations, tangata whenua input and the potential impact on the public’s use of the road.

4.11 Depending on the proposal, other Council policies and legislative requirements may be triggered and hence this policy should be read in conjunction with the:

4.11.1 Tasman District Council Policy on Coastal Protection Works;

4.11.2 Tasman District Coastal Protection Structures on Council Reserves Land Policy;

4.11.3 Tasman Resource Management Plan;

4.11.4 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS);

4.11.5 Building Act 2004 and Building Code; and

4.11.6 Utilities Access Act 2010

Definitions:

4.12 “Coastal Protection Works” means structures, measures, or actions designed to reduce the impact of coastal hazards on land adjacent to tidal waters, including, but not limited to, seawalls, revetments, groynes, beach nourishment, dune restoration, and planting native vegetation.

4.13 The TRMP definition for Coastal Protection Structures is: Coastal protection structure - means a seawall, rock revetment, groyne, breakwater, stopbank, retaining wall or comparable structure or modification to the seabed, foreshore or land adjacent to the coast that has a purpose or effect of protecting land from a coastal hazard, including seawater inundation or erosion.

Objectives

4.14 To prioritise the protection of life while minimising adverse effects on the coastal environment.

4.15 To encourage the use of natural and non-structural solutions where practicable.

4.16 To ensure consistency and transparency in the decision-making process when privately initiated coastal protection works are proposed on Council road reserve.

4.17 Incorporate cultural considerations.

4.18 Allow for emergency response procedures.

4.19 To complement but not override any consents required under the Tasman Resource Management Plan.

4.20 Establish an approval pathway for coastal protection works.

4.21 Coastal protection works can be built by private landowners and public authorities, with appropriate approvals.

Pre-assessment

4.22 Applicants considering private coastal protection works within Council road reserve should consult with the Council planning staff regarding potential resource consent requirements, building staff regarding any building consent requirements, and the Transportation Manager considering the following:

4.22.1 the ownership/control of the road is the Council’s and not the New Zealand Transport Agency; and

4.22.2 existing or planned Council use of the land for roading, public access or services.

Landowner Approval Process

4.23 All proposals seeking landowner approval for coastal protection works within a road reserve must be submitted to Tasman District Council’s Transportation Manager along with detailed plans, technical specifications, and environmental assessments:

4.23.1 where works are required as an emergency response, Council’s engineering staff will endeavour to facilitate an urgent site visit and if appropriate, interim works approval as a landowner. This is separate to any approvals required for emergency works under the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Building Act 2004.

4.24 In seeking landowner approval, as the landowner the Council will assess proposals based on the following criteria:

4.24.1 need and justification: demonstrating the immediate or imminent threat to life, property, or infrastructure;

4.24.2 suitability of the solution: considering the effectiveness, potential impact on existing or proposed Council infrastructure, cost-effectiveness, design and long-term sustainability of the proposed works including experience of the proposed contractors, maintenance or improvement of all forms of public access;

4.24.3 environmental impact: minimising adverse effects on coastal ecosystems, natural processes, and amenity;

4.24.4 compliance with regulations: meeting the requirements of the Resource Management Act, NZCPS relevant regional and district plans, and coastal permits; and

4.24.5 consultation: consulting with other affected landowners, iwi, community groups, and relevant government agencies.

4.25 Under this policy, permission may be granted in the form of a permit, Licence to Occupy Road or by another form of written approval. In many cases a Road Opening Notice Form and Traffic Management Plan shall need to be completed as part of the approval. More information is contained in the document: Agreement to occupy a road | Tasman District Council

4.26 The Group Manager – Community Infrastructure is delegated by the Council to make a decision on the proposal as the representative of the Council as landowner based on the assessment against the criteria in this policy and any public feedback received.

4.27 Landowners must obtain all relevant formal written permission(s) from the Council (Resource Consent, Building Consent, Community Infrastructure Group Manager, Reserves and Facilities Manager) before commencing work.

Funding and Maintenance

4.28 The Council will assess the funding responsibility for approved works on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of the threat, any public benefit, and potential impacts.

4.29 Applicants will be required to contribute up to 100% of the construction and ongoing maintenance, and/or insurance costs of the works.

4.30 The Council will rarely assume ownership and responsibility for privately funded coastal protection works constructed within the road reserve. However, where public benefit is demonstrated a proportion of the initial and ongoing costs may be approved by the Council via the Long Term Plan process.

Review and Monitoring

4.31 This draft policy will be reviewed two yearly before it is incorporated into the TPPM to ensure its effectiveness and alignment with best practices and changing coastal hazards.

4.32 The Council will monitor the performance of approved coastal protection works and the surrounding environment.

https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/new-zealand-coastal-policy-statement/

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Drivers

5.1 The primary drivers for both the overarching and specific road policies are that increased coastal erosion and inundation is expected to occur. This will likely impact all coastal land within the District and has the potential to create significant financial, administrative and emotional burden on multiple stakeholders.

Response

5.2 As the interim policy outlines, the Council will need to strategically consider when to protect and when to relocate its assets on behalf of the community.

5.3 Private landholders are likely to continue to expect Council support either through financial means or access to Council land to assist them to defend their private land and assets. However, to do so would be inappropriate for the Council from both a ratepayer equity perspective and under the NZCPS.

5.4 The overarching policy confirms that approach adopted by the Council in 2014 and the road specific policy introduces process detail that is applicable to considering privately-initiated proposals that relate with Council roads. The adoption of these policies combined with the similar Reserves related policy will create a comprehensive set of aligned responses to the question of coastal protection works and structures.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt overarching policy	Confirms long standing Council position. Provides clear guidance to private landholders and staff. Reduces financial risk to the Council.	May upset landholders of vulnerable lands.
2.	Adopt the draft specific road policy	Provides clear guidance to private landholders and staff. Reduces financial risk to the Council.	May upset landholders of vulnerable lands. Absence of specific consultation may upset some stakeholders.
3	Adopt both policies	Provides comprehensive policy coverage.	Some stakeholders may be upset.
4	Adopt neither policy	Avoids risk of upsetting stakeholders.	May expose the Council to increased pressure to use Council land and expend public money to protect private land and assets. Fails to provide staff with agreed policy and process to manage requests for coastal protection works approval on Council road.

6.2 Option 3 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The overarching policy has numerous legal linkages but no firm requirements.

7.2 As the overarching policy has been in place with interim status for over a decade, no further consultation is deemed necessary as all elements of the community have had ample time to raise any concerns or objections.

7.3 The Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to consult on proposed policies in some cases. An allowable exception is when Council considers “on reasonable grounds” that it has sufficient information about community interests and preferences to enable the purpose of the policy to be achieved.

7.4 Although the specific draft Road Policy has not been consulted upon, it is consistent with the interim overarching Coastal Protection Policy, other road policies in the TPPM and is very similar in coverage to the Draft Reserves Policy that has been consulted upon without any submissions opposing the original draft of that policy.

7.5 The draft Road Policy has been prepared with the assistance of AI as covered by the IS23 Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence use. AI was used to create a base document that was then edited by Council staff.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 As the content of these policies are not presenting significant new material, no specific iwi consultation has occurred to date. However, the ability to review and comment on the policies during the LTP consultation period will be highlighted with iwi at the scheduled April hui.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The significance of this overarching policy confirmation and roading specific policy is low as they confirm an existing level of service.

9.2 For residents who own vulnerable land within the District these policies are likely to be of high specific concern.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	General public low, high to coastal residents with vulnerable property.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Whilst the overall context has high potential significance, this policy detail is administrative detail.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The policies can be reviewed on a two-yearly basis or more often if needed.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Medium	Potentially, strategic assets will be considered as part of this policy, however these would be subject to more extensive investigations and reporting.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	Continuation of current Level of Service.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	Adoption of the policies is designed to minimise costs to the Council.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	Not Applicable
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	Low	Not Applicable
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	Not Applicable
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	Low	Not Applicable

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Internal communication has occurred within the Council relating to Activity Management, Transportation, Reserves and Legal.

10.2 If confirmed, both the overarching policy and specific draft road policy will be included in the Coastal Assets AMP as part of the Long Term Plan process.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 The overall financial impacts of these polices is low as that is a primary driver for their adoption. By managing community expectations the Council is seeking to avoid or minimise future financial commitments.

11.2 Processing of any applications for privately initiated works within roads is not expected to be a significant cost to the Council as most applications will also require resource or building consents that will trigger cost-recovery charging.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Adopting these overarching and road policies is a low-risk decision which will assist in mitigating the financial risks posed for the Council due to sea level rise.

12.2 Whilst there is some risk that landholders of vulnerable lands will dislike the Council’s position, this vested interest is regarded as less important than the wider community interest.

