Agenda of Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee

Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee

12 September 2017

Part A Reports

Insurance Renewal Year Ended 30 June 2018

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides a summary of the insurance renewal for the Dunedin City Council for the year ended 30 June 2018.

2 For the purposes of this insurance policy renewal, the DCC Group (where referenced) comprises the Dunedin City Council and any Council Controlled Organisation and/or subsidiary company more than 50% owned by the Council – including but not limited to: Dunedin City Holdings Limited; Dunedin City Treasury Limited; City Forests Limited; Dunedin International Airport Limited; Dunedin Stadium Property Limited; Dunedin Venues Management Limited; Taieri Gorge Railway Limited; The Theomin Gallery Management Committee (Olveston); and Dunedin Transport Limited.

Note: Some CCOs and subsidiaries hold individual policies and/or have particular policy terms, conditions and limits.

3 This report details the changes that have been negotiated around policy terms, conditions, coverage, excesses and premiums applied.

4 The material damage premium for 2017/18 have been impacted by a number of factors including: increase in insured values (8.5%) and tightening of local market pricing and capacity following recent insurance events (Kaikoura earthquakes and Edgecumbe flooding). The note 14 graph does however highlight the continued increase in asset value covered while maintaining a relatively low cost per dollar insured.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Insurance Renewal Year Ended 30 June 2018.

BACKGROUND

5 The Council historically placed its insurance cover with New Zealand underwriters only. The risk with this strategy became evident following the Christchurch earthquakes when capacity in this market became constrained.

6 As part of the 2014/15 insurance renewal Council was able to place 35% of its core cover into the international market, which provided significant risk mitigation in relation to market capacity, but also delivered the opportunity to extend cover to infrastructure assets as well as creating market tension to ensure other renewal terms and conditions were favourable.

7 This strategy has continued in subsequent years with placement into the international market dropping to 30% as capacity returned to the local market.

8 In the most part of 2016 insurers were actively competing to protect existing market share while new entrants were seeking to gain market share. Unfortunately the November 2016 Kaikoura earthquake (and consequential damage caused elsewhere including Wellington) has quickly seen the market tighten as insurers reassess their exposures in the New Zealand region.

DISCUSSION

9 The initial approach to the market for the 2017/18 financial year was on the basis of existing local placement set at 70% and international placement set at 30%.

10 Significant capacity restrictions in the local market resulted in this placement at only providing 60% cover. London was able to fill the 10% gap, but did so on the basis of a $750.0 million limit any one occurrence or in the aggregate for the natural disaster cover.

11 What this means is Council will be self-insured beyond this $750.0m limit for 10% of any claim.

12 Infrastructure cover is provided on the understanding that Central Government will contribute 60% of funding towards reinstatement. The limits and excesses noted for this cover are for the DCC's portion only. Therefore a loss would need to exceed $5.0 million before the insurers would contribute to any claim i.e. 40% of $5.0m being the current excess of $2.0m.

13 Table A provides a comparison of insurance premiums between 2016/17 and 2017/18. All premiums are quoted exclusive of GST.

14 The following graph provides a historically perspective on value insured and the associated unit premium.

Policy Limits

* This limit applies to 90% of the assets insured. The remaining 10% is limited to
$750.0 million any one claim or in the aggregate ie: 10% self-insured for claims in excess of $750.0m.

** Natural Disaster Perils include earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, geothermal activity, hydrothermal activity and, in respect of the outfalls only cover extended to include storm (Force 10). This definition excludes the impact of floods.

Policy Excesses

Uninsured Risks/Emerging Insurance Trends.

15 It is acknowledged that with any insurance cover the Council will accept a degree of uninsured risk, whether it be reflected as higher excesses, policy limits and/or uninsured assets. In terms of particular risks associated with the current programme the following should be noted:

· Policies do not provide cover for automatic reinstatement of the sum insured in the event of fire or Natural Disaster losses. If a significant loss occurs additional insurance cover may need to be purchased.

· While Asset Schedules have been extensively reviewed and updated, any assets excluded from the schedules will not be covered, and those incorrectly valued may not be adequately covered.

· Liability Policy limits will need to be continually reviewed in light of claims history, emerging trends and because these policy limits are held as group limits.

· Emerging trends that remain under consideration include an extension of current policy coverage for more robust Cyber Risk protection, as well as risks posed by terrorism, climate change, contagious disease, pollution and weather tight home claims.

· An increasing recognition of the extent of asbestos risks and the potential costs of identification/ maintenance/ removal activities may necessitate further Policy reviews.

