Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.2 Motueka Museum - Roof Cladding Replacement

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Nick Chin, Enterprise and Property Services Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-08-4

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

1.1 To outline the poor condition of the Motueka Museum roof and seek approval from the Council to utilise unspent operating funds from the 2023-2024 financial year and some of the operational funding this financial year (2024-2025) to replace most of the roof cladding.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The cladding on the roof of the Motueka Museum is in very poor condition and approximately 80% of the cladding needs to be replaced.

2.2 The estimated cost of this work is around $120,000 including a 5% scope risk.

2.3 There is no capital funding in the Long-Term Plan 2024/2034 for Museums. It is proposed that this work be funded from an operational surplus of $82,000 in 2023/2024 and that the remaining $28,000 be funded from the $135,000 operational funding in year 2024/2025 of the Long-Term Plan 2024/2034.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Motueka Museum - Roof Cladding Replacement report, RCN24-08-4; and

2. approves funding the required $120,000 to partially replace the roof cladding on the Motueka Museum from the following operational budgets:

· the estimated surplus of $82,000 from the Museum Operational Budget in 2023/2024 into capital funding in the 2024-2025 year; and

· an allocation of $28,000 from the Museum Operational Budget in the 2024/2025 year of the Long Term Plan 2024/2034 into Capital Funding in the 2024/2025 financial year; and

3. notes the new roof cladding would reduce the pressure on future maintenance and renewal funding for the Museums.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 A recent assessment on the condition of the Motueka Museum building has confirmed a major leak problem. There is black mould coming into various parts of the museum including the offices at the back. There is water damage in both bathrooms of the café which are connected to the same building. Sealants have been used in the past to stop leaks. However, these sealants have lost their flexibility and cannot accommodate movement and consequently have cracked and split.

4.2 The Motueka Museum roof has been in poor condition for several years and despite remedial repairs none have worked effectively beyond the short term and now the roof cladding needs to be replaced.

4.3 The building is listed as Category 2 Heritage. So, any major repair work will need heritage expertise input so as not to compromise its heritage status.

4.4 In conjunction with a specification developed by a heritage architect, quotes were sought to replace the roof cladding. Two quotes have been received ranging from $113,000 to $154,000.

4.5 Whilst there are adequate funds within maintenance budgets to carry out this work, an 80% roof cladding replacement is regarded as a capital investment. There is no capital funding available for Museums in either last year's or this year's budget (Table 1).

	FY 2023-24	FY 2024-25
Opex Budget Museums	$82,000 remaining	$135,000
Capex Budget Museums	$0	$0

Table 1 Museum Opex and Capex budgets

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 To carry out these repairs, staff seek authorisation to transfer surplus operational funds from the last financial year (2023-2024) plus a contribution from this years (2024-2025) operational budgets to fund this capital work.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Do nothing	$82,000 of 2023-2024 opex is absorbed into the Council funds.	The roof will require ongoing repairs and maintenance, likely to exceed the cost of roof cladding replacement and continue to adversely impact operational budgets.
2.	Repair the roof cladding.	Resolves a long-standing issue. Lower maintenance costs. Reduces risk to the Museum collection.	Operational funding for 2024/2025 is reduced as some of it is reallocated as capital funding to fund this work.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Do nothing

$82,000 of 2023-2024 opex is absorbed into the Council funds.

The roof will require ongoing repairs and maintenance, likely to exceed the cost of roof cladding replacement and continue to adversely impact operational budgets.

Repair the roof cladding.

Resolves a long-standing issue.

Lower maintenance costs.

Reduces risk to the Museum collection.

Operational funding for 2024/2025 is reduced as some of it is reallocated as capital funding to fund this work.

6.2 Option Two is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Under the Local Government Act, the Council is required to maintain its assets.

7.2 The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act requires protecting heritage assets and collections.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Not required.

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

9.1 The significance of resolving a long-term problem with the Motueka Museum roof will be high for the community and the Museum Trust.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No	There will be public interest if the roof cladding repairs are not carried out.
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)	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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The Motueka Museum Trust and the Motueka Community Board have been advised that it is intended that the problems with the roof cladding should be addressed this year.

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

11.1 The project requires transferring surplus operational funding from last year ($82,000) and some of this year’s operational funding ($28,000) to fund this capital work.

11.2 The maintenance budget for 2024/2025 is $135,000. It is proposed that $28,000 of this funding be reallocated as capital funding for this work.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There is an ongoing risk to the Museum and its contents if this work is not carried out.

12.2 There is a risk that once the old cladding is removed some work on the roof structure may be required. Recent inspections indicate that this risk is low, however it remains a risk.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Museum building is not within the 2.0 metre Sea Level Rise inundation area.

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

14.1 The property on which the Motueka Museum is located is a local purpose reserve and is included in the Motueka Ward Reserve Management Plan (2019). This Plan essentially focuses on the activities on the property and within the building. The decision to replace the roof cladding, as proposed in this report, aligns with this Plan.

14.2 The other Council Policy on the Motueka Museum relates to decisions on whether to allow temporary activities to take place on the Motueka Museum frontage area. The decision in this report does not directly impact this policy. However, the frontage may need to be used by contractors to undertake the replacement of the roof cladding and the policy outlines the process through which this can be done if necessary.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 It is recommended that the proposal to reallocate operational funding to capital funding to fund the partial replacement of the roof cladding be approved.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If approved, the contractor will be engaged to undertake the work and it is intended that the roof cladding will be replaced in August/September 2024, weather dependent.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.4 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy (including Investment Policy and Liability Management Policy)

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Performance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Mike Drummond, Chief Financial Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-08-6

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

1.1 To adopt the updated 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy including liability management and investment policies.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Treasury Risk Management Policy including liability management and investment policies has been updated for the changes in the financial strategy as adopted as part of the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 on 27 June 2024. It has also been amended to reflect the recent structural and role title changes within the Finance Group.

2.2 The revised policy is attached (Attachment 1) with markups. In addition, Attachment 2 is a clean copy with the proposed changes incorporated, for ease of reading.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy (including Investment Policy and Liability Management Policy) report, RCN24-08-6; and

2. adopts the Tasman District Council 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy including Liability Management and Investment Policies (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) effective from 27 June 2024.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Treasury Risk Management Policy is reviewed at least three yearly and normally in advance of the preparation of the Long Term Plan (LTP). This is an out of cycle review required because of a restructure in the Finance department and to align to changes made in the recent adoption of a revised financial strategy to support the 2024-34 LTP.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The marked-up version (Attachment 1) includes material mark-up for ease of analysis.

5.2 The key alterations and updates relate to role title and structural changes within the Finance Group and an update to the Net Debt Cap limit. This limit has now been revised to become a dynamic Net Debt Cap based on the percentage of Operating Revenue to Total Net Debt. This has been set at 160% across the ten years of the LTP. When the LTP was adopted, it was acknowledged that this cap would be breached in Year 9 and Year 10 due to the capital funding required for the Motueka and Tākaka wastewater treatment plants.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Recommend the changes as contained in the updated policy to the Council.	The updated policy will contain current and correct role titles and assigned responsibilities. It also acknowledges the change to the Council’s Net Debt cap.
2.	Recommend additional changes to be included in the updated policy, for adoption by the Council.	This would allow any additional emphasis or additional risk managements approaches to be incorporated in the policy prior to adoption by council.	There will be additional work required by Council staff and our Treasury advisors. The Treasury Policy may then be at odds with the recently adopted LTP.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Recommend the changes as contained in the updated policy to the Council.