12.3 Tasman District’s extensive coastline means that without a policy in place around coastal erosion protection works on Council roads:

12.3.1 if the Council makes any decision not to give its landowner consent to undertake coastal protection works or to impose conditions on such consent that the applicants find unacceptable, the Council is more likely to be exposed to challenges from landowners; and

12.3.2 if any landowner challenged a Council involved judicial review proceedings, the Council would be in a much safer position if it has a policy in place and it can show that it has followed that policy in its decision-making.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Climate change considerations are driving the need for these policies as sea level rise is expected to increase coastal inundation and erosion and related proposals to protect properties and assets at risk.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 These proposed overarching Coastal Protection and specific Draft Road polices have been driven by Council strategic decisions made for the Coastal Activity Management Plan (AMP) originally as part of the 2014 Long Term Plan process but now the 2024 Long Term Plan process.

14.2 Through these policies the Council has determined to specifically manage community expectations to avoid excess financial burdens in the future.

14.3 Where coastal protection works are pursued, the policies will ensure that appropriate legal processes are followed.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Confirmation of the proposed policies will reduce financial and reputational risk to the Council by having clear information that manages expectations and controls processes related to Coastal Protection works.

15.2 Adequate consultation and opportunity for public feedback has occurred on the subject matter of the policies to allow adoption of both the overarching policy and the specific road policy.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If confirmed, the overarching policy will be included in the Coastal Assets AMP for consultation.

16.2 If confirmed, the specific draft road policy will be included in the Coastal Assets AMP for consultation and thereafter move to the TTPM when next updated.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.9 Draft Policy for Consultation - Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Amy Smith, Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Matt Feely, Building Assurance Manager; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RCN24-03-13

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval to:

1.1.1 commence a special consultative procedure (SCP) on the proposed Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams (“Dangerous Dams Policy”), as required by section 161 of the Building Act 2004 (“Building Act”); and

1.1.2 approve the draft Dangerous Dams Policy and the Statement of Proposal for that consultation; and

1.1.3 appoint a Hearings and Deliberations Panel to hear and deliberate on any submissions received and to make recommendations to the Environment and Regulatory Committee; and

1.1.4 delegate to the Environment and Regulatory Committee the authority to receive and consider the recommendations of the Hearings and Deliberations Panel and to make a decision on whether to adopt a policy.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Section 161 of the Building Act 2004 requires a regional authority to adopt a policy on dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams and flood-prone dams within their region.

2.2 The Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 (“Regulations”) come into effect in May 2024 introducing further responsibilities on regional authorities and dam owners.

2.3 Staff have prepared a new policy that aligns with the dam safety requirements created by central government. The Building Act requires that this policy is adopted in accordance with the special consultative procedure (SCP) in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”).

2.4 Staff seek the Council’s approval to commence consultation on the draft Dangerous Dams Policy using the SCP.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Draft Policy for Consultation - Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams RCN24-03-13 report and its attachments; and

2. notes that the Building Act 2004 requires the use of the special consultative procedure for community consultation of the Draft Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

3. approves consultation, using the special consultative procedure, for the Draft Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) and the Statement of Proposal (Attachment 2 to the agenda report); and

4. approves the consultation approach (set out in section 0) and agrees:

4.1 the approach includes sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

4.2 the approach will result in the Statement of Proposal being widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation; and

5. agrees that a Summary of Information as part of the consultation is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

6. appoints Councillor XXX, Councillor XXX and Councillor XXX to a Hearings and Deliberations Panel to hear and deliberate on any submissions received on the draft policy and make recommendations back to the Environmental and Regulatory Committee; and

7. delegates to the Environmental and Regulatory Committee, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002, authority to:

7.3 receive and consider the recommendations of the Hearings and Deliberations Panel; and

7.4 decide on the adoption of a Council Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams, as required under section 161 of the Building Act 2004.

4. Background / Horopaki

The Building Act 2004

4.1 Section 161 of the Building Act 2004 requires all regional councils to adopt a policy on dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams, and flood-prone dams. This policy must set out the regional council’s approach to fulfilling and prioritising its functions in relation to these dams and how the policy will apply to heritage dams. The policy was required to have been adopted in 2007.

4.2 The purpose of the policy is to help prevent the catastrophic failure of a potentially dangerous dam and to ensure any deficiencies in an earthquake-prone or flood-prone dam are addressed.

4.3 The Building Act also requires the Council to act, if necessary, if any dam poses an immediate danger to the safety of persons, property or the environment, and to provide building consent processing and inspections service for large dams.

The Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022

4.4 Since 1960, there have been 25 known dam incidents in New Zealand, with at least 14 being considered serious. There have been no recorded fatalities to date. The North Island weather events in early 2023 also reinforced the need for a regulatory dam safety framework, in order to ensure that classifiable dams are well operated, maintained, and regularly monitored.

4.5 The regulations were made by central government to improve the safety and resilience of New Zealand’s dams. The regulations aim to ensure that classifiable dams are well operated, maintained and regularly monitored. Improving the regulatory framework will mean that potential impacts of dam incidents and failures are reduced, protecting people, property, and the environment.

4.6 The regulations come into effect in May 2024 and set a minimum requirement for dam safety with a post-construction risk-based nationwide regulatory framework.

4.7 Owners^{^[1]} of dams that meet the height and volume requirements of the regulations will need to confirm the potential risk their dam poses, put in place safety plans and undertake regular dam inspections.

4.8 The Council has responsibilities for administering and monitoring implementation of the regulations. This involves approving or refusing dam classifications and dam safety assurance programmes, receiving annual dam compliance certificates, and establishing and maintaining a register of dams in the Tasman District.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

The Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams

5.1 In the past, each regional council developed their own dangerous dams policy. Regional councils have been working together since the introduction of the regulations to produce a policy that is fit for purpose nationwide. The policy presented is a result of this collaborative work.

5.2 The Dangerous Dams Policy aligns with the dam safety requirements created by central government. This policy sets out what the Council will do in relation to a dangerous, earthquake-prone, or flood-prone dam in the Tasman region. It covers our regulatory and legislative responsibilities under the Building Act in relation to these types of dams.

5.3 The policy has three key sections:

5.3.1 How we will perform our legislative functions in relation to dangerous, earthquake-prone, or flood-prone dams.

The Council has a variety of functions under the Act, and our approach is explained in more detail in the policy. An example of an action we may take is, we may put up fencing or hoarding around the dangerous dam to stop people approaching the dam.

5.3.2 Our priorities when performing these functions.

The Council will always prioritise safety, following a risk-based approach. We will also protect the health and wellbeing of the environment and have regard to cultural and heritage values when undertaking our functions.

5.3.3 How the policy will apply to heritage dams

If a dangerous dam is also a heritage dam, we will account for the need to facilitate the preservation of significant heritage values.

5.4 The policy does not classify dams. Dam owners are required to assess their dam as either low, medium, or high potential impact. If it is assessed as a medium or high potential impact dam, the owner is required to prepare a dam safety assurance programme. However, the dam owner must immediately notify the Council if they believe their dam is dangerous. We will then respond in accordance with the Dangerous Dams Policy.

5.5 The policy also does not cover consenting matters under the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Building Act 2004.

Consultation and decision making process

5.6 The Building Act states that a policy on dangerous dams must be adopted in accordance with the special consultative procedure (“SCP”) in the LGA.

5.7 When carrying out the SCP (as outlined in sections 83 and 87 of the LGA) the Council must:

5.7.1 prepare and adopt a statement of proposal (Attachment 2); and

5.7.2 consider whether a summary of the statement of proposal is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

5.7.3 make the statement of proposal publicly available for at least one month and invite written submissions; and

5.7.4 provide an opportunity for people to present their views to the local authority (or its delegated representatives) in a manner that enables spoken (or sign language) interaction.

5.8 Staff consider that a summary of Information on the proposed policy, under section 83(1)(a)(ii) of the LGA, is not necessary to enable public understanding. The draft Dangerous Dams Policy is only five pages, and it will be made available to the public for feedback during the consultation period.

5.9 It is proposed that the consultation period runs from 1 April 2024 to 5 May 2024. An overview of the planned consultation engagement is set out in section 0.

5.10 Submissions will be heard by the Hearings and Deliberations Panel in May 2024 and its report provided to the Environment and Regulatory Committee in June 2024.

5.11 Staff request that the Council appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel to hear and deliberate on any submissions received on the proposed policy and make recommendations to the Environment and Regulatory Committee.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 Consulting on a policy on dangerous dams is required by the Building Act. The Council has two options to consider in this report, as outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Commence consultation on the draft Dangerous Dams Policy.	· Complies with the requirements of the Building Act 2004. · If a dangerous dam were to occur, the Council will have an appropriate policy in place to manage the situation.	· No disadvantages identified.
2.	Do not commence consultation on the draft Dangerous Dams Policy.	· No advantages identified.	· The Council would be in breach of its statutory requirements under the Building Act 2004. · If a dangerous dam were to occur, there would be no current policy.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Commence consultation on the draft Dangerous Dams Policy.

· Complies with the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

· If a dangerous dam were to occur, the Council will have an appropriate policy in place to manage the situation.

· No disadvantages identified.

Do not commence consultation on the draft Dangerous Dams Policy.

· No advantages identified.