· The Material Damage - Fire First Loss limit of $250m needs to be sufficient to provide cover for fire following any cause including Natural Disaster losses (it incorporates all assets insured by the Group). In order to test this limit, a review exercise was completed in October 2014. It is recommend that a similar review exercise is completed to ensure the existing first loss limit remains adequate based on adjusted values since 2014.

· Infrastructure asset coverage can be extended to include a sub limit of $25.0m for damage caused by flood (defined as 'the covering of normally dry land by water that has escaped or been released from the normal confines of a lake, river, creek and other natural watercourses, a reservoir, canal or dam) and storm (defined as winds, rain or snow) perils for an additional premium of $430k per annum.

· Government Levies – fire service and earthquake commission levies are subject to change outside the control of Council. Notably, there has been an amalgamation of the urban and rural fire services into one organisation (Fire and Emergency New Zealand). The funding structure for this new organisation is in transition, however it is believed that levies will be charged on commercial property based on the sum insured (previously fire first loss limit $250.0m). The initial impact of this change will see an increase in fire service levies (FSL) of some 40%, with the move to sum insured planned for 2019.

Options

16 Not applicable.

Next Steps

17 The DCC Group Insurance Policy is subject to an annual review and renewal.

18 Additional and ongoing Policy review, monitoring and negotiation activities will be undertaken by Council staff and representatives of the Crombie Lockwood Insurance Programme Service Team to ensure adequate coverage remains in place for the DCC and DCC Group Companies.

Signatories

Author:	Gavin Logie - Acting Chief Financial Officer
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The financial expenditure detailed in this report relates to providing local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions for the community.

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	☐	☐	☒

This report has no direct contribution to the Strategic Framework, however the financial expenditure noted in this report is reflected within the Financial Strategy and the Insurance Policy contributes to the effective and ongoing realisation of all DCC strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan/Financial Strategy

The planned insurance programme is as noted in the LTP.

Financial considerations

The budget for insurance cover plus brokerage 2017/18 is $2.769 million. The current quoted premium falls just below this budget. Note that the final premium may differ slightly due to changes in the declared insurance values.

Significance

Not applicable – reporting only.

Engagement - external

· The insurance programme has been developed in conjunction with our insurance brokers and key staff from Council and CCOs. The Acting Chief Financial Officer and Aurora Chief Financial Officer presented to local insurers in Auckland on the programme for 2017/18.

Engagement – internal

The insurance programme has been developed in conjunction with DCC insurance brokers and key staff from Council and CCOs.

Risks: Legal/Health and Safety etc.

This report identifies a small number of risks that remain untreated or are emerging as factors that require further review.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee

12 September 2017

Financial Result - Year Ended 30 June 2017

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides the financial results for the year ended 30 June 2017 and the financial position as at that date.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Financial Performance for the year ended 30 June 2017 and the Financial Position as at 30 June 2017.

b) Notes that the year end result is subject to external audit by Audit New Zealand.

BACKGROUND

2 This report provides a commentary of the financial performance of Council for the year ended 30 June 2017 and the financial position as at that date.

DISCUSSION

3 The net surplus (including Waipori) for the year was $633k or $5.332 million unfavourable to budget.

4 The unfavourable variance against budget was due to the following:

· $6.383 million - lower than expected grants revenue mainly as a result of Transport undertaking less subsidised capital expenditure than expected (Peninsula & LED lighting).

· $1.464 million – higher personnel costs including: Olveston expenditure not budgeted ($469k); and project resourcing where budget is included elsewhere ($445k).

· $4.807 million – higher asset ops and maintenance costs. Parks was unfavourable $2.677 million mainly due to the increase in green space maintenance contract costs and higher than budgeted Ocean Beach expenditure; BIS included $716k costs reclassified from Materials Supplies & Services; Property $526k due to deferred maintenance issues for a number of properties now being addressed; and Transport $582k with higher than expected expenditure across a number of maintenance categories.

· $3.622 million – higher than expected fees and levies expenditure. This included: Property $1.549 million being costs associated with unbudgeted building assessments including structural and seismic engineering; Transport $801k being costs associated with consultants engaged to backfill for vacant positions; Regulatory $504k being additional resourcing for building consent operations to ensure statutory deadlines are met; Resource consents $419k with additional consent processing costs, and costs associated with appeals and compliance; and $296k unbudgeted fees associated with the district plan (2GP).