The updated policy will contain current and correct role titles and assigned responsibilities. It also acknowledges the change to the Council’s Net Debt cap.

Recommend additional changes to be included in the updated policy, for adoption by the Council.

This would allow any additional emphasis or additional risk managements approaches to be incorporated in the policy prior to adoption by council.

There will be additional work required by Council staff and our Treasury advisors.

The Treasury Policy may then be at odds with the recently adopted LTP.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Treasury management at Tasman District Council is governed by:

7.1.1 the Local Government Act 2002, in particular Part 6, including sections 101,102, 104 and 105, 112 and 116; and

7.1.2 the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014, in particular Schedule 4; and

7.1.3 the Trusts Act 2019. When acting as a trustee or investing money on behalf of others, the Trusts Act highlights that trustees have a duty to invest prudently and that they shall exercise care, diligence and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of others; and

7.1.4 all external borrowing, investments and incidental financial arrangements (eg use of interest rate hedging financial instruments) must meet requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and be consistent with the Council’s Liability Management Policy and Investment Policy.

7.2 All projected external borrowings must be approved by the Council as part of the Annual Plan or the Long Term Planning (LTP) process or a resolution of the Council before the borrowing is effected.

7.3 All legal documentation in respect to external borrowing facilities and financial instruments must be approved by the Council’s solicitors prior to the transaction being executed.

7.4 The Council is not permitted to enter into any borrowings denominated in a foreign currency.

7.5 The Council is not permitted to transact with any Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) on terms more favourable than those achievable by the Council itself without using its ability to rate.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There has been no specific consultation with Māori on the policy or this report. The report is primarily of a technical nature.

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

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	A high level of public interest exists on the level of Council debt. Interest in the management of that debt, however, is considered 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
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?	Low	The policy governs the responsibilities and controls concerning the Council’s authority to borrow/invest. It does not directly impact debt or rates.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The updated policy will be made available on the Council’s website.

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

11.1 The costs associated with the review of the policy have been met from existing Council budgets. The adoption of the updated policy has no direct financial or budgetary implications.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The Treasury Risk Management Policy is the mechanism to prudently manage treasury risks within the Council. This is accomplished by outlining approved policies and procedures in respect of all treasury activity to be undertaken by the Council.

12.2 The policy will be distributed to all personnel involved in any aspect of the Council’s financial management. In this respect, all staff must be completely familiar and comply with their responsibilities under the policy at all times.

12.3 There are no material risks associated with this policy update recommendation to the Council. The policy has seen a review from staff pertaining to role titles and assigned responsibilities.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The decision to recommend the Treasury Policy to the Council will not impact greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or other climate change considerations. The revised policy does, however, provide explicitly for the Council’s utilisation of GSS (Green, Social and Sustainability) and CAL (Climate Action) borrowing from the LGFA.

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

14.1 The Treasury Risk Management Policy forms part of the suite of policies that support the Council’s Financial Strategy and its Long Term Plan. The proposed updates contained within the attached policy are in alignment with the Financial Strategy and the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Staff recommend the revised policy for approval.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the amended Policy is adopted, it will take effect retrospectively from 27 June 2024.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	2024 Working Document with tracked changes - Treasury Risk Management Policy	22
2.⇩	2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy	96

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.5 Draft Bylaw for Consultation - Navigation Safety

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Amy Smith, Community Policy Advisor; Peter Renshaw, Harbourmaster
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RCN24-08-7

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Council to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Navigation Safety Bylaw (Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

1.2 The Issues, Options and Draft Provision Rationale (Attachment 3) is attached for information only and provides an overview of the key issues identified, the options that were considered and the provisions proposed in the draft bylaw to address the issues.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff seek the Council’s approval to consult on the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw. This draft bylaw would provide the Council with the regulatory authority to exercise control over specified maritime safety matters.

2.2 The draft bylaw has a range of provisions due to new developments in maritime legislation and navigation management thinking; development of new uses and technologies; opportunities to improve alignment across national regulations and safety campaigns; and ongoing issues identified by Council staff and community members.

2.3 The Mooring Area Bylaw provisions, approved by the Council last year but not yet in force, have been included in the draft bylaw.

2.4 The draft bylaw also sets out regulations for:

· Wearing a lifejacket (personal floatation device).

· Carrying appropriate communication equipment.

· Vessel identification.

· Small watercraft visibility.

· Vessel tracking.

· Anchoring and mooring.

· Hot work notification.

· A navigation aid levy.

2.5 The draft bylaw allows for either prosecution or infringements in the form of fines for specified non-compliance offences.

2.6 The bylaw has been drafted to take a largely permissive approach; most activities do not require permissions but do require adherence to specified regulations, although some exemption powers are provided.

2.7 Staff seek approval from the Council to commence consultation on the draft bylaw using the special consultative procedure (SCP), as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Draft Bylaw for Consultation - Navigation Safety report, RCN24-08-7; and

2. notes that the Tasman District Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2015 was not reviewed within the statutory timeframe and is revoked in accordance with section 160A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

3.1 agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw for navigation safety matters; and

3.2 notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

4. approves the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. approves the consultation approach (set out in section 10 of the agenda report) 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

6. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw; and

7. delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments to the Draft Bylaw, Statement of Proposal, or Summary of Information that may be agreed to at this Council meeting, and make any minor changes; and

8. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

8.3 Councillor _______________ (Chair)

8.4 Councillor _______________

8.5 Councillor _______________

8.6 Councillor _______________

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council.

9. agrees that the Chair of the Hearing Panel can appoint another member to the Panel, should one of the appointed members be unavailable.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Tasman District Council (“the Council”) has responsibilities for making our waters a safe and enjoyable place for everyone and this role extends out to the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea limit.

4.2 Section 33M of the Maritime Transport Act (MTA) 1994 enables a regional council to make navigation bylaws, in consultation with the Director of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), for the purpose of ensuring maritime safety in its region.

4.3 The Council’s 2015 Navigation Safety Bylaw was not reviewed within the required timeframe and is revoked. Some of the provisions it contained may now be unlawful under the 2017 MTA amendments.

4.4 Staff consider a new bylaw to be the most appropriate means of ensuring navigation safety in Tasman and setting out the rules for people using the lakes, rivers and seas in our district for all water activities.

4.5 The Mooring Area Bylaw provisions, approved by the Council last year but not yet in force, have been included in the draft bylaw. This enables the Council to consolidate all maritime safety provisions in one place, setting out the local rules and regulations in one document.

4.6 A navigation safety bylaw will complement the national rules and improve the Council’s regulatory and enforcement abilities. The bylaw will help the Council to manage actual and potential water safety issues and mitigate risk associated with vessels on the water. In developing the bylaw, we also considered any future emerging risks.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 In Tasman, we are fortunate to have an extensive 812km coastline and many inland rivers, lakes and beaches, often in remote areas. Our great climate and environment contribute to a significant increase in recreational water users over summer undertaking a variety of water activities, boating and sports.

5.2 There are 67 boat access locations along our coast, and we have high levels of commercial passenger traffic. The Tasman District has two ports, located at Motueka and Tarakohe.