· The Council would be in breach of its statutory requirements under the Building Act 2004.

· If a dangerous dam were to occur, there would be no current policy.

6.2 Staff recommend Option 1.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Building Act 2004 requires the Council to establish and maintain a register of dams in the district.

7.2 Dangerous dams are defined as:

s153 Meaning of dangerous dam

(1) A dam is dangerous for the purposes of this Act if the dam—

(a) is a high potential impact dam or a medium potential impact dam; and

(b) is likely to fail —

(i) in the ordinary course of events; or

(ii) in a moderate earthquake (as defined in the regulations); or

(iii) in a moderate flood (as defined in the regulations).

7.3 Earthquake prone and flood prone dams are defined as:

s153A Meaning of earthquake-prone dam and flood-prone dam

(1) A dam is an earthquake-prone dam for the purposes of this Act if the dam—

(a) is a high potential impact dam or a medium potential impact dam; and

(b) is likely to fail in an earthquake threshold event (as defined in the regulations).

(2) A dam is a flood-prone dam for the purposes of this Act if the dam—

(a) is a high potential impact dam or a medium potential impact dam; and

(b) is likely to fail in a flood threshold event (as defined in the regulations).

7.4 The adoption of a policy on dangerous dams is required under section 161 of the Building Act. The Act required that the policy be in place within 18 months of the commencement of the part which was on 31 March 2005. The Council has therefore been in breach of its statutory obligations since 2007.

7.5 The section states that:

s161 Regional authority must adopt policy on dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams, and flood-prone dams

(1) A regional authority must, within 18 months after the commencement of this Part, adopt a policy on dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams, and flood-prone dams within its region.

(2) The policy must state —

(a) the approach that the regional authority will take in performing its functions under this Part; and

(b) the regional authority’s priorities in performing those functions; and

(c) how the policy will apply to heritage dams.

7.6 Section 162 states that the policy must be adopted, amended or replaced only in accordance with the SCP in the LGA 2002.

7.7 A copy of the adopted policy must be provided to the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (“MBIE”).

7.8 The draft Dangerous Dams Policy is based on a template policy developed by a collective of regional authorities. A legal consultant was engaged by one of the regional authorities to comment on whether the policy template addressed the issues required by the Building Act to be included in a dangerous dams policy. The legal advice was that the template policy addressed these issues. No comment was made on whether the content was appropriate.

7.9 The Council must complete a review of the policy within five years after the policy is adopted and then at intervals of not more than five years. A policy does not cease to have effect because it is due for review or being reviewed.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Te Tauihu iwi have been informed of this work by staff at face-to-face hui and project information has been provided on Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro – the iwi engagement platform. Iwi will have the opportunity to make submissions during the SCP and will be advised once the consultation starts.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 Staff have considered the significance of this decision in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The decision is whether to commence consultation under a SCP on a draft Dangerous Dams Policy.

9.2 There will be limited interest in this policy, as it only directly affects dam owners and their engineers. There may be general interest from the community on this policy, as it relates to dams already constructed in the Tasman District and is a matter that has had recent heightened public interest.

9.3 It is planned to follow the requirement of the Act to undertake a SCP in accordance with section 83 of the LGA.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	While the decision to consult is of low significance it is noted that the policy itself may attract significant interest from the community.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	This proposal contributes to social and environmental well-being, through the implementation of a policy for dangerous dams.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	This proposal expands the Council’s current compliance activities.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No	The Council’s priorities under the policy include to protect the health and well-being of the environment, which will more specifically be addressed through the Tasman Resource Management Plan and the guiding principle of TMOTW

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 We have recently contacted approximately 50 owners of larger dams in Tasman by email to let them know we are preparing a policy on dangerous dams. We also provided them with a copy of MBIE’s dam safety guidance, which supports understanding of the regulations for dam owners to help them prepare and fulfil the new requirements.

10.2 The consultation period for the Dangerous Dams Policy is proposed to be Monday
1 April 2024 until 5pm Sunday 5 May 2024.

10.3 Copies of the statement of proposal and draft policy will be available for reference at all public libraries and Council service centres in Tasman and for downloading from Shape Tasman. The community will also be informed through the Council’s normal communication channels including media release, Newsline, Facebook and the website.

10.4 The statement of proposal and draft policy will be sent via email to key stakeholders including dam owners of larger dams in the district, iwi partners, the Nelson Tasman CDEM Group and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Other interested parties will also be emailed, including the Department of Conservation, key lifeline utility providers, local and national irrigator groups, and Federated Farmers.

10.5 Anyone wishing to speak to their submission will be provided an opportunity to attend a hearing in May 2024. All submitters will be notified of the Council’s decision on adopting a policy. All submissions will be publicly available on the Council’s website.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 The planned consultation is funded from the existing Environmental Assurance budgets.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Not approving the draft Dangerous Dams Policy for consultation will leave the Council without a policy to manage a dangerous dam, if that situation were to occur, and is a failure to meet the requirements of the Building Act. This is a risk that the Council is currently facing as it has not previously adopted a Dangerous Dams Policy.

12.2 For a short period of time, the regulations will be in effect and the Council will not have an adopted policy to manage a dangerous dam if that situation were to occur. If the Council is informed of a dangerous dam before a policy is adopted, the processes set out in the draft Dangerous Dams Policy will be followed.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 There are no known climate change impacts to the decision to consult on the draft policy.

13.2 The Building Act requires the policy, once adopted, to be reviewed every five years. Dam owners are also required to review their dams against flood performance criteria every five years, as part of a comprehensive safety review.

13.3 The intent is that these requirements help ensure the new safety provisions remain fit for purposes in a changing environment and as our understanding of the effects of climate change continues to improve over time.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The adoption and consultation requirements for a policy on dangerous dams are set out in the Building Act. Staff request that the Council delegates to the Environmental and Regulatory Committee authority to:

14.1.1 receive and consider the recommendations of the Hearings and Deliberation Panel; and

14.1.2 decide on the adoption of a Council Policy on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake- prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams, as required under section 161 of the Building Act 2004.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Building Act requires the Council to adopt a policy on dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams, and flood-prone dams in the Tasman District. The Council must do so in accordance with the SCP in the LGA.

15.2 The draft Dangerous Dams Policy is based on a template developed collaboratively by regional councils to provide a fit for purpose nationwide policy. The policy aligns with the dam safety requirements created by central government and sets out what the Council will do in relation to dangerous, earthquake-prone, or flood-prone dams in Tasman.

15.3 It is recommended that the Council adopt the draft Dangerous Dams Policy and Statement of Proposal for the purposes of a SCP and approve that consultation can commence on
1 April 2024 and close on 5 May 2024.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Once consultation has closed, submissions will be heard by the appointed Panel at a meeting in May 2024. The Panel will consider all the submissions received and deliberate on any amendments to the policy as a result.

16.2 The recommendations of the Panel will be received and considered by the Environment and Regulatory Committee in June 2024 and decisions made on the adoption of a policy on dangerous dams.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Draft Dangerous Dams Policy for SCP	233
2.⇩	Statement of Proposal for SCP	238

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.10 Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer and Staff

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Jennie McFarlane, Legal & Democracy Services Manager; Leith Townshend, Team Leader - Legal
Report Authorisers:	Joanna Cranness, People, Safety & Wellbeing Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-03-14

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To authorise and amend delegations to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, to the Chief Executive Officer and to staff. This is to ensure that there are appropriate delegations in place for decision making and the efficient operation of Council business.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 This report seeks to ensure that Council committees, the Chief Executive Officer and staff have appropriate delegations which they require for their roles. Staff have recently identified the need for some additional or amended delegations.

2.2 The amendments to the delegations are for the purposes of:

2.2.1 Authorising and amending delegations to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, to the Chief Executive Officer and to staff in relation to powers under the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974) and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002). The powers relate to transport shelters and roads under the LGA 1974 and to bylaws and s17A reviews under the LGA 2002.

2.2.2 Amending the existing delegation in relation to the naming of streets under the Council’s Street Naming Policy to cover existing as well as new streets and to ensure that the Chief Executive Officer has the delegation as well as the Group Manager – Environmental Assurance.