· $4.910 million – higher depreciation costs as a result of the revaluation of Water and Waste assets effective from 1 July 2016.

5 These unfavourable variances were partially offset by:

· $2.732 million – higher than expected other operating revenue. This favourable variance was mainly due to: Three Waters revenue being $711k up on budget with water sales, trade waste charges and recoverable revenue being higher than expected. Property revenue was favourable $870k, largely due to better than expected occupancy rates for housing. Parks & Recreation income was also up due to unbudgeted income from the Waikouaiti forest harvest. Olveston revenue of $474k was not budgeted in the current year.

· $10.691 million – favourable contributions income due primarily to unbudgeted vested assets in Transport ($3.418 million) and Three Waters ($6.589 million).

· $1.840 million – favourable interest expense due to the lower debt level and the floating interest rate being less than budget.

· $1.954 million – Waipori Fund, resulting from fair value gains across a number of investment portfolios. There favourable result was partially driven by the impact of a weaker NZD on international equity holdings.

6 Capital expenditure was less than budget by $24.582 million. Project delays have arisen across a number of portfolios while project scoping and design is finalised.

7 Total Council debt as at 30 June 2017 was $203.227 million or $16.148 million lower than budget. This variance reflected early debt repayment resulting primarily from the lower than expected expenditure on capital projects.

OPTIONS

8 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

9 Not applicable.

Signatories

Author:	Lawrie Warwood - Financial Analyst
Authoriser:	Gavin Logie - Acting Chief Financial Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Summary Financial Information	28
b	Statement of Financial Performance	29
c	Statement of Financial Position	30
d	Statement of Cashflows	31
e	Capital Expenditure Summary	32
f	Borrowing and Investment Policy	33
g	Statement of Public Debt	34
h	Summary of Operating Variances	35
i	Financial Review	36

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The financial expenditure reported in this report relates to providing local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions for the community.

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	☐	☐	☒

This report has no direct contribution to the Strategic Framework, although the financial expenditure reported in this report has contributed to all of the strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report fulfils the internal financial reporting requirements for Council.

Financial considerations

Not applicable – reporting only.

Significance

Not applicable – reporting only.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

The report is prepared as a summary for the individual department financial reports.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee

12 September 2017

Special Consultative Procedure for new RMA fee categories

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides detail on the need to undertake a special consultative procedure to add three new fee categories to the schedule of fees for Resource Management Act (RMA) processes.

2 The report seeks approval to undertake the special consultative procedure.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Undertakes a special consultative procedure to add to the fee schedule for planning applications.

b) Appoints three members of the Hearing Committee to hear submissions.

BACKGROUND

3 The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLA) made a range of changes to the RMA. The bulk of the changes to the RMA take effect from 18 October 2017.

4 The amendments to the RMA require a range of changes to Council processes. Nearly all are operational changes that do not require an approval from Council. One change requiring Council approval is the addition of three new fees to the RMA schedule of fees. Section 36(3) of the RMA requires a special consultative procedure to add the new fees.

DISCUSSION

5 There are a number of changes to the RMA that take effect on 18 October 2017. This report considers three specific changes. They are:

· New section “87BA Boundary activities approved by neighbours on infringed boundaries are permitted activities.” This section established a new class of permitted activity, where when in a residential zone a side yard or height plane breach is permitted, if the affected neighbour provides affected party approval. A person can make an application to the Council.

· New section “87BB Activities meeting certain requirements are permitted activities.” This section provides the discretion for a consent authority to make marginal or temporary breaches a permitted activity.

· New sub-section 36(1)(af) where a person making an objection under section 357A(1)(f) or (g) requests a hearings commissioner. The cost of using a hearings commissioner can be recovered.

6 The new boundary activity and the new temporary activities require a system to process each application. The RMA allows for the reasonable cost incurred in processing each application to be recovered. The current DCC fee schedule does not provide for ss 87BA and 87BB. A fee needs to be added to the schedule for each process. To establish a fee s36(3) of the RMA requires the use of a special consultative procedure.

7 The current DCC fee schedule includes deposits for a range of RMA applications and processes. It is proposed to add a deposit (fee) for ss 87BA and 87BB applications. The deposit will be $300. This will provide for two hours of planner time. If the cost exceeds the deposit the additional cost can be invoiced for, which is the current practice for other applications. It is uncertain how many s87BA applications may be received each year. It is envisaged that it may be in the vicinity of fifty, which is estimated to result in at least $7,000 in fees during the remainder of the 2017/18 financial year.

