Agenda of Council - 15 November 2016

Council

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Fullwood Room, Dunedin Centre, Harrop Street, Dunedin on Tuesday 25 October 2016, commencing at 1.05 pm

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Mayor	Cr Chris Staynes
Members	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Rachel Elder
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Damian Newell
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Cr Conrad Stedman
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Simon Pickford (General Manager Community Services), Sandy Graham (General Manager Strategy and Governance), Gavin Logie (Acting Group Chief Financial Officer), Graham McKerracher (Manager, Council Communications and Marketing), Kristy Rusher (Manager Civic and Legal) and John Christie (Director Enterprise Dunedin).

Governance Support Officer Pam Jordan

The Council was piped in to the Fullwood Room by Caitlin McLellan.

OPENING PRAYER/KARAKIA: Hoani Langsbury

1 Mihi Whakatau

David Ellison, representing local Rūnanga, extended a welcome to the new Council. He also conveyed greetings from a number of other groups such as the Dunedin Multi-Ethnic Council, University and Polytechnic Groups, and the Dunedin Interfaith Council. Donna Matahaere-Atariki, Paulette Tamati-Elliffe and Katarina Ruckstuhl performed a waiata.

Mayor Dave Cull responded to the welcome, supported by the Dunedin City Council Waiata Group.

2 Welcome by the Chief Executive Officer, Dr Sue Bidrose
	The Chief Executive Officer welcomed elected members, families, staff and members of the public to the meeting.

3 Declarations By Members
	a) The Mayor

	The Chief Executive Officer outlined the history of the position of Mayor and the Robes and Chain of Office and wished the Council a successful term. The Mayor made the required declaration under Schedule 7, Clause 14 of the Local Government Act 2002, which was witnessed by the Chief Executive Officer. The Mayor then took the Chair.

	b) Councillors

	Councillors made the declarations required by Schedule 7, Clause 14 of the Local Government Act 2002, which were witnessed by the Mayor.

4 Welcome by the Mayor

Mayor Cull conveyed a welcome to those present at the meeting and extended his congratulations to Councillors on their election.

He commented that it was a privilege to be chosen to serve again as Mayor of the city. It was also a privilege to welcome the Council. A new mandate from the community had been received as well as continuity from previous councils. Mayor Cull commented on his priorities for the term. His Chair and Deputy Chair appointments had been made to enable maximum contributions and he also looked forward to fresh contributions. His wish was for the Council to leave the prospects for the collective future better than it found them. He welcomed all the newly elected Council and looked forward to enterprise, effort and working together.

5 Apologies

There were no apologies.

6 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration

Motion carried (CNL/2016/146)

Reports

7 Adoption of Standing Orders
	A report from Civic and Legal noted that a local authority must adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (Clause 27, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002). Local Government New Zealand had reviewed and revised the form of standing orders which applied to local authority meetings. The report recommended the adoption of the revised standing orders with one amendment which provided for the management of the Waipori Fund.
	Minor typographical errors were pointed out in the Standing Orders document: · Clause 5.4 – reference to SO 5.5 should be 5.6 · Clause 11.4 – Paragraph 2 to read: "Where circumstances require it …"
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: a) Notes that the form of standing orders proposed is as recommended by Local Government New Zealand, with the addition of a standing order to continue the arrangements for decisions concerning divestment of the Waipori Fund. b) Adopts the standing orders in the form proposed in Attachment 1 to the report, including the amendments advised at the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (CNL/2016/147)

8 Acknowledgement of Retiring Community Board Members

The Mayor acknowledged the service of retiring Community Board members.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Records its sincere thanks to the following retiring Community Board members for their loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin:

Chalmers Community Board

Peter Cole 2013-2016

Raewynne Pedofski 2007-2016

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board

Blackie Catlow 2013-2016

Mark Willis 2013-2016

Saddle Hill Community Board

Pamela Jemmett 2007-2016

Strath Taieri Community Board

Karen Dunn 2013-2016

Noel Matthews 2010-2016

Motion carried (CNL/2016/148)

9 Chairs and Committee Structure for the 2016-2019 TriennIUm

A report from Mayor Dave Cull provided Councillors with formal details of the new Committee structure and Chairs and Deputy Chairs. It also detailed his choice of Deputy Mayor.

The delegations for each Committee would be re-written to reflect the new structure and would be presented to the November meeting of Council for consideration. The membership of some Subcommittees was not yet finalised and would also be reported back to Council at the November meeting.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Notes the appointment of Cr Chris Staynes as Deputy Mayor.

b) Notes the new Committee structure as attached to the report.

c) Notes the appointment of the Chairs and Deputy Chairs and various Councillor appointments to those Committees, Subcommittees and Community Boards.

Division

Voting was carried out by division.

For: Crs Dave Cull, Chris Staynes, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Damian Newell, Jim O'Malley, Conrad Stedman, Andrew Whiley and Kate Wilson (14).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/149)

10 Appointment of Acting Deputy Mayor

A report from Mayor Dave Cull noted that there were occasions when the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were out of Dunedin at the same time and it was necessary to have an elected member designated to deal with any issues that arose during these times.