Council Workshop

5.3 A range of local navigation safety issues were discussed at a Council workshop in May 2024 that could be addressed in a bylaw, including:

· Requirements or exemptions for wearing a lifejacket (personal floatation device).

· Easily identifying a vessel, and its owner or skipper.

· Long term anchoring.

· Risks from large vessel activity.

· The visibility of small, lone watercraft.

· Identifying and improving the regulation of jet skis (personal watercraft).

· Communication requirements for vessels.

· High traffic density in some areas of the coastline.

5.4 Staff have considered whether any of these problems could be resolved without using a bylaw, for example, through existing powers to deal with the matters like the Tasman Resource Management Plan (“TRMP”), educating the community, establishing new maritime facilities or where it might be the role of other agencies.

5.5 Staff advise that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the above issues, for the reasons set out in paragraph 0 below.

Early Engagement

5.6 There are a wide range of people and groups that are interested in what the Council might include in a navigation safety bylaw. It was important that these parties were aware of the bylaw project and that staff had an early understanding of any issues not yet identified.

5.7 Targeted early engagement activities were undertaken during June 2024 using the Shape Tasman platform. During the early engagement period, the Harbourmaster hosted an information session with approximately 45 local commercial vessel operators and other key stakeholders. Feedback was invited on how people might like to see the local navigation safety issues addressed by the new bylaw.

5.8 We received around 30 submissions from individuals and organisations. Some of the feedback was out of scope for this bylaw. The early engagement feedback and follow up conversations have helped staff prepare the draft bylaw.

5.9 A summary of the early engagement was provided to elected members in July 2024 and is available to the public on Shape Tasman.

Bylaw Content

5.10 Staff reviewed the now-revoked 2015 bylaw and considered whether any of the content needs to be included in the new, draft bylaw. The review determined:

· The old bylaw is now quite outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

· Some matters, such as biosecurity and environmental protection, are well covered by other legislation or considered out of scope of a navigation safety bylaw.

· Other matters, such as sound and light signal requirements for vessels, are set out in the MTA 1994 or the national Maritime Rules Part 91 (Navigation Safety) or Part 22 (Collision Prevention) and do not need to be repeated in a bylaw.

· Some provisions that are no longer relevant or appropriate to be included in the bylaw, including the licensing of commercial vessels and the occupation of the Māpua wharf and/or floating jetty.

· There is some content in the old bylaw that should be carried forward and/or updated for inclusion in the draft bylaw, including provisions covering the reserved areas, access lanes, restricted areas or prohibited activities, and speed uplifted areas.

5.11 A model navigation safety bylaw template has been developed and reviewed by other regional councils and the national Harbourmasters Forum (part of the Te Uru Kahika network) and is considered to reflect good practice. Other councils have used this template recently when reviewing and updating their navigation safety bylaws, including Environment Canterbury and Hawkes Bay Regional Council. This template is used as the basis for the preparing the draft bylaw.

5.12 The draft bylaw has a range of provisions due to:

· new developments in maritime legislation and navigation management thinking,

· development of new uses and technologies,

· opportunities to improve alignment across national regulations and safety campaigns, and

· ongoing issues identified by staff and community members.

5.13 Staff have focused on the key issues associated with the ongoing safety of the community on the water. The draft bylaw is proposed to help address these concerns and aims to improve the management of navigation safety in Tasman.

5.14 An explanation of the key issues identified, the options that were considered and the provisions proposed in the draft bylaw to address the issues are detailed in Attachment 3 and summarised in the table below:

Identified issue	Proposed bylaw provisions
Inconsistent use of lifejackets (personal floatation devices)	Requirement to wear a lifejacket on smaller vessels when underway and on larger vessels if instructed to do so by the person in charge of that vessel.
Unsuitable or no communication equipment on the vessel	Vessels must have appropriate equipment to communicate using two independent forms of communication at any time and be adequate for the duration of the voyage.
Difficulty identifying vessels and its owner and/or skipper	Vessels to display an identifying name, such as a Maritime NZ registration or boat trailer registration. Non-powered vessels and watercraft powered by paddles or oars must be marked with the current owner’s name and contact details.
Lone, small watercraft are not easily visible particularly when they are not close to the shore	Paddle craft used beyond 200m of the shore must be clearly visible to any other water users, for example by using high visibility personal floatation devices and equipment, flags or lights.
Commercial pressure and high-speed traffic density in some areas of the coastline	Vessel tracking: large vessels, commercial vessels over 18m in length and passenger vessels licenced to carry 12 or more passengers, as well as any passenger vessel operating during the hours of darkness or restricted visibility, must carry AIS and transmit an accurate signal when in Tasman waters.
Risks from large vessel activity	Harbourmaster permission is required before a large vessel can anchor in Tasman waters, except in an emergency. The vessel may be required to submit a passage plan before it is directed to an anchorage site.
Long term anchoring	The Harbourmaster may direct any vessel to not be left unmanned. No vessel can be secured to/on the beach or foreshore (unless it is a small vessel left for less than 48 hours) or left unattended at any landing place without permission.
Unknown risks from hot work activity	The Harbourmaster must be notified not less than two hours before commencing hot work operations.

5.15 A new navigation aid levy is also proposed for commercial vessels operating along the coastline and will be used for the replacement and maintenance of the seasonal floats.

5.16 Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council are reviewing their navigation safety bylaws and staff have worked collaboratively with their respective Harbourmasters on a range of provisions in the draft bylaw, particularly the rules for recreational water users, to aim for consistency across all three councils.

5.17 Staff have worked closely with MNZ throughout the process. The draft bylaw has been reviewed by the bylaw team at MNZ and their report is with its Chief Executive for sign-off.

5.18 The draft bylaw has also been reviewed by local maritime law specialists and changes have been made based on their advice.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	Maritime safety matters can be better regulated and enforced by the Council. Public opinion is better understood through a consultation process.	No material disadvantages identified.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Mayor and the Chief Executive).	Significant changes would require external legal review to confirm the legality of the changes and possible further consultation with the Director of MNZ.
	The Council does not approve the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	No material advantages identified.	The Council will continue to rely on general enforcement powers under the MTA 1994.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 33M of the MTA 1994 allows the Council to make a bylaw for the purpose of ensuring maritime safety in the district.

7.2 Section 158(1) of the LGA 2002 requires a bylaw made under the MTA 1994 to be reviewed no later than five years after the date on which the bylaw was made. The Council’s 2015 Navigation Safety Bylaw was not reviewed within this timeframe and is consequently revoked. There is currently no navigation safety bylaw in force for the Tasman District.

7.3 The MTA 1994 states that a navigation bylaw must be made in consultation with the Director of MNZ. In practice, this means MNZ review the draft bylaw and provide feedback, usually before public consultation. MZN also have the final “sign off,” although cannot change the bylaw content once it has been approved by the Council.

7.4 An early draft of the bylaw was provided to the bylaw team at MNZ on 27 June 2024 and an updated draft sent to them on 9 July 2024. A report with its feedback on the draft bylaw was received late on 24 July 2024. Staff intend to seek further legal advice on this report, before making any changes to the bylaw.

7.5 Once adopted, the associated Maritime Transport Regulations 2016 will need to be updated via an Order in Council to refer to the new bylaw and specify which breaches of the bylaw are infringement offences and prescribe the associated infringement fines. These regulations are administered by the Ministry of Transport.