8 A new fee category is also required where a person requests a hearings commissioner to decide an objection under s357A. This is a new process so the potential costs are not clear. Because hearings commissioners are independent professionals the cost to Council will likely be greater than that of a councillor who is an accredited commissioner. A deposit of $800 is considered appropriate. If the cost exceeds the deposit the additional cost can be invoiced for, which is the current practice for other applications. If no fee is specified there is a risk that a person requests a hearings commissioner and the Council has to cover the cost.

9 The addition of three fee categories to the RMA fee schedule is a minor change. However, section 36(3) of the RMA does require the use of a special consultative procedure. The documents required to undertake the special consultative procedure are attached.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

10 To undertake a special consultative procedure process to add three new RMA fee categories.

Advantages

· A fee avoids the need to use rate payer funding to pay for the process.

· The Council will be able to recover from the applicant the costs it is entitled to recover (estimated to be at least $7,000).

· Alignment with existing process. The Council already recovers costs for a range of other RMA application processes.

Disadvantages

· The time and associated cost of the special consultative procedure.

Option Two – Status Quo

11 Do not establish new fee categories.

Advantages

· Avoids the time and associated cost of the special consultative procedure.

Disadvantages

· The estimated cost of at least $7,000 for the new processes will be paid from ratepayer funding in the 2017/18 financial year.

· The cost of undertaking the process is estimated to be less than the revenue that will provided through fees for processing applications.

NEXT STEPS

12 If the Committee supports the recommended use of a special consultative procedure to provide for the new fee categories, the special consultative procedure will start by public notification for submissions in September.

Signatories

Author:

Alan Worthington - Resource Consents Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Attachments

Title

Page

Special consultative procedure documents

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal relates to providing a regulatory function 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	☐	☐	☒

Changing the fees makes a limited contribution insofar as they are concerned with the implementation of the District Plan, which the primary tool to give effect to the Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known impacts for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP.

Financial considerations

If the new fee categories are not added there will be at least $7,000 in additional cost to the ratepayer in the 2017/18 financial year. This is considered to be less than the cost of the staff time to undertaken the special consultative procedure.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There have been discussions with Corporate Policy staff.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee

12 September 2017

Submission Form (Link On Cover page)

$Description: \\Hawick\Desktop$\ajreid\Desktop\logo.JPG$

SUBMISSION FORM

Submission concerning fees and charges for boundary activities and marginal or temporary non-compliances - Resource Management Act 1991

To: Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058

I/We wish to lodge a submission on the proposed fees and charges (Please read privacy statement):

Your Full Name:______________________________________________________________

Address for Service (Postal Address):____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Telephone:____________________________ Email Address:_________________________

□ I require a NZ sign language interpreter to be present

□ I would like my contact details to be withheld

I Agree/Disagree with the proposed changes

I Do/Do Not wish to be heard in support of this submission at a hearing

Please use the back of this form or attach other pages as required

The reasons for my submission are:

Signature of submitter:___________________________________ Date:_____________

(or person authorised to sign on behalf of submitter)

Notes to Submitter:

Closing Date: The closing date for serving submissions on the Dunedin City Council is Friday 13 October 2017 at 5pm.

Electronic Submissions: A signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means. Submissions can be made online at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/rma or sent by email to resconsent.submission@dcc.govt.nz.

Privacy: Please note that submissions are public. Your name, contact details and submission will be included in papers that are available to the media and the public, including publication on the Council website. You may request your contact details be withheld. Your submission will only be used for the purpose of the fees and charges consultation process.

Fee Schedule (Link On Cover Page)

Fee schedule for 2017/18 showing the additions highlighted in yellow (objections change repeated in land use and subdivision sections).