He proposed appointing an Acting Deputy Mayor to act during any joint absences for the current triennium.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council

a) Appoints Councillor David Benson-Pope as Acting Deputy Mayor for any joint absences of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor during this triennium.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/150)

11 Appointment of Representatives on Zone 6 Committee of Local Government New Zealand

A report from Mayor Dave Cull noted that Local Government New Zealand had a committee for representatives of local authorities in Zone 6. The report recommended the appointment of three elected members to the Local Government New Zealand Zone 6 Committee.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Appoints Mayor Dave Cull, Cr Chris Staynes and Cr Aaron Hawkins as the representatives to the Local Government New Zealand Zone 6 Committee.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/151)

12 Meeting Schedule for the Remainder of 2016

A report from Civic noted that a meeting schedule was included for consideration in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 21 of the Local Government Act 2002. A proposed meeting schedule for the remainder of 2016 was set out in the report.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Adopts the meeting schedule for the remainder of 2016.

b) Notes that a meeting schedule for 2017 will be prepared for consideration at the Council meeting on 15 November 2016.

c) Notes that the Community Boards will consider and confirm their own meeting schedules.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/152)

13 Elected Member Remuneration Rates for 2016/17

A report from the Executive Leadership Team noted that the Remuneration Authority (the Authority) set the remuneration levels for elected members. The Authority approved remuneration rates for elected members from 1 July 2016 based on the previous committee structure and positions of responsibility. The new committee structure required a reconsideration of the remuneration levels to accommodate the changes for the new triennium.

There were no changes proposed to either base-level Councillor remuneration or to the remuneration levels for the Mayor or Community Board members.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Approves the revised remuneration rates for positions of responsibility for 2016/17.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/153)

14 Adoption of Code of Conduct

A report from the Executive Leadership Team noted that the Local Government Act 2002 required that Councils adopt a Code of Conduct. The report provided a summary of the updated Code of Conduct (the Code) that was prepared by Local Government New Zealand following consultation across the sector.

The Code updated the previous national standard and provided a plain English version of standards of behaviour expected of elected members in the exercise of their duties. The Code also provided details on how breaches of the Code would be dealt with.

The Code should be read in conjunction with the Council's Standing Orders.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Dunedin City Council Code of Conduct as per Attachment 1 of the report.

Motion carried unanimously (CNL/2016/154)

15 Local Government Legislation - Briefing for the Inaugural Council Meeting 2016

A report from Civic and Legal advised that Clause 21 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 required that, at the inaugural meeting of the Council and Community Boards following the triennial election, the Chief Executive Officer must provide a general explanation of the following legislation:

a) The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987;

b) The Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968;

c) Sections 99, 105 and 105A of the Crimes Act 1961;

d) The Secret Commissions Act 1910; and

e) The Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the advice regarding key legislation that applies to members of Council, its Committees and Community Boards.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/155)

The meeting concluded at 2.02 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

15 November 2016

Reports

Block Offer 2017 Submission

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This is a covering report for the Dunedin City Council’s (the Council) draft submission to New Zealand Petroleum and Mineral’s Block Offer 2017.

2 It provides a background to the Block Offer process, details of Block Offer 2017 and a summary of the draft submission’s content. The Council decision revolves around whether to submit or not, and whether to align the submission with a resolution of the Council in November 2015 to call on the New Zealand Government to place a moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction in New Zealand waters.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the attached draft submission from the Dunedin City Council to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals on Block Offer 2017.

BACKGROUND

Block Offer Process

3 New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZPAM), a department within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), has administered annual Block Offers since 2012. The process invites applications for permits to explore for petroleum resources (primarily oil and gas) in defined blocks of land or sea.

4 Before inviting bids from interested parties, NZPAM is required to consult with iwi and hapū on the blocks of land and sea for which exploration bids are proposed. NZPAM also consults with local authorities that have proposed blocks in or close to their districts. The scope of consultation, which is defined in the Crown Minerals Act 1991, does not require consultation on Block Offers beyond these entities. The Council’s draft submission proposes that consultation is broadened to allow a wide range of stakeholder feedback on Block Offers.

5 Once granted, exploration permits allow holders to search for commercially recoverable reserves of oil and gas in a specific area. Permitted activities include sampling, aeromagnetic surveys, geological studies, seismic surveys, and drilling exploration wells. There may be further consultation depending on the type of activity proposed and where it is.

6 The permit does not include the right to mine or produce oil or gas commercially. If commercially viable quantities are found, a separate permit must be obtained to extract the resource, which could involve a local authority’s resource consent process (for onshore and territorial water extraction), or the Environmental Protection Authority’s marine consent process (for offshore extraction).

Previous Block Offers

7 Block Offer 2013 was the first to include the Great South Basin and the Dunedin City Council has made a submission over the past four years since then. In the last three years the DCC invited community feedback, which formed the basis for the submissions.

8 In 2013 two permits were granted for the Great South Basin (to Woodside Energy Holdings Pty Ltd and NZOG2013 T Ltd; and NZOG Developments Ltd). In Block Offers 2014 and 2015 no permits were granted for the Great South Basin. Block Offer 2016 permits have not yet been granted. The invitation for Bids for Block Offer 2016 closed on 7 September 2015. Permits will be granted in December 2016.

Block Offer 2016 – Great South Basin

9 The proposal for Block Offer 2017 includes one offshore release area of 210, 884 square kilometres that includes acreage in both the Great South and Canterbury Basins (Attachment A). The Great South Basin has been explored since the early 1970s. Since then a range of seismic acquisition programmes for both 2D and 3D seismic data have been conducted. The Great South Basin, which covers around 130,000 square kilometres, is prospective for gas condensate and oil.

DISCUSSION

10 The Council resolved in November 2015 to call on Government to place a moratorium on deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction in New Zealand waters. The draft submission (Attachment A) reflects this resolution.

11 However, this position may no longer reflect the views of the new Council following local government elections earlier this year.