2.2.3 Providing general property delegations, including those under the Land Transfer Act 2017, to Council staff in relation to easements, caveats, encumbrances, covenants, and other similar property instruments to ensure staff have clear delegations to act and also respond to requests for the removal of historic instruments.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer and Staff report RCN24-03-14; and

2. delegates the Council’s powers under s339 (Transport shelters) of the Local Government Act 1974 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. delegates, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council’s powers under section 353 (General safety provisions as to roads), section 356 (Removal of abandoned vehicles from roads) and section 356A (Further provision in relation to removal of vehicles from roads) of the Local Government Act 1974 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, to the following staff:

· Chief Executive Officer (includes Acting Chief Executive Officer)

· Group Manager - Community Infrastructure

· Group Manager - Environmental Assurance

· Transportation Manager

· Regulatory Manager

· Reserves and Facilities Manager

· Team Leader Compliance and Investigations – (Land and Air)

· Team Leader Compliance and Investigations – (Water and Waste)

· Senior Compliance and Investigations Officer

· Compliance and Investigations Officer

· Council contractors acting under contract and the Council’s authority; and

4. revokes the Council’s delegation to the Environment and Regulatory Committee of its powers under Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to the making of bylaws, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002, noting that the Committee has delegated authority to undertake bylaw preparation processes but only the Council can make a bylaw; and

5. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the Council’s powers under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, in relation to:

5.1 the provision of Electoral Services by the Council; and

5.2 the provision of Legal Services by the Council, due to the expiry of contracts providing some of these services; and

6. notes that staff are preparing a proposed Council policy on section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 covering its requirements and which functions and decisions could be delegated, a report with the draft Policy will be presented to the Council at a later date; and

7. amends the delegation set out in section 5.6 Part Three Management of the Council’s Delegations Register, pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002,

FROM:

Authority delegated to the Group Manager Environmental Assurance to decide on street names for new sub divisional roads in accordance with the Council and in consultation with a Ward Councillor or the Community Board

TO:

Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and to the Group Manager – Environmental Assurance to decide on street names for new and existing roads in accordance with the Council’s Street Naming Policy and in consultation with the Councillors or the Community Board (if any) for the Ward where the roads are located; and

8. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer, to the Tier Two Group Managers and to the Enterprise and Property Services Manager, the Council’s powers under sections 109, 112, 138, 142, 143, 144 and 145 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 and the following property delegations (to be added to the delegation in the Council’s Delegations Register – Part Three Management – cl5.3 e)), pursuant clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002:

8.1 Authority to approve the granting, removal or providing consent in relation to property instruments on land titles in favour of the Council (such as easements, caveats, encumbrances, or covenants) other than where the approval of the Council or a Committee is required by legislation; and

8.2 Authority to authorise the removal of historic or redundant instruments registered on land titles, provided that staff investigations confirm either (a) the reason for registering the instrument is no longer valid, or (b) the property is now compliant with current legislation / planning rules, or (c) the agreement which supports the instrument is unable to be located and thus the instrument cannot be enforced.

4. Background / Horopaki

Delegations

4.1 The Council has the power under local government legislation, particularly the LGA 2002, to delegate certain powers, functions and duties to committees, sub-committees, sub-ordinate decision-making bodies, to the Chief Executive Officer and to staff.

4.2 The nature of local government involves decisions at both governance and operational levels. Governance decisions and activities are exercised by members of the Council, committee, sub-committee, or subordinate decision-making bodies. The governance role includes (but is not limited to) setting the strategic and overall direction of the Council and approving the Long-Term Plan/annual plan, key planning documents and policies. Most councils operate on a policy of delegating authority to the lowest level possible, to ensure efficiency.

4.3 Staff have recently identified the need for certain additional or amended delegations to be given to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, to the Chief Executive Officer and to staff.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974) and Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002)

5.1 It appears that powers in relation to transport (bus) shelters have been given to the Environment and Regulatory Committee under s374 which is now repealed, and which related to regional motorways. The powers in relation to transport shelters are contained in s339 of the LGA 1974 and require to be delegated to the Committee.

5.2 Council staff have recently identified that some but not all powers which relate to the safety of roads have been delegated to staff. Powers such as the power to remove abandoned vehicles have not been specifically delegated to staff. Exercising the power requires a Council decision, for example, to authorise the removal and sale of an abandoned vehicle.

5.3 This is not practical. Making these decisions, which can require quick action is not considered an efficient use of the Council or a committee’s time. In addition, the storage of vehicles removed incurs costs which may have to be borne by the Council if unrecovered, so it is important that decision making is as efficient as possible. There are some existing roading powers under the LGA 1974 delegated to staff, and the proposed additional delegations should be delegated to the same staff.

5.4 An amendment to delegations is also required in relation to the Council’s bylaw powers under Part 8 of the LGA 2002 as only the Council can make a bylaw, this power cannot be subdelegated. The current delegations give powers to the Environment and Regulatory Committee which has authority to undertake bylaw preparation processes but the decision to make law in the form of a bylaw sits with the Council.

Section 17A reviews

5.5 The report seeks authority for the Chief Executive to exercise the Council’s powers under s17A of the LGA 2002. A change made to the LGA 2002 in 2014 means that local authorities are under an obligation to review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting community needs for good quality infrastructure, local public services, and local regulation. This ensures that councils regularly review long standing contracts and arrangements for how they deliver services. This supports good procurement practice. The LGA 2002 provides for exemptions from this requirement in certain circumstances.

5.6 Where a review is undertaken, local authorities must consider options for the governance, funding and delivery of infrastructure, local public services and local regulation that include, but are not limited to:

· in-house delivery;

· delivery by a CCO, whether wholly owned by the local authority, or a CCO where the local authority is a part owner;

· another local authority;

· another person or agency (for example central government, a private sector organisation or a community group).

5.7 Conducting regular section 17A reviews is a good way of demonstrating that a council is delivering activities in a cost-effective manner for the local authority (and therefore ultimately households and businesses).

5.8 The Council can delegate its powers under s17A LGA 2002, but the Council has not done this as yet. Other councils have delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the powers in certain circumstances. Council staff are preparing a policy on s17A reviews and where decisions should be made which will be brought to the Council later this year, but an interim delegation is required in relation to two activities being the provision of electoral services and the provision of legal services, due to contracts expiring.

Provision of electoral services

5.9 For the 2022 triennial elections, the Council contracted the provision of certain electoral services. These services are primarily used to produce the voting papers and candidate booklets as well as to process the votes. Most councils do not provide these services in-house now due to the specialist knowledge, technology and additional resourcing required. It is not cost-effective to do so for a process that usually only occurs every three years (noting that many other elections tasks are still undertaken by staff, it is a significant district wide project).

5.10 The contract for electoral services in 2021/2022 was for the purpose of those elections and has expired. The Council needs to go to the market for a provider of electoral services, with a procurement process planned this year for the 2025 local government elections. Year 1 of the Long-Term Plan includes provision for an elections budget to commence from 1 July 2024 for the 2025 elections,

5.11 Prior to going to the market, a s17A review should be undertaken by the Council. However, the LGA makes provision for exemptions from a s17A review, where ‘the local authority is satisfied that the potential benefits of undertaking a review in relation to that infrastructure, service, or regulatory function do not justify the costs of undertaking the review’.

5.12 Staff believe that this applies to the provision of electoral services. There are only two electoral services providers in the market. It would not be cost-effective for the Council to obtain and provide the resources and technology required to be able to deliver the elections fully in-house. The two providers offer considerable expertise and have invested significantly in resources and technology as they undertake elections for a variety of organisations all year round, most of these being electronic processes.

5.13 In the view of staff, it is considered that the costs of a s17A review do not outweigh the benefits of undertaking the review and that authority can be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the Council’s powers in relation to s17A for these services. If authority is approved, a report will be prepared for the Executive Leadership Team and the Chief Executive Officer to consider prior to any decision being made by the Chief Executive Officer.

5.14 The reasons for the Chief Executive Officer to be given delegated authority to exercise the Council’s s17A powers relate to the value of the contract which is likely to be less than $500,000 (for the 2025 elections) and well within the financial authority of the Chief Executive Officer to approve. This is a similar approach taken by other councils. If there is provision in the contract for review and further elections, increasing the overall value of the contract, decisions for renewal can come to the Council and the Tenders Procurement Panel if required.

Provision of Legal Services

5.15 The Council has a shared panel of external legal providers with Nelson City Council. The umbrella contract with the providers expires in late 2024. The Council’s Legal Team is working with the Legal Team at Nelson City Council to prepare for a joint procurement process. Nearing the end of a contract is one of the triggers for a s17A review.

5.16 In 2023 the Legal and Democracy Services Team commissioned an independent review of the Council’s legal function to inform decisions on how legal services should be provided in the future. The key finding of the review is that the current mix of in-house and external legal advisors delivering legal services is working, with legal spend reducing over the last few years. A full copy of the review report was provided to the Audit and Risk Committee at its meeting on 21 March 2024.

5.17 If authority is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the Council’s powers in relation to s17A for this service, a report including a copy of the independent review, will be prepared for the Executive Leadership Team and the Chief Executive Officer to consider prior to any decision being made by the Chief Executive Officer.

5.18 The reasons for the Chief Executive Officer to be given delegated authority to exercise the Council’s s17A powers in this case relate more to the nature of the services. The provision of legal services is internal to the Council, its committees and community boards, to the Chief Executive Officer and to staff. The Council’s solicitors cannot provide legal advice to any other parties or to the public.

5.19 The general focus of s17A relates to services the Council provides to its communities in the form of infrastructure, public services, and local regulation. The provision of legal services assists the Council in delivering those services. However, as there are contracts in place with legal providers, it is still appropriate to undertake a review of the legal services function, but any decisions can sit at a Chief Executive Officer level as they are more operational in nature.