City Planning
Section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 enables the Council to charge a fixed deposit. Section 36(3) allows for additional fees to recover actual and reasonable costs in cases where the fixed deposit is inadequate. Application costs that exceed the deposit will be subject to additional charges at the rates and disbursements set out in the following schedules. For those applications that attract a fixed deposit, a receipt will be issued at the time of payment. A GST invoice will be issued at the completion of processing.
*Fees for Land Use Planning Activities*
Non-Notified Land Use Consents
Category A	No charge
Category B (deposit)	500.00
Category C (deposit)	820.00
Category D (deposit)	1,350.00
Notified Land Use Consents
Publicly Notified Land Use Consents (deposit)	8,000.00
Limited Notified Land Use Consents (deposit)	5,000.00
Related Land Use Consents
Extension of time for land use consents. (Section 125(1)(b)) (deposit)	650.00
Change or cancellation of conditions of land use consents (Section 127(1)(b)) (deposit)	700.00
Objections to decisions of land use consents (Section 357) and fees (Section 357B)	No charge
Objections to decisions of land use consents when a hearings commissioner is requested(Section 357AB)(deposit)	800.00
Certificates of compliance (Section 139) (deposit)	800.00
Outline plan of works (Section 176A) (deposit)	1,100.00
Existing use certificate (Section 139A) (deposit)	850.00
Boundary activity consent (section 87BA) (deposit)	300.00
Marginal or temporary activity consent (section 87BB) (deposit)	300.00
If the application is complex or significant, or specialist advice is needed, a higher deposit may be required before proceeding. Fees will be discussed with the applicant in advance.
*Categories of Fees for Non-Notified Land Use Consents*
Category A:
Schedule 25.3 trees
Temporary signs for one-off not-for-profit cultural events (determination by Resource Consent department)
Murals
Replacing roof on buildings that are located in a townscape or heritage precinct, or on a scheduled building
Painting of buildings that are located in the townscape or heritage precincts, or a scheduled building
Modifying windows above verandah height of buildings located in a townscape or heritage precinct, or a scheduled building, or replacing a door on a scheduled building
Consents required for activities under Rule 16.6 (Interim Rule for Areas of Significant Conservation Value)
Except for Schedule 25.3 trees, Category A provides only for non-notified applications
Category B:
Dwelling alterations and accessory buildings in a residential zone only breaching side/rear yard and/or height plane angle where written approval of adjoining neighbour(s) is provided on lodgement
Category C:
Rural or rural-residential zone accessory buildings, and Residential zone accessory buildings including carports and garages (except as covered by Categories B or D)
Dwelling alterations including decks and pergolas resulting in minor breach of bulk and location performance standard where density of residential activity complies (except as covered by Category B)
New dwellings where density of residential activity complies (except as covered by Category D)
Signs except for permanent hoardings
Category D:
Retaining walls and/or earthworks
Structures, which includes new dwellings and accessory buildings located in a Landscape Management Area or an Urban Landscape Conservation Area
New dwellings and dwelling alterations not covered by Categories A to C
New buildings in a townscape/heritage precinct
Alteration to buildings located in a townscape/heritage precinct or to scheduled buildings not covered by Category A
Community support activities
Permanent hoarding signs
National Environmental Standard (Soil)
All non-notified resource consent applications not provided for by other categories will be charged at the Category D rate (deposit and actual cost above the deposit)
*Fees for Subdivision Activities*
Non-Notified Subdivision Consents (deposit)	1,850.00
Notified Subdivision Consents
Publicly Notified Subdivision Consents (deposit)	8,000.00
Limited Notified Subdivision Consents (deposit)	4,500.00
Related Subdivision Consent Matters
Section 226 application including certification (deposit)	700.00
Sealing, certification fee for survey plans (except 224(c)) (per certificate) (deposit)	460.00
Compliance with subdivision consent conditions (Section 224(c)) (deposit)	460.00
Combined 223 and 224(c) application (deposit)	600.00
Objections to decisions of subdivision consents (Section 357) and fees (Section 357B)	No charge
Objections to decisions of subdivision consents when a hearings commissioner is requested (Section 357AB) (deposit)	800.00
Extension of time for subdivision consents (Section 125(1)(b)) (deposit)	700.00
Change or cancellation of conditions of subdivision consents (Section 127(1) (deposit))	1,150.00
s240 Covenants (deposit)	500.00
s241 Amalgamation of Allotments (deposit)	300.00
Preparation of consent notices, certificates, bonds, partial or full release/discharge of bonds, revocation of easements (fixed fee, but any legal fees recovered at cost)	250.00
Certified copy of Council Resolution (fixed fee)	190.00
Section 221 application (deposit)	1,000.00
Section 243 application (deposit)	400.00
If the application is complex or significant, or specialist advice is needed, a higher deposit may be required before proceeding. Fees will be discussed with the applicant in advance.
Engineering, geotechnical, contamination and any other technical input will be an additional fee that recovers actual cost.