12 Due to the timing of this year’s Block Offer consultation, the DCC did not seek feedback from the community. The community position over the past three years has been consistent, with the majority of submissions received not in favour of offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction.

13 The timing of block offer consultations has been challenging in most of the years that the Council has been invited to submit.

OPTIONS

Option One – Submit on the Block Offer 2017 in line with the previous Council’s resolution for a moratorium

14 The Council decides to submit the draft submission (Attachment A).

Advantages

· The Council responds to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals request for submissions on the Block Offer 2017.

Disadvantages

· May not reflect the current Council’s, nor the community's, position on this issue.

Option Two – Do not submit on the Block Offer 2017

15 The Council decides not to submit on the Block Offer 2017.

Advantages

· The Council does not provide a submission without community input.

Disadvantages

· The Council misses the opportunity to express their views on the Block Offer 2017 which could potentially see a permit being granted in the Great South Basin.

Option Three – Submit a submission on the Block Offer 2017

16 The Council decides to submit the draft submission without the resolution for a moratorium.

Advantages

· The Council responds to the request for submissions on the Block Offer 2017.

Disadvantages

· The submission may not reflect the community's position on this issue.

NEXT STEPS

17 If the Council agrees to make a submission (subject to any agreed amendments), it will be forwarded to NZPAM by the closing date of 15 November 2015.

Signatories

Author:

Maria Ioannou - Corporate Policy Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Draft Submission Block Offer 2017	17

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by communicating to Central Government through the attached submission the views of the Dunedin City Council in relation to the Block Offer 2017.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

As discussed in the attached submission, there are strategic issues for Dunedin relating to the Block Offer:

· Engaging with the public on Block Offers

· Understanding community benefits

· Risks to Dunedin’s natural environment

· Climate change impacts and adaptation costs.

Māori Impact Statement

Implications for manawhenua will be addressed directly through the NZPAM’s iwi consultation process.

Sustainability

The economic, environmental and social benefits and costs are not fully understood, and may have an impact on sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The decision to submit is assessed as low significance.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks associated with the decision to lodge a submission.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

15 November 2016

ATTACHMENT B – DRAFT Submission from the Dunedin City Council to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals on Block Offer 2017

15 November 2016

Josh Adams

National Manager Petroleum

New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Blockoffer2017@mbie.govt.nz

Dear Mr Adams

Block Offer 2017: Submission from the Dunedin City Council

Dunedin City Council appreciates the opportunity to submit on the Block Offer 2017. This submission was endorsed by the Dunedin City Council on 15 November 2016.

Local government has the purpose of meeting the current and future needs of communities. Keeping this firmly in mind, the Dunedin City Council calls on the New Zealand Government to place a moratorium on deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction in New Zealand waters^{^[1]}.

The Dunedin City Council has submitted on previous block offers (since the Block Offer 2013, when the Great South Basin was included), discussing: community feedback on the block offers; the need for a deeper look at economic and community benefits; the potential risks to Dunedin’s natural environment; and climate change impacts and adaptation costs.

This submission goes further than previous submissions to reflect the Dunedin City Council’s, now adopted, position against any future deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction in New Zealand waters.

1. A moratorium on deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction

1.1. The Dunedin City Council resolved in November 2015 to call on Government to place a moratorium on deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction in New Zealand waters.

2. Engaging with the public on Block Offers

2.1. The Dunedin City Council welcomes the opportunity to make a submission but continues to be concerned that consultation on Block Offers remains confined to iwi, hapū and affected local authorities that either have a proposed block in their area of jurisdictional control; or, have a proposed offshore block that abuts the coast within 100km of their jurisdictional area.

2.2. While the Dunedin City Council understands the scope of consultation is defined in the Crown Minerals Act 1991, we again suggest engagement is broadened to allow a wide range of stakeholders to respond to Block Offers earlier rather than later in the process. The Dunedin City Council requests New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZPAM) conducts formal, full public consultation on subsequent Block Offers.

2.3. While applicants for marine consents are required to identify existing interest holders (including iwi authorities and fisheries interests), the Dunedin City Council submits, as it has in previous years, that the process should require that applications for marine consent are publically notified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

2.4. The Dunedin City Council reiterates that companies awarded permits should be required to engage fully with iwi and the community every six months at a minimum, in addition to the annual engagement report to NZPAM.

3. Community feedback

3.1. The Dunedin City Council has for the past three years made the information on the block offers available to the Dunedin community on the Dunedin City Council website and sought community input. Due to the timing of the consultation for the Block Offer 2017 – over the local government election period – this has not be undertaken this year.

3.2. The community position has been consistent and does not favour offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction.

3.3. The issues the Dunedin community have raised on previous block offers range from the climate change impacts of oil and gas use and the environmental risk and limited disaster response to the lack of evidence supporting local economic benefits and the risk to and potential impacts on local and New Zealand tourism.

4. Understanding the economic and community benefits

4.1. The Dunedin City Council notes it is still appears difficult for NZPAM to quantify precise benefits to the Dunedin community and calls for more detailed analysis.

4.2. Dunedin has only seen seismic ships in their harbour and 'chaser boats' supplying both seismic ships and one test drill ship, yet anecdotally businesses have gained revenue from these visits. Dunedin airport, hotels, helicopter companies, engineering and electrical companies, Port Otago, provodoring companies, transport companies and cleaning companies all report benefits. Anecdotal feedback from oil and gas experts has suggested up to 1,000 onshore jobs could be required to meet the needs of the industry if gas were found in reasonable quantities in the Great South Basin, even if gas were compressed in a ship offshore and taken to another destination. As can be seen from Taranaki’s experience new expertise also builds within existing companies.