Determination on Whether the Bylaw is Appropriate

7.6 Section 155(1) of the LGA 2002 requires the Council to determine whether a bylaw made under the MTA 1994 is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem. Section 155(2)(b) requires the Council to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZ BORA) 1990.

Is the proposed bylaw the appropriate means of addressing the perceived problem?

7.7 Staff have considered the options for ensuring navigation safety in the Tasman District:

Options considered	Reason for rejection or acceptance
No bylaw and transfer jurisdiction to Maritime New Zealand REJECTED	Having no bylaw means that the Council has no regulatory mandate (other than those relating to the Harbourmaster granted under the Maritime Transport Act 1994) to enforce appropriate behaviour and ensure navigation safety on Tasman waters.
	Without a bylaw, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities revert to Maritime New Zealand which may not have local capacity to adequately manage risks to navigation safety in Tasman’s waters.
No bylaw and include rules in the Tasman Resource Management Plan REJECTED	This is an alternative regulatory tool provided through the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA does not include provisions that address maritime safety or navigation as these are more appropriately addressed under the MTA 1994 and other legislation.
	Regulating maritime issues under the RMA is therefore inappropriate and not considered a suitable option.
The Council maintains a bylaw for navigation safety matters in the Tasman District in accordance with the LGA ACCEPTED	A bylaw enables the Council to remain aware of and directly involved in matters of local significance.
	A bylaw provides a clear framework for managing navigation safety issues in the district in accordance with the LGA 2002.
	It is common practice throughout New Zealand for councils to have a navigation safety bylaw and this is consistent with the Council’s responsibilities to manage maritime safety risks in Tasman.

Is the proposed bylaw the most appropriate form of bylaw?

7.8 Under section 155(2)(a) of the LGA 2002, the Council must determine whether the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw is in the most appropriate form (for example, a standalone bylaw, amendment to existing document, or consolidation with other bylaws).

7.9 Staff have engaged both internally and externally on the intent and wording of this bylaw. An early draft of the bylaw was reviewed by the Nelson, Marlborough and Canterbury Harbourmasters and their feedback helped staff refine the draft bylaw.

7.10 External review of the content and legality of the draft bylaw was provided by maritime law specialists, Dawson and Associates, and changes were made based on their advice.

7.11 The MTA 1994 requires the Director of MNZ to be consulted when making a bylaw on maritime safety matters. The draft bylaw is currently with MNZ and a report outlining its feedback is expected in due course.

7.12 Staff are confident the draft bylaw is in the most appropriate form as it:

· Holds all the relevant regulations in one place and is easily accessible.

· Is targeted and focusses only on navigation safety.

· Ensures the bylaw and the matters being addressed cannot be confused with others.

· Becomes a repository for all the legal matters associated with navigation safety in the Tasman District.

· Has been prepared with input from various stakeholders, including commercial vessel operators and the public, ensuring it reflects the community’s needs and concerns.

Is the proposed bylaw consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

7.13 Under section 155(3) of the LGA, the Council must determine that the draft bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This Act protects the civil and political rights of all New Zealanders. Staff considered the following sections of the Bill of Rights Act as the most common sections that can have implications for bylaw creation:

· s14 – Freedom of expression.

· s16 – Freedom of peaceful assembly.

· s17 – Freedom of association.

· s18 – Freedom of movement.

· s27 – Right to justice.

7.14 The Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw as proposed here regulates a range of activities on Tasman waters and could restrict a person’s freedom of movement. These requirements, considering the interests of ensuring maritime safety, present a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified.

7.15 Staff advice is that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications or inconsistencies under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and are reasonable and justifiable means to address the identified problems related to navigation safety in the Tasman District.

Consultation Requirements

7.16 Section 156 of the LGA 2002 sets out the consultation requirements when making a new bylaw:

156 (1) When making a bylaw under this Act or amending or revoking a bylaw made under this Act, a local authority must—

(a) use the special consultative procedure (as modified by section 86) if—

(i) the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the local authority’s policy under section 76AA as being of significant interest to the public; or

(ii) the local authority considers that there is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw or changes to, or revocation of, the bylaw; and

(b) in any case in which paragraph (a) does not apply, consult in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82.

7.17 Staff seek approval from the Council to commence consultation with the public on the draft bylaw under the SCP.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have been notified about the bylaw review through the Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission during the consultation period. Iwi who have indicated that they would like to be involved will be sent a further email along with other stakeholders to invite them to make a submission.

8.2 Staff met with a representative from Ngāti Tama during the early engagement period and discussed their concerns about environmental damage caused by larger vessels/anchoring and discharges from vessels into the waters.

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 Navigation Safety Bylaw.

9.2 Section 156 of the LGA 2002 requires a council to use the SCP for consultation when making a new bylaw if it concerns matters that are of significant interest to the public, or there is likely to be a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw.

9.3 Staff consider that there may be moderate interest in the draft bylaw from the public, although unlikely to require dramatic changes in behaviour from most of the community. The draft bylaw may be of significant interest to some members of the community, such as commercial vessel operators and recreational boaties, water sports groups and personal watercraft users.

9.4 It is planned to use the SCP in accordance with Section 83 of the LGA 2002 for public consultation on the draft bylaw.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	The decision to consult is of low significant, but the bylaw may attract significance interest from the community. The creation of a bylaw is a significant action for the Council.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	The creation of the bylaw is intended to improve maritime safety, which will have a positive effect on the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The LGA 2002 requires this bylaw to be reviewed within five years.
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?	Low	This proposal expands the Council’s current enforcement activities.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low
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?	No	Consideration of TMOTW obligations is not within the scope of a navigation safety bylaw, as set out in section 33M of the MTA 1994.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The consultation period for the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw is proposed to be Friday
1 August 2024 to Sunday 1 September 2024.

10.2 Early engagement contacts and stakeholders that have been identified as having a specific interest in the content of this bylaw will receive an email notifying them when consultation begins and encouraging them to make a submission. Iwi will be notified through the iwi engagement portal.

10.3 The public will be informed about the consultation through Newsline with a brief article explaining how to make a submission. An introductory article was published in Newsline on 12 July 2024, outlining the key water safety issues to be addressed in the bylaw and pointing people to Shape Tasman to stay up to date.

10.4 The Harbourmaster intends to meet with local boat and yacht clubs and any other interested groups during the consultation period to present the draft bylaw and invite them to make a submission, either as an organisation or individuals.

10.5 The Statement of Proposal (including the draft bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council service centres and public libraries in Tasman throughout the consultation period.

10.6 Background information and a link to the submission’s portal will be available through Shape Tasman and the statement of proposal and summary of information also available here for downloading.

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

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

11.1 Consultation on this draft bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council and is funded from the existing Environmental Assurance budgets.

11.2 The draft bylaw proposes a range of maritime fees and charges, including a navigational aid levy. These fees have been set at a level that covers the cost of the Council administering the bylaw.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Not approving the draft bylaw will mean that the Council will continue to rely on general enforcement powers under the MTA 1994, public education, or the TRMP to manage navigation safety in the Tasman District. This is a risk that the Council is currently facing, as the previous 2015 Navigation Safety Bylaw was not reviewed within the required timeframe and is revoked.