Delegations Register Part Three Management s5.6 Street names

5.20 The Council has previously made the following delegation to the Group Manager – Environmental Assurance:

Power to decide on street names for new sub divisional roads in accordance with the Council and in consultation with a Ward Councillor or the Community Board

5.21 A situation has arisen in relation to the change of an existing road name in accordance with the Council’s Street Naming Policy. This is not explicitly covered in the delegation so before any decision is made it is prudent to ensure that the correct delegation is in place.

5.22 The amendment to the delegation also makes it clear that the decision is made by the delegated staff in consultation with the ward members or Community Boards.

5.23 Finally, it is considered prudent that the Chief Executive Officer also be delegated this authority. Where possible there should always be more than one officer holding a delegation, to ensure there should be at least one available to act.

Land Transfer Act 2017/ property delegations

Delegation to remove or consent to amendments or changes to historic instruments

5.24 On occasion, lawyers acting for clients approach the Council in relation to historical instruments registered on their clients’ land titles in favour of the Council. They typically pre-date the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and Building Act 2004 and were often put in place under legislation which has now been repealed.

5.25 The two most recent requests were received in late 2023 and early 2024. One request asks that the Council remove a historic and unnecessary caveat and the other seeks the Council’s consent in relation to another instrument to be registered on the title.

5.26 The most common reason for these caveats being placed on a title seems to be the establishment of a “Granny Flat” in the 1980s which required the building to be removed after “Granny” is no longer living there. However, there are also situations where caveats are put in place to ensure that two separate parcels of land are sold together (which would now be managed under the RMA).

5.27 On occasion the Council has been forced to agree to remove the caveat because a copy of the original agreement cannot be found.

5.28 Where legislation has been repealed under which the instrument has been created, there is uncertainty in relation to authority to deal with the instrument. At present there are some limited operational property delegations held by staff but no delegations under the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA 2017) which contains powers in relation to property instruments such as easements, caveats, and encumbrances.

5.29 It is important for the Council to be able to respond to these requests quickly and pragmatically as often the caveats are only noticed at the time that a property is in the process of being sold and ownership transferred. Any delay at the Council’s end could cause the sale to either fall through or be delayed which may expose the Council to risk.

5.30 The additions and amendments to delegations proposed in the recommendations in section three of the report are for the purpose of reducing risk by ensuring that appropriate delegations are in place. This also increases the efficiency and effectiveness of Council processes. Approving them would mean that decisions can be made quickly and at the correct level.

5.31 The specific delegations to the Chief Executive Officer and staff are considered to be operational powers suitable for delegation.

5.32 The amendment to the street naming delegation is considered low risk and clarifying the decision-making powers in accordance with the Council’s policy.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the additional and amended delegations	Addresses potential risk of decisions being made without authority. Means fewer reports to the Council on low level matters or issues.	As with any delegation there is a risk that staff will make a decision that the Council feels should have been made at a governance level. However, it is aways an option for staff to refer the decision-making to the Council if they believe that the decision relates to governance.
2.	Decline to approve the amended/additional delegations	The Council retains control over decision making.	Increased administrative burden on staff and the Council as more decision reports will need to be drafted and considered. Increased time for decision making. Potential risk to the Council that decisions can be challenged due to being made without authority.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the additional and amended delegations

Addresses potential risk of decisions being made without authority.

Means fewer reports to the Council on low level matters or issues.

As with any delegation there is a risk that staff will make a decision that the Council feels should have been made at a governance level. However, it is aways an option for staff to refer the decision-making to the Council if they believe that the decision relates to governance.

Decline to approve the amended/additional delegations

The Council retains control over decision making.

Increased administrative burden on staff and the Council as more decision reports will need to be drafted and considered.

Increased time for decision making.

Potential risk to the Council that decisions can be challenged due to being made without authority.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

Clause 32 Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002

7.1 There are some powers that cannot be delegated by the Council. These powers are:

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) [Repealed]

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

7.2 Staff are encouraged to engage with members of the Council’s Legal and Democracy Services team if there are any concerns about whether they have the delegated authority to make decisions.

7.3 A function or power can generally be sub-delegated, subject to any conditions imposed by the person or entity that made the original delegation. At this time, it is not proposed to put any limits on sub-delegation.

7.4 With all the proposed delegations if either a committee or staff member considers that because of the nature of the decision that it would be preferable for the Council to make the decision then it is appropriate for the staff member to put the decision before the Council.

Section 17 A LGA 2002

7.5 Section 17A Delivery of services is set out below:

(1) A local authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a review under subsection (1) must be undertaken—

(a) in conjunction with consideration of any significant change to relevant service levels; and

(b) within 2 years before the expiry of any contract or other binding agreement relating to the delivery of that infrastructure, service, or regulatory function; and

(c) at such other times as the local authority considers desirable, but not later than 6 years following the last review under subsection (1).

(3) Despite subsection (2)(c), a local authority is not required to undertake a review under subsection (1) in relation to the governance, funding, and delivery of any infrastructure, service, or regulatory function—

(a) to the extent that the delivery of that infrastructure, service, or regulatory function is governed by legislation, contract, or other binding agreement such that it cannot reasonably be altered within the following 2 years; or

(b) if the local authority is satisfied that the potential benefits of undertaking a review in relation to that infrastructure, service, or regulatory function do not justify the costs of undertaking the review.

(4) A review under subsection (1) must consider options for the governance, funding, and delivery of infrastructure, services, and regulatory functions, including, but not limited to, the following options:

(a) responsibility for governance, funding, and delivery is exercised by the local authority:

(b) responsibility for governance and funding is exercised by the local authority, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by—

(i) a council-controlled organisation of the local authority; or

(ii) a council-controlled organisation in which the local authority is one of several shareholders; or

(iii) another local authority; or

(iv)another person or agency:

(c) responsibility for governance and funding is delegated to a joint committee or other shared governance arrangement, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by an entity or a person listed in paragraph (b)(i) to (iv).

(5) If responsibility for delivery of infrastructure, services, or regulatory functions is to be undertaken by a different entity from that responsible for governance, the entity that is responsible for governance must ensure that there is a contract or other binding agreement that clearly specifies—

(a) the required service levels; and

(b) the performance measures and targets to be used to assess compliance with the required service levels; and

(d) how the costs of delivery are to be met; and

(e) how any risks are to be managed; and

(f) what penalties for non-performance may be applied; and

(g) how accountability is to be enforced.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to an arrangement to the extent that any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (g) are—

(a) governed by any provision in an enactment; or

(b) specified in the constitution or statement of intent of a council-controlled organisation.

(7) Subsection (5) does not apply to an arrangement if the entity that is responsible for governance is satisfied that—

(a) the entity responsible for delivery is a community group or a not-for-profit organisation; and

(b) the arrangement does not involve significant cost or risk to any local authority.

(8) The entity that is responsible for governance must ensure that any agreement under subsection (5) is made publicly available.

(9) Nothing in this section requires the entity that is responsible for governance to make publicly accessible any information that may be properly withheld if a request for that information were made under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have not been engaged in relation to this report.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 Overall, the significance of these delegations is considered low.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	However, the effect is simply to approve administrative efficiency at the Council, and it is considered there is a low level of interest in staff delegations.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	NA
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	NA
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	NA
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	NA
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	NA
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	NA

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 No communications plan is required in relation to this decision.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 It is not considered that any of the delegations will have a financial or budgetary impact. There are potential benefits as staff will spend less time bringing decision reports to the Council where decisions are better made at an operational level.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 One of the purposes of checking and reviewing delegations regularly is to address risk and ensure decisions are being made under the correct delegated authority.

12.2 The risks associated with these delegations are considered low and they will reduce risk to the Council by ensuring prompt action by the Council where required. In any event, if staff or a committee member feel that for whatever reason they should not exercise their delegation, they do not have to exercise it and can always elevate the decisions to their manager or to the Council.

12.3 It is important that the decisions staff need to make are well documented and supported by the appropriate delegations.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 The delegations proposed are designed to increase the efficiency of the management of Council business and ensure delegations are correct.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 If approved the Delegations Register will be updated and republished.

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

List of Legislation to be delegated

253

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.11 Local Government Funding Agency - Draft Statement of Intent 2024-2027

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Acting Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-15

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 In November 2023, the Local Government Shareholder Council sent its Letter of Expectations to the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) (Attachment 1).

1.2 The draft Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2024-2027 has now been received (Attachment 2) with a letter from Mark Butcher, Chief Executive, LGFA dated 28 February 2024, addressing Shareholder Expectations and the draft SOI (Attachment 3).

1.3 The draft SOI continues the LGFA transition to providing a more flexible and sustainable lending programme to councils.

1.4 This draft SOI, including financial forecasts, assumes that there are no implications for LGFA from the Local Water Done Well Programme. The LGFA is awaiting further information as the enabling legislation is due to be introduced in June and December 2024 but are assuming in the meantime a business-as-usual approach to council and CCO borrowing. The final SOI due in June 2024 will be updated from this draft to incorporate any future announcements and will include a statement if there have been any material changes to the LGFA forecast assumptions.