4.3. The information on potential economic benefits provided in response to the Dunedin City Council’s 2015 submission was taken from a 2015 Venture Taranaki report and no further information has since been provided. It is difficult to infer from that report the benefits to the Otago regional economy and social wellbeing as the data specifically relates to Taranaki. However, the report did note that New Zealand’s oil and gas industry and its supply chain employ 11,720 people – up from 7,700 in 2010 - and injects $2.79 billion into the nation’s economy – an increase from $2.5b in 2010. Dairy is Taranaki's largest revenue earner, rather than oil and gas; however Taranaki's GDP figure is far bigger than other New Zealand regions due to oil and gas employment in the province.

4.4. It should be noted there is no information available on potential economic disadvantages at the local level, such as:

· the cost to local ratepayers of providing any infrastructure or infrastructure upgrades required by the exploration companies, or resulting from disaster management requirements; and

· the impact of visible offshore exploration infrastructure on tourism and quality of life.

4.5. To address this information gap, the Dunedin City Council proposes the Government requires companies applying for the block permits to be more specific on the anticipated community benefits of exploration. Companies could be asked to supply details regarding the economic and other benefits for local communities nearest to their exploration area; for example, the number and type of jobs that will be available to local people and New Zealand nationals, and the products and services that local companies will be expected to provide. It would be accepted that this information may need to be estimated, and drawn from a company’s experiences and statistics from similar operations elsewhere in the world.

4.6. While the Dunedin City Council accepts royalty and tax revenues will fund national programmes that might benefit the Dunedin region, the local area takes on many of the costs and risks associated with oil and gas exploration but is not guaranteed any direct benefits. Again, the Dunedin City Council proposes that the Government considers the allocation of a proportion of proceeds to the local authorities nearest the drill sites. Local royalties would fund costly infrastructure upgrades, benefitting both the oil industry and the region, including:

· Costs in providing facilitative infrastructure or infrastructure upgrades; for example, roads that may need to be upgraded to enable exploration to take place; and

· Environmental safety and disaster mitigation and management infrastructure costs; for example, Dunedin airport is not big enough for aircraft that would bring emergency equipment to Dunedin. This would delay a disaster response unless the airport is upgraded.

4.7. The Dunedin City Council has strong relationships with Dunedin’s tertiary institutions: the University of Otago; and the Otago Polytechnic. The Dunedin City Council would like to see the Government taking steps, such as those taken by the Norwegian Government when it developed its oil sector^{^[2]}, to ensure that knowledge transfer and collaboration between the tertiary sector and successful extraction companies supports high value-added, high-tech research and enterprise.

4.8. The Dunedin City Council has concerns about the potential impact on New Zealand’s exchange rate and the competitiveness of other export sectors. The Dunedin City Council would support measures to manage these impacts through an investment fund to ensure that petroleum revenues do not have an adverse effect on export sectors critical to the Dunedin and New Zealand economy, as has been done by some countries that receive significant petroleum revenue.

5. Potential risks to Dunedin’s natural environment

5.1. Dunedin’s environment strategy Te Ao Tūroa – The Natural World, which was developed in close consultation with Kāi Tahu, has the goal of Dunedin being resilient and carbon zero, with a strategic objective of impacting positively on the global environment. The Dunedin community is proud and protective of the region’s natural environments and their community and ecological value. This includes a coastline comprised of sandy beaches and marine wildlife of significant scientific and conservation interest at a global level, such as the only mainland breeding colony in the world of Royal Albatross, and several endangered species that are endemic to the area.

5.2. The gross annual turnover of enterprises directly involved in viewing wildlife on the Otago Peninsula alone is $6.5million annually and employs 70 full time equivalents.^{^[3]} The Dunedin City Council is concerned about the possibility of damage to these ecosystems and the local economy as a result of oil and gas exploration and extraction.

5.3. Again, there is insufficient data for the Dunedin City Council to balance the risk of environmental damage in relation to the benefits that a local oil industry would bring to the region. Dunedin City Council understands from NZPAM that the blowout risk for the proposed exploration is assessed as low, but remains concerned that the modelling used to determine this risk, which is based on historical data, may not fully take into account:

· the shift toward exploration and extraction in more hazardous areas that have previously been considered unviable; and

· the increased value the public is placing on the protection of the natural environment.^{^[4]}

The Dunedin City Council notes that further risk modelling was planned to be undertaken, and that the revised modelling will include gas condensates as well as oil. The Dunedin City Council looks forward to seeing this when it is available.

5.4. Other risks – such as the impact of exploration activities on the Royal Albatross breeding colony, the endangered hōiho (yellow-eyed penguins), or on the whakahao (Hooker’s Sea Lion) that has re-established the only South Island breeding grounds on the Otago Peninsula – are still not addressed in any detail. The Dunedin City Council is disappointed that the Block Offer information pack does not include the impact of exploration activities and/or blowout on these and the region’s other taoka species, or the process through which these impacts will be identified and mitigated against.

5.5. The Dunedin City Council communicates regularly with companies that already hold exploration permits in the city’s offshore areas. From these interactions, it is clear that community stakeholders take a favourable view where the company demonstrates that its health, safety and environment assessments and guidelines surpass those required by New Zealand legislation.

5.6. The Dunedin City Council suggests the Government put in place a disaster management plan to include:

· the necessary emergency response equipment within easy reach; and

· national, regional and local contacts who are aware of their roles in the event of a disaster.