12.2 If adopted, the new bylaw would be reviewed within five years. This will help ensure that the maritime safety provisions remain fit for purpose in a changing environment.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft policy is unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft bylaw neither aligns or detracts from the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 The scope of what a local navigation safety bylaw can and cannot do is set out in section 33M of the MTA 1994.

14.2 The mooring area provisions in the draft bylaw will allow TRMP Plan Change 72 to become fully effective and provide the Council with a consistent approach to managing moorings in the district.

14.3 Staff request that the Council appoint a Hearings and Deliberations Panel who will make a recommendation to the Council on the adoption of a navigation safety bylaw, under section 33M of the MTA 1994.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Draft Navigation Safety Bylaw aims to provide the Council with further regulatory authority over navigation safety matters for water users in or on the waterways or coastlines in the Tasman District.

15.2 Staff consider the draft bylaw to be the most effective method for supporting the safety of people on our waters, offering a structured approach to local navigation safety rules and improving the Council’s regulatory and enforcement abilities.

15.3 The bylaw is a new bylaw and, once adopted, will be reviewed within five years.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Public consultation will run from 1 August 2024 to 1 September 2024. Once consultation has closed, submissions will be heard by the appointed panel on 11 and 18 September 2024. The Panel will consider all submissions received and deliberate on any amendments to the draft bylaw as a result.

16.2 The recommendations of the Panel will be received and considered by the Council in October 2024 and decisions made on the adoption of a Navigation Safety Bylaw.

16.3 If the bylaw is approved for adoption, a public notice will be issued in Newsline and on the Council’s website that the bylaw has been adopted. A copy of the bylaw will also be provided to the Director of MNZ.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal - Navigation Safety Bylaw	181
2.⇩	Summary of Information - Navigation Safety Bylaw	269
3.⇩	Issues, Options and Draft Provision Rationale - Navigation Safety Bylaw	271

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.6 Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor; Shannon Green, Regulatory Support Officer; Matt Moss, Ecologist
Report Authorisers:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Number:	RRC24-08-9

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Council to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw
(Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

1.2 A change log (Attachment 3) is attached for information only, detailing the changes to regulations in different locations and the rationale behind the changes.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff seek the Council’s approval to consult on both the Draft Dog Control Policy and the Draft Dog Control Bylaw.

2.2 The Council is required to have a Dog Control Policy which is adopted under a special consultative procedure. The policy must contain content as set out in Section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2.3 The policy sets out objectives (community expectations), along with policies and methods (actions to achieve the objectives). This includes the following sections:

2.3.1 Identify the owner of every dog.

2.3.2 Make provision for dog access to public places.

2.3.3 Educate dog owners and the community about dog management.

2.3.4 Set fees and charges to provide adequate funding for managing dog control.

2.3.5 Enforce dog owner obligations.

2.3.6 Gather information to assess the effectiveness and fairness of our dog control policy.

2.3.7 National parks and other Department of Conservation administered lands.

2.4 Any Dog Control Bylaw must be consistent with the Dog Control Policy made under Section 10 of the Dog Control Act. The Draft Dog Control Bylaw proposes changes which also need to be reflected in the Dog Control Policy.

2.5 Staff propose that the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw are combined in a single document. This will avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure consistency between the policy and bylaw.

2.6 There is no legislative timeframe that the Dog Control Policy needs to be reviewed within, however, staff consider it best practice to review both the policy and the bylaw concurrently.

2.7 The Dog Control Bylaw provides the Council with the regulatory authority to exercise control over several issues regarding the keeping and exercise of dogs.

2.8 The Dog Control Bylaw has been reviewed as part of a regular review cycle.

2.9 The draft bylaw sets out regulations and enforcement pathways for the following areas:

2.9.1 Control of dogs in public places.

2.9.2 Leash control areas and leash control operations.

2.9.3 Controlled dog exercise areas.

2.9.4 Dog prohibited areas.

2.9.5 Kennel license to keep multiple dogs.

2.9.6 Infected dogs.

2.9.7 Removal of faeces.

2.9.8 Welfare of dogs on private or public property.

2.9.9 Dogs on vehicles.

2.9.10 Causing dogs to become unmanageable.

2.9.11 Release from the pound.

2.9.12 Enforcement.

2.10 The draft bylaw continues to allow both infringement and prosecution pathways to enforcement.

2.11 A cross-Council approach has been taken with the review, including input from Compliance, Biodiversity, and Reserves staff. Further consideration of the effects of dogs on wildlife has been made and particularly sensitive areas have been prioritised.

2.12 At the same time, other locations that are suitable for dog exercise have been introduced to the bylaw.

2.13 Tasman’s Great Taste Trail Bylaw has lapsed, with the intent that parts of it would be incorporated into other relevant bylaws. Provision for dogs along Tasman’s Great Taste Trail has been included in the draft bylaw, with different requirements at different parts of the trail.

2.14 Staff recommend appointing the same Hearings and Deliberations Panel as that of the Draft Cat Management Bylaw. These bylaws are likely to have a crossover of interested parties who may wish to speak to both submissions. Having the same hearings panel will enable submitters to speak to both subjects at the same time rather than attending two separate hearings.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw report RRC24-08-9; and

2. in accordance with Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a. agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw for dog management; and

b. notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

4. approves the consultation approach (set out in section 10 of the agenda report) and agrees:

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. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw as per Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

6. delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to make any amendments to the Draft Bylaw, Statement of Proposal, or Summary of Information that may be agreed to at the Council meeting, and make any minor changes; and

6. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

Councillor Hill (Chair)

Councillor Maru

Councillor McKenzie

Councillor Ellis

Councillor Bryant

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council;

7. agrees that the Chair of the Hearing Panel has the ability to appoint another member to the panel, should one of the appointed members be unavailable.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Dog Control Bylaw was last amended in 2020, although this focused on provisions for the Golden Bay area.

4.2 The draft bylaw is scheduled to be adopted in November 2024. This means it will fall just outside the designated review period. Bylaws have a two year ‘grace period’ for which they are still valid and can be enforced. However, the bylaw adopted in November 2024 will be considered a new bylaw. As such, the Council will be required to review it within five years.

4.3 As several changes to zoning are proposed, staff consider it best practice to review the new bylaw within five years regardless of the legal requirement to do so.

4.4 The need to review the Dog Control Bylaw was raised with elected members at a workshop in October 2023, and draft content was subsequently workshopped in May 2024 alongside early engagement results.

4.5 The Draft Dog Control Policy is being reviewed in conjunction with the Draft Dog Control Bylaw, with the intent that these two documents will be combined when adopted. We sought and received confirmation that this approach is legally sound.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Early Engagement

5.1 Early engagement was carried out in November/December 2023, using the Shape Tasman platform. This was advertised through Newsline and social media.

5.2 Stakeholders such as the Department of Conservation, Forest & Bird, local veterinarians and dog interest groups were notified of the early engagement and encouraged to participate.

5.3 Over 500 people contributed to the social map as part of the early engagement and over 200 offered free text feedback on a range of issues relating to dogs. This feedback was taken into consideration during the drafting process.

Policy Content

5.4 The policy content has been updated to reflect that it will be included in the same document as the bylaw.

5.5 Points of duplication (such as the interpretations section and designated areas for leash control, controlled exercise, seasonal and/or time restriction and prohibition) will now refer to the appropriate clause within the bylaw.

5.6 Aspects of the policy that reflect operational practice such as setting fees and maintaining a register of dogs have been checked to ensure they reflect current practice.