1.5 Key points from the draft SOI are set out in Section 4 of this report.

1.6 The Shareholders’ Council will meet prior to the final Statement of Intent being adopted to provide feedback to the LGFA. As a member of the Shareholders’ Council, our participation in this process is encouraged. Any Council feedback can be provided to the Group Manager – Finance who is the Council’s representative on the LGFA Shareholders’ Council.

1.7 Comments and feedback on the draft SOI are due by 1 May 2024. The final SOI will be provided to Shareholders by 30 June 2024.

1.8 Staff recommend that the Council agrees to the draft Statement of Intent and acknowledges that the Local Government Funding Agency Shareholders’ Council will provide feedback (if any) on the draft Statement of Intent on behalf of all the Shareholding Councils.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Local Government Funding Agency - Draft Statement of Intent 2024-2027 Report, RCN23-03-15; and

2. receives the Local Government Funding Agency draft Statement of Intent 2024/27 (Attachment 2 to the agenda report); and

3. agrees to the draft Statement of Intent (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) and acknowledges that the Local Government Funding Agency Shareholders’ Council will provide feedback (if any) on the draft Statement of Intent on behalf of Shareholding Councils; and

4. receives the letter from the Chief Executive, Local Government Funding Agency, dated 28 February 2024 (Attachment 3 to the agenda report).

3. Purpose of Report

3.1 To provide an update on the Local Government Funding Agency draft Statement of Intent 2024-2027 and receive any feedback from the Council on this draft.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1 This is a routine report on the LGFA draft statement of intent. The Group Manager Finance engages regularly with the LGFA and participates on the shareholders council.

4.2 The LGFA Shareholders Council on behalf of shareholders presented a Statement of Expectations to the Company in November 2023 (Attachment 1). The statement of Expectations covers areas of focus the council wishes the company to consider in developing its draft SOI.

4.3 We have received the LGFA draft Statement of Intent (SOI) for the 2024-2027 years (Attachment 2) and accompanying letter from the Chief Executive (Attachment 3).

4.4 The Shareholders’ Council (SC) will meet again prior to the final SOI being received and will provide further feedback if necessary. We are encouraged, as a Council member of the Shareholder Council, to participate in this process.

4.5 This Council is a Foundation Shareholder in the LGFA and has repaid the loans used to fund its shares in the LGFA. We are also a party to the Cross Guarantee. Being a party to the Guarantee is a requirement for councils borrowing more than $20 million from the LGFA.

4.6 The LGFA continues to focus on delivering strong results for shareholders and other council borrowers.

4.7 Staff concur with the following points regarding the draft 2024/2027 SOI that have been provided by the LGFA.

“For our borrowing councils we seek to optimise funding terms and conditions by

· Achieving savings in borrowing costs

· Providing longer dated funding and

· Providing certainty of access to markets

For our shareholders we are focused on

· Delivering a strong financial performance

· Monitoring asset quality

· Enhancing our approach to treasury and risk management, and

· Ensuring we have the correct governance framework and capital structure in place.

For our guarantors we are focused on

· Minimising the risk of a call upon the guarantee through actively monitoring and managing the business risks faced by LGFA including operational, credit, liquidity, interest rate and funding risk.

The following points regarding the draft SOI 2024-27 are worth noting:

· This draft SOI, including financial forecasts, assumes that there are no implications for LGFA from the Local Waters Done Well Programme. We are awaiting further information as the enabling legislation is introduced in June and December 2024 but will assume in the meantime a business-as-usual approach to council and CCO borrowing. The final SOI in June 2024 will be updated from this draft to incorporate any future announcements and will include a statement if there have been any material changes to our forecast assumptions.

· Profitability is forecast to remain strong with projections for Net Operating Gain of $15.1 million, $13.1 million, and $10.1 million for the next three years. However, we remain cautious in placing too much emphasis on the year two (2025-26) and three (2026-27) forecasts given we have $7.1 billion of LGFA bonds and $7.5 billion of council and CCO loans maturing over the three-year SOI forecast period. This is because assumptions regarding the amount and timing of refinancing and interest rates have a material impact on financial projections.

· We have increased our forecast for council loans (short and long term) outstanding as at June 2025 to $22.08 billion and to $24.45 billion as at June 2026 (from $20.03 billion and $21.50 billion in the previous SOI). This increase reflects a higher starting position as at 30 June 2024 and councils undertaking further capex and continued high utilisation of short-term borrowing from LGFA.

· We are assuming gross bond issuance of $5.25 billion (2024-25), $5.04 billion (2025-26) and $4.72 billion (2026-27) based on council gross lending of $4.60 billion (2024-25), $4.86 billion (2025-26) and $5.08 billion (2026-27).

· Net interest income is expected to gradually reduce over the forecast period as the balance sheet grows from increased council lending but is offset by a larger holding of liquid assets and slightly lower forecast interest rates.

· We have assumed a modest narrowing in lending margins as more councils and CCOs take up our Climate Action Loan (CAL) product and we undertake more Green, Social and Sustainability (GSS) lending to councils and CCOs. Given the recent announcement from S&P Global Ratings regarding the lowering of the trend within the local government sector institutional framework, we have assumed no further improvement in the credit quality of the sector.

· Compared to the previous SOI, issuance and operating expenses, excluding Approved Issuer Levy are forecast to be approximately $700k higher in the 2024-25 and $600k in 2025-26 financial years. This is due to forecast higher IT, HR and legal costs associated with increased foreign currency issuance, water reforms and increased staffing.

· The proposed SOI performance targets are similar to the previous SOI. The focus remains on sustainability, assisting councils with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reporting, monitoring the credit quality of the sector, and assisting with the implementation of Local Water Done Well Programme.

· As noted above, there is some timing uncertainty within the SOI forecast relating to council loans and LGFA bonds outstanding as we need to project both the repayment amount and repayment timing of the council loans that are due to mature in April 2025, April 2026 and April 2027. Decisions made by our council members regarding early refinancing will have a phasing impact across all three years in the SOI forecast.”

4.8 Provision of questions or comments to the LGFA or the Shareholder Council are required by 1 May 2024 and the LGFA Board will consider any feedback received and provide a final version of the SOI to Shareholders by 30 June 2024.

5. Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Option 1 (recommended) – to accept the draft SOI and advise the LGFA (and the LGFA Shareholders Council) that the Council has no specific changes it wishes them to consider in drafting the final SOI.	The Council, through its representation by the Group Manager – Finance on the LGFA Shareholders Council, already has input into the draft SOI process.	There may be matters of concern or emphasis that the Council wishes to pursue with the LGFA board and management.
2.	Option 2 - to refer matters of concern regarding the draft SOI to the LGFA Shareholders Council with commentary on areas of the SOI that the Council believes need attention, prior to reconsideration of the final SOI by the Council.	The Council, through its representation by the Group Manager – Finance on the LGFA Shareholders Council, already has input into the draft SOI process. By itself, the Council cannot effect any change to the draft SOI. Providing feedback would allow that to be considered alongside other Shareholding Councils views.	A decision not to support the draft SOI, as negotiated between the Shareholders Council and the LGFA, would result in some difficulties given the role of the Shareholders Council. Changes would be managed through the Shareholders Council, and they would require the agreement of both the LGFA and the majority of shareholders
	Option 3 - To formally refer the SOI back to the LGFA Board with comments on the areas of the SOI that need attention prior to reconsideration of the final SOI by the Council.	This is a legal option, and the Council may choose to engage directly with the Board.	By itself, the Council cannot effect any change to the draft SOI. Any changes would still need to be managed through the Shareholders Council as they would require the agreement of both the LGFA and the majority of shareholders

5.2 Option 1, to accept the draft SOI and advise the LGFA (and the LGFA Shareholders Council) that the Council has no specific changes it wishes them to consider in drafting the final SOI, is recommended.

6. Strategy and Risks

6.1 There is no identified change in risks or benefits associated with the LGFA operations and this draft SOI. The company has provided the half yearly report to the Council. This covered financial, and non-financial performance measures. There are no matters that require the attention of the Council. The Half Year Report is covered in a separate staff report to this meeting.

6.2 There is a risk that the relationship between the Shareholder Councils and the LGFA could be significantly damaged if there is a failure of this Council and the LGFA Shareholders Council to agree on the 2024-2027 LGFA SOI.

6.3 As the LGFA has the Crown and other councils as shareholders, the shareholder interactions are managed through the LGFA Shareholders Council. The Council will need to consider the views and preferences of the LGFA Shareholders Council and its members in any decision to provide direct feedback to the LGFA.

7. Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 The LGFA must have an SOI that complies with Clauses 7 to 10 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The draft SOI complies with these legal requirements.

7.2 The Statement of Intent must not be inconsistent with the Company’s (LGFA) constitution.

7.3 Draft SOIs must be delivered to Shareholding Councils on or before 1 March each year. Shareholders may extend this deadline for a period or periods up to one calendar month.