NZPAM has advised that this would happen in the event of a disaster, but the Dunedin City Council proposes that the plan is completed in advance, in the same manner as civil defence emergency response preparedness. Dunedin has active local groups and expertise in wildlife protection and conservation, and suggests that NZPAM establish links with these groups and with academics before exploration takes place. The Dunedin City Council also suggests that a disaster-recovery fund is established from oil and gas revenue along with a firm commitment from the Government that no clean-up costs will be borne by Dunedin ratepayers.

6. Climate change impacts and adaptation costs

6.1. The Government recognises human activity is increasing the natural level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing the Earth to warm up and the climate to change. The Government notes that effects of a warming planet and disrupted climate patterns are already evident, and that looking out over the next 30 to 40 years, the effects of climate change, and the response to it, presents a major national and global challenge.^{^[5]}

6.2. In addition, the costs of climate change adaptation by many local and regional councils are shouldered by the ratepayer. While ratepayers do use and benefit from oil and gas, the climate change adaptation and mitigation costs are not factored into the calculation of the royalties extraction companies are required to pay. This means that externalities such as climate change impacts – impacts that affect New Zealand citizens – are not accounted for.

6.3. The cumulative use of fossil fuels will result in a direct cost to the Council and the residents of Dunedin to adapt to the effects of climate change. This reaffirms the Council’s proposal that a proportion of royalties from oil and gas extraction be returned to local authorities to use in disaster mitigation and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

6.4. The Dunedin City Council proposes that:

· climate change effects be taken into account in cost-benefit analyses of petroleum exploration and extraction;

· the link between oil and gas development and climate change impacts is spelled out in Block Offer documentation; and

· if the Government goes forward with block offers, it considers establishing a ring-fenced fund from oil and gas revenue to support efforts to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change that can be accessed by the local councils whose communities face challenging impacts.

The Dunedin City Council is happy to discuss this submission with NZPAM and looks forward to the response to this submission.

Yours sincerely

Dave Cull

Mayor of Dunedin

Council

15 November 2016

Potential investment in the High Street Cohousing project

Department: Property

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report provides options for the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) consideration on whether to invest in the High Street Cohousing Project, following an offer to participate as a social housing provider.

2. Each option includes the potential advantages and disadvantages of the DCC investing in this cohousing development, including: fit with the Council’s strategic priorities; the appropriateness of the units offered to demand for social housing; the relative costs and benefits of different options; and, the potential risks of investing in this cohousing development.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Authorises the purchase of two-two bedroom units as part of the High Street Cohousing project for use as social housing at a total estimated cost of $690,600 plus GST.

BACKGROUND

3. In mid-2013 a small group of Dunedin residents formed the company Urban Cohousing Otepoti Limited (UCOL) to purchase the site formerly occupied by the High Street School in order to build a cohousing community – the High Street Cohousing Project (the Project).

4. The Cohousing Association of the United States defines cohousing as “an intentional community of private homes clustered around shared space. Each attached or single family home has traditional amenities, including a private kitchen. Shared spaces typically feature a common house, which may include a large kitchen and dining area, laundry, and recreational spaces. Shared outdoor space may include parking, walkways, open space, and gardens. Neighbours also share resources like tools and lawnmowers.”

5. UCOL is committed to including provision for social housing within the Project to ensure diversity in the cohousing community and provide an opportunity for a social housing provider to acquire high-quality housing that fulfils their portfolio needs.

6. UCOL has discussed the Project with DCC staff, and has now offered the DCC the option to purchase two two-bedroom units and one four-five bedroom unit for use as social housing. The Director of UCOL is now seeking a decision from the DCC as a matter of urgency on whether it plans to invest in the Project.

DISCUSSION

Fit with the DCC’s strategic priorities

7. DCC investment in this Project has the potential to support the Council’s goals in social wellbeing, social housing, the environment and energy efficiency.

8. The Project would provide community benefits that support the Social Wellbeing Strategy (SWS) objectives of social inclusion, strong neighbourhoods, good access to services, and warm and healthy housing, including specifically:

· The SWS’s ‘Better Homes’ implementation pathway, which includes the Cosy Homes Trust’s work, is driving a coordinated approach to housing quality and affordability issues for the city. As well as building on the strategic work underway in the social housing sector, it promotes a whole-of-city approach to improving the quality of Dunedin’s housing stock. The Project offers opportunities to support this work.

· The Social Housing Strategy (which when it is next reviewed will form one of the DCC’s action plans) highlights the DCC’s commitment to being a lead provider of social housing in Dunedin, particularly for older people, and to playing a lead role in facilitating a partnership approach amongst all social housing providers in the city. Participating in the Project would support delivery on these goals, particularly as the Project is being built to the New Zealand Lifemark standard that ensures accessibility to the housing and its amenities for the entire lifetime of the resident.

9. The Project is located in an inner city residential zone that anticipates densification of residential development as set out in the Spatial Plan. The Project offers opportunities to respond to Spatial Plan objectives, including:

· Utilising existing residential capacity within the city to maximise use of existing infrastructure and increase residential capacity prior to considering greenfield development.

· Responding to an increase, due to an ageing population, in one-two person households with an associated increasing demand for a wider variety of housing types and for social housing.

· Providing housing that is affordable to run. As one of the biggest household running costs is heating improving the environmental performance of housing is important.

· Providing homes close to public transport and other services will reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and overall transportation costs, which are likely to increase over time.

· Exploring opportunities for redevelopment in existing areas that have old, cold or low-value building stock but have good accessibility.