Bylaw Content

5.7 There have been some changes made to Part A of the bylaw. This includes a section on the purpose of the bylaw. Including a purpose in a bylaw is best practice because it clarifies the bylaw's intent, guiding interpretation and application, and ensuring that all stakeholders understand its objectives and scope.

5.8 A ‘Scope of Maps’ section has now been included. The coverage of beaches, foreshores, estuaries and mudflats now have an inclusive interpretation to avoid an ambiguity or dispute caused by mapping which may not exactly cover the desired area.

5.9 Dog rangers have the authority to enforce the Dog Control Act. To avoid redundancy, provisions in the bylaw that duplicate the content of the Dog Control Act have been removed in the draft. The Dog Control Act already empowers rangers to enforce its provisions, making repetition in the bylaw unnecessary.

5.10 The current bylaw includes a definition of "effective control." This definition should be removed, and the bylaw should refer to "control" instead. There is no corresponding definition of "effective control" in the Dog Control Act. However, control is implied through various sections of the act and supported by case law, ensuring clarity and consistency.

5.11 The current bylaw includes a section on the seizure of dogs. This section has been removed in the draft. The Dog Control Act provides comprehensive guidelines for the seizure of dogs, making similar provisions in the bylaw redundant and unnecessary.

5.12 The current bylaw addresses the issue of dogs left in vehicles. This section should be removed. This issue is more appropriately managed under the Animal Welfare Act. Including it in the bylaw could create conflicts with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act, potentially rendering it ultra vires.

5.13 The current bylaw has a section addressing dogs that become a nuisance or injurious to health. This section has been removed in the draft. Elements of this section may conflict with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act. The enforceable parts are already covered by the Dog Control Act and do not need to be duplicated in the bylaw.

5.14 The current bylaw includes a section on the burial of dead dogs. This section has been removed in the draft. It is considered unnecessary, does not align with the purpose of the bylaw, and may conflict with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act.

5.15 Part B of the bylaw contains five schedules which detail which areas are designated as leash control areas, controlled exercise areas, seasonal or time restricted areas, dogs prohibited areas and Tasman’s Great Taste Trail.

5.16 Several of the locations within Part B have either had their boundaries adjusted or zoning changed. The details of these changes can be found in the attached change log, along with the rationale behind what is proposed.

5.17 The draft bylaw now sets out enforcement measures (offences and penalties) in Part C.

Consultation

5.18 In the online submission form available through Shape Tasman, submitters will be asked how much they agree with the proposed plans in each ward. They will also be asked their preference of alternative options being considered in Tata Beach, Ligar Bay Beach and Little Kaiteriteri. This information is available in the Statement of Proposal.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	The Council continues to be able to enforce dog control measures. The policy and bylaw will be aligned. The bylaw progresses to the next stage and will be on track for anticipated time frames for adoption.	No material disadvantages identified.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer).	Changes to fundamental principles would require legal review to confirm legality of changes. Significant changes could disrupt anticipated timeframes.
3.	The Council does not approve the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.		The Council will only be able to enforce the bylaw until September 2026, at which point it will be revoked.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 10 of the Dog Control Act requires the Council to adopt a policy on dogs in accordance with a Special Consultative Procedure. The Council must give effect to the policy adopted under Section 10 by making the necessary bylaws under Section 20, which must come into force not later than 60 days after the policy is adopted. This will be achieved through a concurrent consultation and adoption timeframe.

7.2 The Council cannot make a bylaw that is inconsistent with the policy. It is proposed that the two documents are combined so that points of duplication or inconsistency can be avoided. The draft policy will refer to clauses within the bylaw as opposed to repeating them and risking a conflict.

7.3 Section 20 of the Dog Control Act allows the Council to make bylaws to regulate the following purposes:

a. prohibiting dogs, whether under control or not, from specified public places;

b. requiring dogs, other than working dogs, to be controlled on a leash in specified public places, or in public places in specified areas or parts of the district;

c. regulating and controlling dogs in any other public place;

d. designating specified areas as dog exercise areas;

e. prescribing minimum standards for the accommodation of dogs;

f. limiting the number of dogs that may be kept on any land or premises;

g. requiring dogs in its district to be tied up or otherwise confined during a specified period commencing not earlier than half an hour after sunset, and ending not later than half an hour before sunrise;

h. requiring the owner of any dog that defecates in a public place or on land or premises other than that occupied by the owner to immediately remove the faeces;

i. requiring any bitch to be confined but adequately exercised while in season;

j. providing for the impounding of dogs, whether or not they are wearing a collar having the proper label or disc attached, that are found at large in breach of any bylaw made by the territorial authority under this or any other Act;

k. requiring the owner of any dog (being a dog that, on a number of occasions, has not been kept under control) to cause that dog to be neutered (whether or not the owner of the dog has been convicted of an offence against section 53);

l. any other purpose that from time to time is, in the opinion of the territorial authority, necessary or desirable to further the control of dogs.

7.4 The draft bylaw has been prepared with input from various stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and the public, ensuring it reflects the community's needs and concerns.

7.5 There are no implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Draft Dog Control Bylaw does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of movement, expression or association, and does not isolate any particular social group in terms of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The requirements are reasonable and justifiable measures to address issues related to dog control in the Tasman District.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have been notified about the bylaw review through Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission during the consultation period. Iwi who indicated that they would like to be involved will be sent a further email along with other stakeholders to invite them to make a submission.

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

9.1 Staff consider that the level of significance for the draft policy and draft bylaw will be of moderate to high interest to the public. It will have a higher level of significance for people who own dogs and environmental advocates.

9.2 It is planned to undertake a special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The early engagement attracted a significant number of responses from the community. There are some highly contested areas where community division on the best way to proceed has been identified.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	It impacts community safety, responsible pet ownership, and environmental cleanliness, all of which are important but not critical issues.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	The policy and bylaw will be in place until the next review within five (5) years.
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	Dog control activities are entirely covered by registration fees and infringements issued under the Dog Control Act.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the terms of the bylaw have been identified and will receive an email notifying them of the consultation and encouraging them to make a submission.

10.2 In accordance with Section 10 (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996, registered dog owners will be notified of the draft policy and bylaw and the consultation process.

10.3 The public will be notified about the consultation through Newsline. This will include a brief article outlining the key issues and instructions on how to make a submission.

10.4 The Statement of Proposal (including the draft policy and bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council offices and libraries throughout the consultation period.

10.5 Background information and a link to the submission portal will be available through Shape Tasman.

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

11.1 The draft policy and bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council. Dog regulation is entirely funded by dog registration fees and infringements issued under the Dog Control Act. Several signs around the district need to be replaced which incurs an expense. It is planned that this will be covered by the Animal Control budget.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Failing to progress with the bylaw review will delay the process and potentially risk a lapsed bylaw that is not enforceable. This is considered a low risk as the bylaw would not officially lapse until the end of the two-year grace period, which starts in September 2024.

12.2 The timeline has the bylaw being adopted in late November 2024. This means it will be treated as a new bylaw and as such will need to be reviewed within five years.

12.3 Given that a significant number of changes are proposed, staff consider that a review within five years would be best practice, regardless of the legal requirement to do so.