*Payment of Final Fee for Subdivision Applications*
The final fee should be paid promptly after being sent an invoice. If there are any outstanding interim invoices they will be required to be paid before the Section 224 Certificate will be released.
*Planning – Other Legislation*
Planning certificates for the sale of liquor (deposit)	240.00
Cancellation of building line restriction (Section 327A Local Government Act 1974) (deposit)	240.00
Right of way (Section 348 Local Government Act 1974) (includes processing of application and sealing) (deposit)	600.00
Overseas Investment Commission Certificate (deposit)	290.00
*Designations/Heritage Orders/Plan Changes*
For Designations/Heritage Orders/Plan Changes (privately initiated) following payment of the relevant deposit, the Council may, at its discretion, invoice for the additional charges at cost on a monthly basis and may stop work on the application until such time as the relevant invoice has been paid.
Plan changes (privately initiated) (deposit and additional charges at cost)	20,000.00
Heritage order applications (deposit and additional charges at cost)	2,000.00
Notice of requirement for designations (Section 168 & Section 181(2)) (deposit and additional charges at cost)	6,500.00
Minor modifications (Section 181 (3)) (deposit and additional charges at cost)	560.00
Uplifting designations	No charge
Purchase of District Plan (available online only, for free)	-
*Additional Fees and Charges*
Processing of notified land use and subdivision applications and any additional charges applying to any other planning application listed above will be charged at the following rates:
*Processing Costs*
Principal Advisor/Team Leader/Specialist input (senior level) from another council department (per hour)	165.00
Senior Planner and specialist input (junior/intermediate level) from another Council department (per hour)	165.00
Planners (per hour)	149.00
Graduate Planners or Monitoring officer (per hour)	117.00
Development contributions officer (per hour)	117.00
Compliance Officer (per hour)	110.00
Administrative Officers (per hour)	92.00
External consultants	At Cost
Reports commissioned by the Council	At Cost
*Disbursements*
Postage	At Cost
Photocopying (per A4 copy)	At Cost
Public notices	At Cost
Site signs	At Cost
Site inspections	At Cost
Vehicle usage (calculated on time basis (per min))	0.26
*Refund or Cost Recovery Threshold*
There is a $25 threshold either side of the final cost whereby if the amount to be refunded or recovered is less than $25 it will be absorbed to cover the processing cost.
*Hearing Costs*
For all applications involving elected members attendance at hearings for commercial applicants (GST registered only)
Hearing up to 3 hours (fixed fee)	780.00
Hearings over 3 hours (per day)	1,560.00
Staff attendance at hearings – cost of staff attending hearing (charged at hourly rates above). For resource consents, only the processing planner will be charged.
*Request to Use Commissioner*
1. The applicant requesting a commissioner in accordance with Section 100A will be charged at the actual cost of the commissioner, even if submitters also make the same request. If submitters request a commissioner, and the applicant does not, then the submitters must pay for the additional costs associated with the commissioner, with the costs being equally shared between the submitters requesting it.
2. Plan changes or Notice of Requirements which require the use of a commissioner will be charged at the actual cost of the commissioner.
*Pre-hearing Meetings*
Staff attendance at hearings – cost of staff attending hearing (charged at hourly rates above). For resource consents, only the processing planner will be charged.
*Consent Monitoring*
Resource Consent monitoring fees (fixed fee)	170.00
	(Each inspection)
State of the Environment monitoring fee (fixed fee)	111.00
Monitoring of activities subject to requirements of the HSNO Act (fixed fee)	125.00
*Fees set by the Resource Management (Infringement Offences) Regulations 1999 adopted in 2000/01*
Contravention of Section 9 (restrictions of use of land)		300.00
Contravention of an abatement notice (other than a notice under Section 322(1)(c))		750.00
Contravention of an excessive noise notice direction under Section 327		500.00
Contravention of Section 22 (failure to provide certain information to an Enforcement Officer)		300.00
Terms of payment: Payment of additional fees are due within 20 working days of the invoice date or 20th of the month, whichever is the latest.
*Site Contamination Search*
Information search to meet requirement (method) of section 6(2) of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011
Residential and rural (fixed fee per site)	155.00
Commercial and Industrial (fixed fee per site)	300.00
*Development Contributions*
The Local Government Act provides for full cost recovery. Application costs that exceed the deposit will be subject to additional charges at the rates and disbursements set out in this schedule. For those applications that attract a fixed deposit, a receipt will be issued at the time of payment. A GST invoice will be issued at the completion of processing.
Remissions, unusual developments and deferral of payment (deposit)	410.00
Objections (Full cost recovery for commissioners, council staff and other support) (deposit)	410.00
Commissioners are selected and appointed independently of Council and their full costs will be recovered.

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

	Title	Page
a	Interest Register	7