10. Te Ao Tūroa – Our Natural World (Dunedin’s Environment Strategy) sets the objective of a resilient and carbon zero city, with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, greater energy efficiency, less waste and innovative energy solutions. UCOL is building the Project to the Passivhaus standard, an internationally-recognised approach to sustainable house-building. The Project development will be carbon-neutral, with minimal running costs when it comes to heating as all units are designed to maintain a temperature of 20^OC, regardless of outdoor temperature, without any heating. UCOL is also looking at sustainable options around the choice of build materials, grey water recycling, rain water collection, solar energy and composting.

11. Through the DCC’s role as a partner in the Energy Plan (under the Economic Development Strategy), the DCC is committed to ‘explore the potential for DCC community housing new builds to showcase a community housing unit using energy-efficient thinking and technology to show difference in costs and benefits.’ The Project offers such an opportunity.

Fit with demand for social housing

12. Demand for social housing units in Dunedin is for one and two-bedroom properties. The ‘Assessment of Future Social Housing Need in Dunedin City 2011-2031’ set out that about 1,000 new ‘social housing solutions’ will be required to meet the needs of older social housing consumers as a flow-on impact of demographic change. Consistent with the housing needs assessment, the Ministry of Social Development, that purchases social housing on behalf of the government, has indicated it’s purchasing intentions for Dunedin City are to:

· Purchase slightly more one-bedroom places (an estimated 30). Some of these could be two bedroom places where the cost is similar and supply is more readily available.

· Maintain current levels of purchasing of two-bedroom and larger places.

Financial implications

13. At this stage, the cost of the three units (two two-bedroom units and one four-five bedroom unit) is estimated at $295,000, $395,600 and $639,000 respectively (estimated cost for purchasing all three units is $1,329,600). The costs are estimates (and exclusive of GST) at this stage and UCOL has indicated the purchase price of the three available units will be known once the architects have prepared final costings.

14. UCOL is seeking confirmation that the DCC will make an initial investment in the Project, including a cash payment of $5,000 per unit to secure the properties. The company is also asking the DCC to sign an unconditional sale and purchase agreement in parallel with other buyers by 30 November 2016 (see Attachment A).

15. These prices compare with the DCC’s Property team estimate of an average unit cost (excluding land cost) of $206,000 plus GST per two-bedroom unit with a construction method similar to Passivhaus and about the same density as the Project (a cost per square metre of $2,500 plus GST). The costs of building standalone two-bedroom units in St Kilda just over 5 years ago was $300,000 plus GST per two-bedroom unit excluding land costs.

16. There are ongoing body corporate type fees as part of the cohousing project, set by the UCOL cooperative. The DCC would have less influence over the level of cooperative fees than it would over maintenance and other costs for standard DCC social housing units.

17. It is assumed any DCC investment in the Project would be funded from the existing budget for new social housing.

Terms of the cohousing arrangement

18. Being part of a cohousing development would bring additional responsibilities for the DCC and for tenants living in the cohousing units. The DCC would attend and participate in cooperative meetings to make decisions about the running of the cohousing development, anticipated to occur once a month.

19. It is a principle of cohousing developments that people living in the community are on board with the cohousing philosophy. This would include an induction process for new tenants, including social housing tenants.

20. Another feature of cohousing is that community members participate in communal work such as gardening and cooking.

21. These additional requirements of cohousing create the potential for some risks around the time commitment from the DCC and additional processes to place tenants and to maintain tenancies in the cohousing development, when compared to the DCC’s existing social housing units. There may also be a requirement from the cohousing project to vet potential new tenants and there may be some additional considerations if the DCC were to sell the units in the future.

OPTIONS

Option One – Status quo: Agree not to purchase any units in the cohousing development

22. Under this option, the DCC would agree not to purchase any units in the cohousing development.

Advantages

· There is no financial investment by the DCC.

· There are no on-going body corporate fees.

· There is no on-going commitment by DCC staff to attend and participate in cohousing cooperative meetings.

Disadvantages

· The DCC loses the option to be part of an innovative development that potentially showcases future ways of meeting social housing needs.

Option Two – Recommended option - Agree to purchase the two two-bedroom units offered to the DCC

23. Under this option the DCC would purchase the two two-bedroom units in the cohousing development for an estimated cost of $690,600.

Advantages

· Fits with the DCC’s strategic objectives to improve social housing provision and to develop more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient new builds.

· Two bedroom units provide the best fit with existing and future demand for social housing.

· This option is a lower cost than option three, to purchase all three units.

· Reduces the reputational risk that the DCC has been seen by the developer to have committed in principle to the development.

Disadvantages

· Significant financial investment for DCC, although lower than under option three.

· On-going body corporate payments which will be set by the cohousing cooperative.

· Need for DCC to attend and participate in cohousing meetings on a monthly basis.

· Additional work for DCC staff to let properties in the development due to the need for prospective tenants to ‘buy-in’ to cohousing philosophy and potential for new tenants to go through an induction process.

· Potential for cohousing cooperative to want to vet prospective tenants.

· Potential for additional considerations as part of the cohousing arrangement if the DCC is selling units in the development.

Option Three – Agree to purchase all three units offered to the DCC

24. Under this option the DCC would purchase the three units in the cohousing development offered to the DCC for an estimated cost of $1,329,600.

Advantages

· Fits with the DCC’s strategic objectives to improve social housing provision and to develop more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient new builds.

· No risk that the DCC is seen by the developer to have gone back on a commitment in principle to invest in the development.