7.4 The LGA Schedule 8(2) requires the Board to consider any comments on the draft SOI that are made to it by the first of May and deliver a completed SOI to Shareholders on or before 30 June each year. This is managed through the LGFA Shareholders’ Council.

7.5 Section 65 (2) of the LGA requires the Council (as a Shareholder) as soon as practicable after receiving an SOI to agree to the SOI, or if it does not agree to take all practicable steps under Clause 6 of Schedule 8 of the LGA to require the SOI to be modified.

7.6 Clause 6 of Schedule 8 to the LGA allows shareholders to impose certain SOI provisions on the company. Such a course of action would require shareholders to agree on the changes to be imposed.

7.7 Section 64(9) of the LGA requires each Shareholding Local Authority to publish the adopted Statement of Intent on an internet site maintained by or on behalf of the local authority within one month of adopting it and it must maintain the statement on that site for no less than seven years.

8. Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 There are no budgetary or financial implications in providing feedback on the draft Statement of Intent. The cost of preparing this report and managing the SOI process are provided for in existing budgets.

9. Significance and Engagement

9.1 This is a routine matter, and the significance of this report is assessed as low and no special engagement with the community is required.

9.2 The draft LGFA Statement of Intent is also available to the public on the LGFA website (https://www.lgfa.co.nz) for those members of the community with a particular interest.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No - low
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No - low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No - low
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No low
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes low	The Council’s investment in the LGFA is considered a strategic asset. This decision does not impact that investment.
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No - Low
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No – low
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No - low
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No - low
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No - low
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	No - low

10. Conclusion

10.1 The draft SOI provides for the status quo in terms of direction and approach by the LGFA. In the draft SOI, the LGFA has met the expectations of the Shareholders’ Council. The staff recommendation is for Tasman District Council to agree to the draft SOI.

11. Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 The members’ responses to the SOI will be reviewed by the LGFA Shareholders’ Council at its next scheduled meeting.

11.2 The final SOI will be received by Shareholders by 30 June 2024.

11.3 A link to the draft SOI will be placed on the Tasman District Council’s website.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	LGFA Shareholders Council 2023 Letter of Expectations to LGFA	267
2.⇩	Local Government Funding Agency Draft Statement of Intent 2024-2027	269
3.⇩	LGFA Letter to Shareholders to accompany Draft Statement of Intent	280

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.12 Local Government Funding Agency - Half Year Report 31 December 2023

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Mike Drummond, Group Manager - Finance
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Acting Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-16

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) half year report to Shareholders was delivered on 28 February 2024. The half year report is attached as Attachment 1.

1.2 The report was accompanied by a covering letter from Mark Butcher, Chief Executive LGFA and is attached as Attachment 2.

1.3 The report has been provided to allow the Council to consider the Company’s performance.

1.4 Oversight of the Company and advice to Shareholders is carried out by the LGFA Shareholders Council. Tasman District Council currently has a seat on the Shareholders Council and is represented by the Group Manager – Finance.

1.5 The LGFA continues to operate successfully, and staff have no further matters in relation to the report that have not been included in the Chief Executive’s covering letter to bring to the Council’s attention.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Local Government Funding Agency - Half Year Report 31 December 2023 report, RCN24-03-16; and

2. receives the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency covering letter dated 28 February 2024 referencing the Half Year Report (Attachment 2 to the agenda report); and

3. notes a link to the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Half Year Report will be published on the Council’s website within seven days of this meeting.

3. Purpose of Report

3.1 To formally receive the LGFA half year report for the period ended 31 December 2023.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1 The Company is required under the terms of its Statement of Intent to provide a half year report to shareholders. These reports are also made available to the public via both the LGFA website and the Council website.

4.2 Mr Mark Butcher, Chief Executive LGFA provided commentary to shareholders which included:

Increased lending to council and CCO borrowers

4.3 At 31 December 2023, LGFA had a market value of loans outstanding of $18.8 billion which followed record lending of $2.63 billion over the six-month period. It added two new CCOs as members over the six months, bringing the number of members to 72 councils and five CCOs.

A focus on sustainability

4.4 LGFA launched its Climate Action Loan (CAL) product for council and CCO members in December 2022 to incentivise borrowers through a lower loan margin if they have an approved greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction plan in place and are meeting their reduction targets. At December, CALs total $1.2 billion across four councils.

4.5 Their Green, Social and Sustainable (GSS) loans provide a discounted borrowing margin to councils and CCOs for eligible projects. Over the six-month period they approved a further project as eligible for GSS lending, bringing the number of eligible projects to six across six councils.

4.6 LGFA also published its first Annual Impact Review report for their NZX listed Sustainable Financing Bond. They are having ongoing dialogue with councils relating to GHG emission reporting and reduction and are currently preparing for its first report under Climate Related Disclosure requirements for the 2024 Annual Report.

A financial position tracking to forecast

4.7 Net Operating Profit for the six-month period was $5.2 million, which is slightly below their SOI forecast due to higher costs from increased issuance, and the establishment and issuance under foreign currency programmes. However, LGFA expects to meet the full year SOI forecast by June 2024. LGFA has assets of $21.77 billion and Shareholder Equity of $109.4 million as at 31 December 2023.

Working with its stakeholders

4.8 LGFA has been assisting Central and Local Government with the implementation of the water reform programme and with councils and CCO members on promoting sustainability.

4.9 A further highlight was LGFA being voted by market participants for an unprecedented five awards at the KangaNews Awards including New Zealand Debt Issuer of the Year award for the second consecutive year.

4.10 Their focus remains on adding value to the local government sector through:

· Providing cheaper loans.

· Enabling easier access to markets.

· Providing reliable financing.

· Underpinning confidence.

· Encouraging sustainability.

· Enhancing capital markets.

· Being a centre of expertise.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The company continues to operate successfully with a range of new products being offered to councils. The company has provided a comprehensive report as required under its Statement of Intent.

6. Next Step | Timeline

6.1 The Council will provide a link to the report on our website within seven days of this meeting.

6.2 The Group Manager – Finance will provide any specific feedback to the company through the next LGFA Shareholders Council meeting.

7. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Local Government Funding Agency - Half Year Report ended 31 December 2023	287
2.⇩	Local Government Funding Agency Covering Letter to 31 December 2023	305

Tasman District Council Agenda – 28 March 2024

7.14 Chief Executive's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-03-18

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on some key activity since the Chief Executive’s last report on 15 February 2024.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council receives the Chief Executive's Report, RCN24-03-18.

3. Chief Executive Update

3.1 Since the last report, I was welcomed as the new Chief Executive with a Mihi Whakatau by Mayor Tim King, Councillors, Council partners, my family and friends.

3.2 It has been a busy few weeks negotiating the challenges and opportunities for the Council.
I am aware of the significant challenges that lie ahead, both internally and externally, as we navigate the changing and complex landscape of local government.

3.3 One of the external challenges that I face as the new Chief Executive is to manage the increasing and competing demands and expectations of our community and stakeholders, in the context of limited and constrained resources. The Council has a responsibility and a mandate to provide a range of services and facilities to our community, and to ensure that they are of high quality, accessible, and affordable. However, I also realise that we must balance this with the fiscal and environmental sustainability of our organisation, and the need to prioritise and allocate our resources wisely and efficiently. The Long Term Plan (LTP) that will be going out for consultation on 28 March 2024 highlights what these challenges are and what options the community can consider.

3.4 I continue to be the sponsor for the Digital Innovation Programme. We are in the final stages of procurement for our partner to assist us with implementing a Customer Relationship Management System (CRM) on the Microsoft Dynamics Platform.

3.5 The CRM project will enable the Council to manage its interactions with customers across multiple channels and touchpoints, such as phone, email, web, social media, and face-to-face. The CRM system will provide a single source of truth for customer data, requests, feedback, and history. It will also automate workflows, streamline processes, and generate insights to help the Council improve its performance and responsiveness. The CRM project will benefit both the Council staff and the customers, as it will make it easier to communicate, collaborate, and resolve issues.

3.6 It has been a month of meeting new people and connecting with stakeholders. I attended the Local Government Regional Sector Meeting in Wellington in early March. We heard from Ministers Todd McLay, Penny Simonds, and Chris Bishop. There is a bit of “hurry up and wait” as the new government works through new legislation and policy.

3.7 I attended the Coordinated Executive Group (CEG) at the Nelson Tasman Emergency Operations Centre. The CEG is made up of agencies that have a leading role in delivering civil defence emergency management in our region. This reflects the fact that, as required by legislation, civil defence is a multi-agency responsibility. The CEG reports to the Mayors and Deputy Mayors of Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (called the "Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency Management Group").

3.8 The group is made up of representatives from, Nelson City Council iwi, Police, St John, Ministry of Social Development, Public Health, Te Whatu Ora, Fire and Emergency, and the National Emergency Management Agency.

4. Operational Highlights

Waimea Community Dam

4.1 The Waimea Community Dam project is nearing completion and according to Waimea Water Limited it is intended to be fully commissioned in late March 2024.