12.4 The Dog Control Bylaw must be consistent with the Dog Control Policy. This has been addressed by combining the policy and bylaw in one document to ensure that any changes consider both aspects. Rather than duplicating content, which increases the risk of inconsistency when changes are made, the policy now refers to the appropriate clause within the bylaw.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft policy and bylaw are unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft policy and bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft policy and bylaw neither aligns or detracts from the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 The draft policy and bylaw has taken relevant reserve management plans into consideration, including the proposal to prohibit dogs from reserves bordering the Waimea Inlet. This is a result of Policy 6 in Section 5.1 of the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan.

14.2 The draft policy and bylaw are designed to work in conjunction with the Council’s enforcement policy, emphasising an education-first approach for instances of non-compliance that are not serious.

14.3 Staff request that the Council appoints a hearings and deliberations panel that will make a recommendation to the Council to adopt the final bylaw.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw have been combined in a single document to ensure consistency.

15.2 The Draft Dog Control Bylaw aims to provide the Council with the authority to regulate and control the ownership, behaviour, and welfare of dogs within the Tasman District. The Draft Dog Control Bylaw has taken concerns around wildlife protection into consideration, while also providing additional spaces for controlled exercise.

15.3 The bylaw will be considered a new bylaw, and as such, both the policy and bylaw will be reviewed within five years.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Date	Process
1 August 2024	The Council adopts the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, and the Summary of Information for consultation
7 August – 8 September 2024	Formal Consultation
23 – 25 September 2024	Hearings
16 October 2024	Deliberations
28 November 2024	Final Dog Control Policy and Bylaw presented to the Council for approval and adoption
13 December 2024	Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s website advising that the policy and bylaw have been adopted

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal including Dog Control Policy and Bylaw	285
2.⇩	Summary of Information - Dog Control Bylaw	410
3.⇩	Dog Control Change Log	414

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.7 Mayors for Peace Internship

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Yulia Panfylova, Community Partnerships Coordinator
Report Authorisers:	John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-08-10

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 Mayors for Peace, established in 1991, aims to achieve global peace and address pressing issues like nuclear disarmament, poverty, and human rights abuses. Tasman District Council joined the Mayors for Peace organisation in 2021.

1.2 During a fully funded two-week internship I participated in seminars, visited memorials, and presented on Tasman peace initiatives. The internship highlighted Hiroshima's recovery from the atomic bombing and promoted initiatives like the "Peaceful Towns Art Competition" and the "Survivor Trees" programme. Future plans include expanding peace education and hosting events featuring Hibakusha, with continued support from the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and local councils.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1 receives the Mayors for Peace Internship report,
RCN24-08-10.

3. Background

3.1 Mayors for Peace was formally established in 1991 and has grown into a network of 8403 cities in 166 countries.

3.2 The purpose of the Network is to “contribute to the attainment of lasting world peace by arousing concern among citizens of the world for the total abolition of nuclear weapons through close solidarity among member cities as well as by striving to solve vital problems for the human race such as starvation and poverty, the plight of refugees, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation.”

3.3 Tasman District Council joined the Network in 2021. Since then, we have been actively participating in one of their initiatives called “Peaceful Towns Art Competition.”

4. Purpose of the 2-week Internship

4.1 The Mayors for Peace Network is coordinated by the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation (HPCF). Every year HPCF invites two representatives from their member cities to undertake an internship. Its primary purpose is to educate interns about the atomic bombings and encourage the implementation of peace initiatives in their home cities.

4.2 The programme is fully funded by HPCF.

4.3 My internship started on 18 June and finished on 3 July 2024. I worked in the HPCF office with another intern from Bosnia. We attended seminars and presentations, visited museums, schools and memorials, and had several meetings with officials.

4.4 I delivered three presentations about Tasman District Council and our peace initiatives. Two of the presentations were aimed at the office staff of HPCF and one presentation at high school children. My presentations included (among other things) a video from Mayor Tim King and a video of the Council’s Waiata Group.

5. Content of the internship

5.1 The programme was packed with visits and meetings. During the first week we studied the devastating impacts of the nuclear bomb, while during the second week we learned about Hiroshima’s resurrection and peace projects.

5.2 Below are some key facts about the tragedy.

The first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on April 5, 1945, at 8:15 am. The bomb exploded 600 metres above the ground over the hospital – this location is referred to as the hypocentre.

Nearly all people within the radius of 1.2 km died immediately. By the end of 1945 approximately 140,000 people had died.

5.3 What caused such devastation?

· Heat Rays. The surface temperature was raised to 3,000-4,000 degrees Celsius. To compare, the temperature that is required to melt steel is 1,200 Celsius.

· Intense Firestorm. The heat ignited fires within 2 kilometres of the hypocentre. Countless people trapped under collapsed buildings were burnt alive.

· Blast Wind generated by high pressure of several hundred thousand atmospheres destroyed all wooden structures and buildings within 2 kilometres of the hypocentre.

· Radiation. People within 1 kilometre received a lethal dose of radiation. Those who survived the initial dose later died from cancer. Those who came to Hiroshima to help several days later, were exposed to radiation and many of them died as a result.

5.4 Why was the a-bomb dropped?

· To test the weapon.

· To reduce the number of American victims of the war.

· To get ahead of Russia and show the US supremacy.  

· To justify the funding spend on development of the a-bomb. 

5.5 Just several days later Hiroshima started to rebuild. The city train was launched three days after the bombing to transport injured. Survivors saw the train as a symbol of hope and continuity amid the devastation.

5.6 Unfortunately, a month later a typhoon hit, followed by flooding, bringing more destruction.

Survivors – Hibakusha

5.7 Despite the devastating impact of the a-bomb, some people survived. In Japan, these people are known as Hibakusha. Most of the Hibakusha are now in their 80s. Some of them don’t like sharing their experience even with their relatives, because of how painful it is. But others dedicated their lives to peace promotion.

5.8 During the internship, I met with Hibakusha Keiko Ogura. She was eight years old when the bomb was dropped. Keiko is one of few Hibakusha who speaks English and travels the world to promote peace. She met with the grandson of Jacob Beser, a crew member on the planes that dropped both a-bombs and with the grandson of Oppenheimer.

5.9 Keiko didn’t hold the anger towards those people, she only wanted them to understand the consequences of the atomic bombing.

5.10 The number of hibakusha is rapidly declining. To make sure that their stories survive through time, the Family Member Legacy Successor programme was established. This programme supports the members of the hibakusha’s family to inherit and convey their experiences.

Survivor Trees

5.11 There are 159 trees that survived the bombing in the 2 kilometre radius from the hypocentre. When those trees grew new leaves, they gave Hiroshima people hope and the courage to live. The Culture Peace Foundation collects the seeds of a-bomb trees and distributes them to member cities, with the purpose of raising peace consciousness.

5.12 Among the survivors are Ginkgo, Japanese Hackberry, Persimmon, Camphor and even a Eucalyptus.

Meetings with officials

5.13 I had meetings with the Mayor of Hiroshima Matsui, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation’s Chairperson Mr Kagawa and Deputy Chair Mr Tani.

5.14 All meetings were very formal. The meeting with the Mayor required wearing a suit despite the heat outside and inside the office. I presented Mayor Matsui with a pounamu as a gift from Mayor Tim King. The pounamu was blessed by Matua Harvey Ruru. Mr Matsui accepted the gift with appreciation.