Disadvantages

· Significant financial investment for DCC.

· A four-five bedroom unit is not the best fit with existing and future demand for social housing or current portfolio.

· On-going body corporate payments which will be set by the cohousing cooperative.*

· Need for DCC to attend and participate in cohousing meetings on a monthly basis.*

· Additional work for DCC staff to let properties in the development due to the need for prospective tenants to ‘buy-in’ to cohousing philosophy and need for new tenants to go through an induction process.*

· Potential for cohousing cooperative to want to vet prospective tenants.*

· Potential for additional considerations if the DCC wished to sell units in the development.*

1. * disadvantages are the same as for option 2

NEXT STEPS

25. If a decision to invest is taken, the DCC Property team will progress this in accordance with financial delegations.

Signatories

Author:	Kevin Taylor - Property Manager
Authoriser:	Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Report to DCC from Urban Cohousing Otepoti Limited re High Street Cohousing Project	29

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing local infrastructure and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

This report relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

There are no implications for Maori.

Sustainability

The cohousing development supports the DCC’s sustainability goals.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

A decision to invest in the cohousing development would have a significant financial cost to the DCC of between $690,600 and $1,329,600. The cost would be met from the existing social housing budget.

Significance

The significance of this decision is assessed as low in terms of the DCC’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on this report.

Engagement - internal

The Corporate Policy team have provided input to this report regarding strategic considerations.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are legal and health and safety risks associated with the decision to invest in cohousing. There is a potential reputational risk that the Council is seen as going back on a previous commitment if it does not invest.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

This report has no implications for community boards.

Council

15 November 2016

GRANTS SUBCOMMITTEE

REPORTING TO Community and Culture Committee

CHAIRPERSON Cr Aaron Hawkins

MEMBERSHIP Elected members and community representatives as appointed by the Mayor

QUORUM Five (must include two Councillors)

AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY:

· Dunedin City Council Grants Policy 2015

- To assess Grant applications as outlined in the DCC Grants Policy 2015

- To make allocations in accordance with the DCC Grants Policy 2015

· Dunedin City Council Festivals and Events Strategy

- To assess all applications to the Strategy

- To make allocations in accordance with the Festivals and Events Strategy

· Dunedin City Council Biodiversity Fund

- To assess all applications to the Scheme

- To make allocations in accordance with the DCC Biodiversity Fund

Note: Grants for Dunedin Heritage Fund; Rates Relief for Heritage Buildings; and Rates Relief for the Comprehensive Re-Use of Heritage Buildings are considered by other Committees.

POWER TO DECIDE: PART A MATTERS

1 To exercise and perform the Council's functions, powers and duties (excluding only those matters reserved to the Council by law, by resolution of the Council, by clause 54 above or those matters within the power to recommend below) relating to the fields of activity listed above and in accordance with Council policy, conferred on the Council by the following (and any other relevant) Acts and any amendments:

· Local Government Act 1974

· Local Government Act 2002

2 To assess and grant applications within the policies set by the Council and to distribute available resources.

3 To assess and grant applications within the Festivals and Events Strategy set by the Council and to distribute available resources:

- Major Events – Funding up to $50,000 per annum for any one festival/event

- Premier Events – Funding of over $50,000 per annum for any one festival/event

- Premier Events Underwriting – Applications for amounts greater than $20,000

4 To assess and grant applications within the policy set by the Council and to distribute available resources for biodiversity purposes.

5 To inform community groups of all forms of funding available to them and facilitate applications for assistance.

6 To apply Council policy on the Rates Relief Grants Scheme, and to assess and approve applications referred by officers for decision.

7 That the Chairperson of the Grants Subcommittee (or in the event the Chairperson is unavailable, the Deputy Chairperson) may approve Small Project Scheme Grants and Neighbourhood Matching Grants up to $500 that meet the criteria set out in the DCC Grants Policy 2015. A list of these grants (if any) is to be provided to the Grants Subcommittee at its next meeting for noting.

POWER TO RECOMMEND: PART B MATTERS

1 Loan guarantees (to Community and Culture Committee).

2 Any other matters within the area of responsibility above.

3 To advise on any matters relating to biodiversity planning.

HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE

REPORTING TO: The Council

CHAIRPERSON: Cr Wilson

MEMBERSHIP: As appointed by the Mayor

CONSTITUTION: The composition of any Hearings Subcommittee to be determined by the Chairperson, or in his/her absence, the Deputy Chairperson.

QUORUM: Three. Made up of Councillors and/or Commissioners, and one Community Board member where appropriate. Except that where following commencement of a hearing a Councillor or Commissioner becomes ill or is otherwise prevented from continuing as a member of the Committee, the quorum shall be two.

A single independent Commissioner can hear applications on their own where appropriate.

Where a Community Board member is appointed, this is in addition to the quorum.

MEETING FREQUENCY: As required

AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY:

· Resource consents

· Existing use/certificates of compliance

· Designations and heritage orders

· Plan reviews, changes and variations

· Private ways

· Building line restrictions

· Liquor licensing implementation

· Animal Control hearings

· Transport shelters

· Reserves Act hearings (NB: These hearings do not receive additional remuneration)

POWER TO DECIDE: PART A MATTERS

1 To exercise and perform the Council’s functions, powers and duties (excluding only those matters reserved to the Council by law, by resolution of the Council, by clause 54 above or those matters within the power to recommend below) relating to the area of responsibility listed above and in accordance with Council policy, conferred on the Council by the following (and any other relevant) Acts and any amendments:

· Dog Control Act 1996

· Resource Management Act 1991

· Local Government Act 1974

· Unit Titles Act 1972

· Reserve Act 1977

· Local Government Act 2002

2 Consideration and determination of all issues required by law or the Council to be dealt with at a formal hearing (except where the Subcommittee may only make a recommendation, or where a Commissioner is delegated authority.)