4.2 The storage behind the dam has been filled in managed stages whilst monitoring the dam’s performance. It first spilled on Sunday 21 January 2024.

4.3 In early February Waimea Water Limited commenced the final stages of installing the mechanical and electrical components in the diversion tunnel. The smaller outlet pipe, colloquially called the ‘environmental’ pipe was opened and started discharging up to 1.4m3/sec on Saturday 2 March 2024.

4.4 The ‘environmental’ pipe has to be closed during working hours for a few days to enable further work to be done on the other pipework within the diversion tunnel. Waimea Water Limited staff installed temporary pumps in the spillway to pump water over the spillway whilst the environmental pipe was closed. This has helped maintain minimum flows in the river.

4.5 Even though the dam has not been formally commissioned, the release of water has maintained an increased flow in the Lee and Waimea Rivers. If this had not occurred, the Waimea Plains would have been subjected to much more severe staged restrictions.

4.6 During the week of 11 March 2024, without the water being released from the dam, the river flows would have been sufficiently low that the urban supplies would have been in at least Phase D rationing and probably into Phase E rationing. Phase E is when water is to be used only for emergencies, human drinking, sanitation, medical purposes, and stock wellbeing. This would have been the same situation we had in 2019/2020.

4.7 The urban community and the greater Waimea Plains will be pleased that the dam has been able to release water to counter the need for severe staged water restrictions.

4.8 Waimea Water Limited has indicated that the two larger discharge pipes, which were concreted in during late February, should be functional and able to release more water during the week of 18 March 2024.

5. Legal and Democracy Services

Local Government and Official Information Meeting Act 1987 (LGOIMA) requests

5.1 The Council continues to receive a large volume of LGOIMA requests. For context, in 2023 the Council received 510 LGOIMA requests, this is up from 295 in 2022.

5.2 Since the beginning of 2024 there have been 202 formal LGOIMA requests (as of 12 March 2024). Ninety-three (93) of these requests have come from two individuals. The Council is responding to these requests appropriately in line with the Act. This includes bundling requests, seeking to charge for staff time, and declining because the request is “frivolous or vexatious or that the information requested is trivial”.

5.3 The Council considers it has engaged appropriately in relation to the LGOIMA requests and associated complaints.

Ombudsman investigations

5.4 As of 12 March 2024, the Council is responding to five Ombudsman investigations and two preliminary inquiries.

5.5 It is noted that Chief Ombudsman Peter Bushier is required to resign due to a legislative requirement relating to the maximum age for the Ombudsman.

6. National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS-FM)

6.1 As the Council will be aware, the new Government announced the extension of notification timelines for the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management until 2027.

6.2 The Strategy and Policy Committee debated the matter of the proposed plan change timeframes and being cognisant of the requirements under the Water Conservation Order, determined a six-month delay in notification would be appropriate to mid-2025.

6.3 Staff will be providing further advice to the Council on the impact the Water Conservation Order requirements will have on this timeframe.

7. People Management

7.1 Marlborough District, Nelson City and Tasman District Councils, being the three councils who are party to the Multi Employment Collective Agreement (MECA) with the PSA Union, have been communicating with the PSA to confirm dates for this year’s mid-term remuneration negotiations. Last year we negotiated for a two-year agreement and these negotiations are covered by the variation clause in the existing MECA, so this round of bargaining is not a full collective bargaining process. Negotiations are expected to happen across late-April to mid-May.

7.2 The Council has engaged Sarah Sidey, a local physiotherapist to deliver a series of informative wellbeing-focused sessions to our staff. The sessions are 30 minutes long and are recorded so that we can make them available to all staff via our intranet. Sarah delivered a similar series of wellbeing focused sessions last year and the feedback from our staff was very positive.

7.3 Recruitment continues to remain steady, and we are currently at various stages of recruiting for approximately twenty vacancies which are a mix of existing and new approved positions. Since my last report, another ten appointments have been made with one of these being an internal promotion which then resulted in another vacancy needing to be filled.

7.15 Mayor's Activity Update

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 March 2024
Report Author:	Tim King, Mayor
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:	RCN24-03-19

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The ongoing dry weather is extremely frustrating for everyone in our District. Unfortunately, the outlook for any rain at all during the next few weeks is not promising.

1.2 While the Tasman Dry Weather Task Force continues to meet weekly, the Ministry of Primary Industries has also convened the Top of the South Drought Committee. Former Tasman District Mayor, Richard Kempthorne is chairing this committee, and the Government has so far allocated $20,000 to the Rural Support Trust (also chaired by Richard Kempthorne) to help with assistance for farmers and rural water users. Locally, the Alliance Group has commenced double shifts to help farmers who are destocking.

1.3 On Friday, 15 March 2024 the Minister of Agriculture, Todd McClay formally classified drought conditions in Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson as a “medium-scale adverse event”. This decision will unlock further support for farmers and growers, including tax support.

1.4 I am especially pleased that the Waimea Dam is now providing water to augment the environmental flows in the Waimea River. It has been great to receive several “well done and congratulations” messages from residents who recognise the difference the dam will make to our District.

1.5 Alongside the Richmond Friendly Town Group, we recently hosted the Mayoral party from our sister city, Fujimi Machi. their Secretary of Education and several students and their adult caregivers. The welcoming pōwhiri was held at Te Āwhina marae, a new experience for our visitors. This year marked the 30^th anniversary of the relationship between our two towns which was marked with the unveiling of a park bench in Washbourn Gardens next to the cherry tree that had been planted by a Fujimi Machi visiting group 20 years ago. The students spent several days at Waimea College joining in normal classes and experiencing life in a New Zealand educational setting. The group also visited Māpua and Rabbit Island (via the Māpua ferry service), a local farming operation, Kaiteriteri, Waimarama Brook Sanctuary and the Abel Tasman National Park.

The Fujimi Machi Mayoral delegation at the welcoming pōwhiri

2.1 I have regretfully accepted the resignation of Margaret Devlin from the Waimea Water Limited Board. Margaret is returning to the UK where she has been offered a new role.

2.2 Thank you to Councillor Maling and Councillor Ellis who have both provided support by attending a number of events in support of the Mayor’s office recently. Your help is much appreciated.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council receives the Mayor's Activity Update, RCN23-03-19.

3. Significant Birthdays, Anniversaries

3.1 For the past year, Tasman District Council, through my office, has subscribed to the Department of Internal Affairs “Congratulatory Message Service”. This service advises when a resident of Tasman District reaches a significant personal milestone, for example 50^th, 60^th (and more years) wedding anniversaries and significant birthdays (usually 100 years). The Executive Assistant and Advisor to the Mayor sends greeting cards and/or flowers – cards for wedding anniversaries and flowers for centenarians. This initiative has been well received by the recipients.

4. Local Government New Zealand – Four Monthly Update

4.1 The Local Government New Zealand Four Monthly Update is attached for information (Attachment 1).

5. Mayoral Activity

5.1 The Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board met on 13 February 2024.

5.2 The mihi whakatau for our new Chief Executive Officer, Leonie Rae was held on
19 February 2024.

5.3 The Cawthron Institute Trust Board met on 19 February 2024.

5.4 On 20 February 2024, I was invited to speak to the Wellington Regional Police leadership team focusing on my experience in a governance role.

5.5 The two-monthly catch up with our Kaumatua Harvey Ruru and Whaea Jane de Feu was held on 22 February 2024.

5.6 It was good to see the large turnout at Paul Sheldon’s retirement function on 22 February 2024. Paul has worked for both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils and is well respected in the community.

5.7 Fifty-three new residents received their New Zealand citizenship at our first ceremony for the year on 28 February 2024. It was great to see several people deliver their oath or affirmation in te reo. The kapa hapa group from Richmond Primary School did a great job leading everyone through the national anthem.

A group of children in a room

Description automatically generated

Richmond Primary School Kapa Hapa Group

5.8 The Local Government Transport Reference Group met in Wellington on 29 February 2024.

5.9 The Chief Executive, Leonie Rae, Group Manager – Community Infrastructure, Richard Kirby and I met with Graham Mitchell from Crown Infrastructure Partners and Paul Barker from the Department of Internal Affairs on 6-7 March 2024. Discussions focused on opportunities for the Council with the Government’s “Local Water Done Well” programme and infrastructure investment. Graham and Paul also visited the Waimea Dam site and were very impressed.

5.10 The Local Government New Zealand Regional Sector Group meeting was held in Wellington on 7-8 March 2024. We heard from Todd McClay (Agriculture), Penny Simmonds (Environment), and Chris Bishop (RM Reform and Infrastructure).

6. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

LGNZ Four Monthly Update

316

[1] For the purposes of the Act and the Regulations, a dam owner is the person who legally owns the physical dam itself.

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor S Bryant
Councillors	Councillor C Butler	Councillor M Kininmonth
	Councillor G Daikee	Councillor C Mackenzie
	Councillor B Dowler	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor B Maru
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor D Shallcrass
	Councillor C Hill	Councillor T Walker