5.15 During the meetings all officials encouraged us to get actively involved in the existing peace initiatives such as Peaceful Towns Art Competition, Survivor Trees, to hold Mayors for Peace Atomic bomb poster Exhibition and to participate in peace Education Webinars.

6. Promoting Peace initiatives in Tasman District

6.1 We will continue running the annual Peaceful Towns Art Competition. This year we are promoting it not only to schools but to church groups, scouts and other youth groups. Art workshops that we organise prior to the competition have been popular. They support kids in learning about peace and developing art ideas.

6.2 The only issue we face is that most of the contestants are girls. This has also been noticed by HPCF in other cities. During the internship we brainstormed several ideas that would attract boys, e.g. Ci-Fi flash fiction completion. This year's competition has already started but we could try implementing new ideas next year.

6.3 We are preparing an event for the International Day of Peace around 21 September 2024. HPCF is supporting us in organising one of the Hibakusha to share their experience with the Tasman community. The event will happen in the library with Hibakusha zooming in on-line.

6.4 I will be working with our Mayors for Peace executive city, Wellington, to bring some seeds of the survivor trees, however due to strict biosecurity rules this may take some time.

6.5 Dedicated to the 80th anniversary of World War II next year, we are considering organising a Mayors for Peace Atomic Bomb Poster Exhibition in the libraries and the Council’s main office foyer.

7. Thanks

7.1 People who work in the Mayors for Peace division became not only our colleagues but also our friends. They spent lunchtimes with us, educating us about Japanese traditions and culture. They also supported us after work and on weekends showing us around and taking us to interesting places. I would have been lost without their support.

7.2 I would like to thank Tasman District Council for letting me participate in this project and the Mayor and Councillors who selected me to represent the Tasman District.

7.3 And a special thank you to Robyn Scherer for supporting me on this journey and believing in me.

8. Photos

Figure 1 In the meeting room listening to the presentation about the Hiroshima Peace Initiatives

Figure 2 Giving presentation about Tasman District Council and our Peace initiatives

Figure 3 With Harun Pasic (the intern from Bosnia) in front of the Peace Memorial Park

Figure 4 Presenting the pounamu to Mayor Matsui

Figure 5 Listening to the Memoir reading by Peace volunteers

Figure 6 In front of the school building that survived the bombing

Figure 7 The iconic A-Bomb dome during the Peace Memorial Park tour

Figure 8 A-bomb Eucalyptus, 700 meters from the hypocenter

Figure 9 After the Funairi High School presentation

Figure 10 In the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation Office

9. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 01 August 2024

7.9 Chief Executive's Update

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	1 August 2024
Report Author:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-08-12

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 20 June 2024.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Chief Executive's Update report RCN24-08-12;

3. Staff Values Awards

3.1 The biannual staff values awards took place on 4 July 2024, marking one of the pivotal events we organise bi-annually. We acknowledged over 70 nominees, with the Executive Leadership Team and the Mayor revealing the awardees and the runners up. I spoke on the significance of such accolades in fostering an outstanding work environment and, considering the high quality of the nominations, how hard it can be for the leadership team to select the winners. It is inspiring to learn of the exceptional work, and goodwill that may often go unnoticed.

4. Farewell to Mark Wheeler

4.1 I attended the poroaki for Mark Wheeler on 25 July 2024 at the ASB Theatre in Blenheim. Mark has been the Chief Executive at Marlborough District Council since 2015. His experience and personal qualities have been instrumental in being a very effective and respected Chief Executive. He has been a great supporter of Tasman District Council.

4.2 Mark will retire to spend more time with his family. I wish him a long and enjoyable retirement.

5. Long Term Plan (LTP)

5.1 The LTP was adopted on 27 June 2024. I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff and elected members for the time they invested into the process.

5.2 As we near the end of the first month of the 2024- 2034 LTP, there is a focus on managing a tight budget. The finance team are working very closely with budget holders to provide reporting and insights.

5.3 The organisation will continue with its operations and achieve the service provision outlined in the Long-Term Plan (LTP), committing to our purpose of providing "public value."

6. Legal and Democracy Services Update

LGOIMA Statistics

6.1 I have asked the Legal and Democracy Services team to add to our website the number of LGOIMAs that the Council has received each month.

6.2 This can be found here - LGOIMAs and information of public interest | Tasman District Council.

6.3 As at 22 July 2024 the Council has received 432 LGOIMA requests. This is significantly more than the 512 received in total for 2023 and 295 in total for 2022.

Case update Reith & Ealing – Sentencing Result

6.4 On 16 July 2024 Hamish Reith and Ealing Farms Ltd were sentenced for clearing just under 10 hectares of indigenous forest at two locations in Maruia Valley resulting in one of the highest fines ever imposed for this type of offending. Judge Dwyer said that it was a “serious failure” of the defendants to fail to check the TRMP provisions and that their “culpability was high accordingly”.

6.5 The Court imposed significant fines on the defendants – after deductions were agreed (25% for early guilty plea, 5% for good character) the total fines imposed was $98,000. In addition, Council’s costs for its ecologist report from (approximately $1535) will also be imposed.

6.6 The Court made a direction under s 342 of the Resource Management Act that 90% of the fine is to be paid to Council.

6.7 There is also an enforcement order which protects further clearance and sets requirements around fencing and ecological reports and improvements.

7. Te Kahui Hononga Team Update

Motueka Wastewater Treatment Plant

7.1 On 10 July 2024 we saw the re-start for the Motueka Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group, the importance of this kaupapa was acknowledged with a pōwhiri at Te Āwhina Marae.

7.2 The Working Group are aiming to meet bi-monthly and will be starting by establishing and confirming the membership and begin planning for this major infrastructure project, with a strong partnership in place.

Representation Review

7.3 We continue to wait to hear responses from our iwi partners on what is their preferred pathway with the proposed legislative changes from central government regarding Māori wards – to rescind or continue with the binding poll for a Māori ward for the 2028 and 2031 elections.

7.4 A National Iwi Chairs forum is being held on 1-2 August 2024 so our Kaihautū will be able to provide updates in relation to outcomes or decisions from this space.

Regional Intersectoral Forum (RIF)

7.5 Work has begun at the Regional Intersectoral Forum on a collective training framework, starting with pulling together existing frameworks and training offerings across councils and government agencies.

7.6 A review of existing resources will take place before trying to create a bespoke training framework and course content for use across Te Tauihu to build internal capabilities within councils and government.

8. Human Resource Statistics and Recruitment

8.1 The annual human resources statistics for the year ending June 2024 are shown in Attachment 9.1. The headcount is 437 (Full Time Equivalent 407) and this has increased from last year’s head count of 426 (Full Time Equivalent 405). A list of the new positions is included in the attachment.

8.2 The current filled FTE roles as of 1 July is 386, against a budget of 421, which means we have a variance of 35 FTE. We are implementing a recruitment plan to ensure we stay within the end of year salary budget.

8.3 Our annual staff turnover was 8.3% and the national average turnover (sourced from Lawson Williams NZ Turnover Survey released April 2024) for 2023 was 21.4%.

8.4 Recruitment continues to remain steady, and we are currently at various stages of recruiting for 12 vacancies which are a mix of existing and new positions. Since my last update over 30 appointments have been made with two of these being internal promotions which then resulted in another vacancy needing to be filled.

9. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

June 2024 Human Resources Statistics Appendix

435

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