3 Consideration and determination of all issues relating to decisions on Resource Consents, Designations, submissions on the District Plan, submissions on Council and private plan changes and variations to the District Plan, Heritage Orders and Dog Control Act 1996 (e.g. objections, review of conditions/duration) and transport shelter objections under s339 of the Local Government Act 1974.

4 Except where otherwise specified in Council Bylaws or relevant legislation, appeals from Council Bylaws.

5 Power to levy development contributions under section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Reserves Act Hearings

6 To deal with reserve management issues where members of the public have requested to be heard under Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 and to grant or decline leases, licences or rights of ways under the Reserves Act 1977.

Dog Control

7 To hear and determine appeals in accordance with the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Resource Management

(Note for the purposes of delegations 9 to 11, the Councillors are deemed to be Commissioners under the Resource Management Act 1991.)

8 Where officers (under delegated authority) have made a decision to hold a hearing, the application will be heard by the Hearings Subcommittee.

9 The Chairperson (or in the absence of the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson) of the Hearings Subcommittee to determine any matters regarding minor alterations to designations.

Legal Action

10 The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Hearings Subcommittee (or in both their absences the Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee) to authorise:

a) initiating or joining any District or Environment Court proceedings under the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) negotiating and resolving, or withdrawing from, any proceeding arising from any District or Environment Court proceedings under the resource Management Act 1991.

11 The Chairperson of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Chairperson of the Hearings Subcommittee to authorise the negotiating and resolving of any appeal on the Council’s District Plan.

POWER TO RECOMMEND: PART B MATTERS

1 Any other matter within the area of responsibility above.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT PROCEEDINGS:

In some instances, when it is not appropriate for applications and matters under the Resource Management Act to be heard by a Committee of Councillors or Councillors are unavailable, they may be heard by a mix of Commissioners and Councillors or by independent Commissioner(s) only.

Unless specifically appointed to make only a recommendation, Independent Commissioner(s) will be appointed to make a decision on the Council’s behalf.

Independent Commissioner(s) may be appointed to hear matters under the RMA as follows:

Where an application for resource consent is being considered and Council is the:

· landowner

· lessee

· applicant

· has a financial interest

· A Councillor is unavailable, or the Council has any other role where the Council is unable to be clearly seen as being fully objective and impartial in its quasi-judicial decision-making capacity which affects the perception of impartiality.

(This shall be determined by the Chairperson or in their absence the Deputy Chairperson of the Hearings Subcommittee in consultation with the General Manager Strategy and Governance and/or the Resource Consents Manager.)

Where a Variation, Plan Change or designation is being considered and the Council is the:

· landowner,

· lessee,

· applicant,

· has a financial interest

· A Councillor(s) is unavailable, or the Council has any other role where the Council is unable to be clearly seen as being fully objective and impartial in its quasi-judicial decision-making capacity which affects the perception of impartiality.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT HEARINGS:

An Independent Commissioner may also be appointed for hearings under Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner shall be determined by the Chairperson, or in their absence the Deputy Chairperson, of the Hearings Subcommittee in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer.

Community Board Commissioners

Community Board representatives may be appointed to the Hearings Committee when applications within the Community Board area are being considered by the Committee and the Community Board member has received post-election tuition. Where a Community Board member is appointed this is in addition to the quorum.

Otago Regional Council Commissioners

Otago Regional Council representatives may be appointed to the Hearings Subcommittee when s339 LGA 1974 objections are being considered by the Subcommittee and the Otago Regional Council representative is an accredited commissioner.

Selection of Commissioners

The Chairperson, or in their absence, the Deputy Chairperson of the Hearings Subcommittee, in consultation with the General Manager Strategy and Governance or the City Development Manager (in relation to variations, plan changes or designations) or Resource Consents Manager (in relation to resource consents), is authorised to:

· select the Hearings Commissioners, as required, to carry out any of the Council’s functions, powers or duties under the Resource Management Act 1991 delegated to the Hearings Subcommittee

· select the chairperson or mediator for pre-hearing meetings pursuant to s99 and s99A of the Resource Management Act.

Reaching Agreement in Mediation

The Chairperson or their appointee, in consultation with the Resource Consents Manager is authorised to negotiate and resolve the issues to be determined by the Hearings Subcommittee.

[1] As resolved at a meeting of the Council on 30 November 2015.

[2] The Regional Dynamics of Innovation: A Comparative Study of Oil and Gas Industry Development in Stavanger and Aberdeen, Hatakenaka, S., Westnes, P., Gjelsvik, M. and Lester, R., International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 3, p. 305 (2011) http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/U6WP6R5T24403202

[3] Tisdell, C (2007) “The Economic Importance of Wildlife Conservation on the Otago Peninsula – 20 Years On”

[4] This point is supported by the Dunedin City Council’s recent public consultation on Te Ao Tūroa, Dunedin’s draft Environment Strategy during which a number of submissions raised concerns about the impact of offshore drilling on the natural environment

[5] Ministry for the Environment ‘Climate change impacts in New Zealand’ http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/about/impacts.html

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 October 2016	6

Author:	Kristy Rusher - Manager Civic and Legal
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

	Title	Page
a	Grants Subcommittee and Hearings Subcommittee Terms of Reference	37