Agenda of Council - 29 January 2019

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 11 December 2018, commencing at 1.00 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), Sandy Graham (General Manager City Services), Simon Pickford (General Manager Community Services) Simon Drew (General Manager Infrastructure Services), Karilyn Canton (Senior In-House Legal Counsel), Graham McKerracher (Manager, Council Communications and Marketing), Richard Saunders (Group Manager Transport), Susan Lilley (Senior Transportation Planner), Sharon Bodeker (Team Leader Civic), Cara Paterson (Relationship Advisor Arts and Culture), Maria Ioannou (Corporate Policy Manager), Aalbert Rebergen (Biodiversity Officer) and Jemma Adams (CEO, Dunedin City Holdings).

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening Prayer
	There was no opening prayer.

2 Public Forum

2.1 South Dunedin Community Hub

Craig Waterhouse (South Dunedin Business Association) withdrew from speaking at the public forum.

3 Apologies

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Doug Hall for lateness.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/143)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the agenda with the following alterations:

- In regard to Standing Order 2.1, Option C be adopted in relation to moving and seconding and speaking to amendments.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/144)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/145)

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Executive Leadership Team's Interest Register.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/146)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 November 2018

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 November 2018 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/147)

Minutes of Committees

7 Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee - 20 November 2018

Moved (Cr Mike Lord/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes minutes of the Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee meeting held on 20 November 2018.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/148)

8 Economic Development Committee - 20 November 2018

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Notes of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting held on 20 November 2018.

b) Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee held on Tuesday, 20 November 2018, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/149)

9 Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee - 29 November 2018

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Notes the minutes of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee meeting held on 29 November 2018.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/150)

Minutes of Community Boards

10 Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 3 October 2018

Moved (Cr Mike Lord/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes the minutes of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board meeting held on 3 October 2018.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/151)

Reports

11 Dunedin Urban Cycleways Programme

A report from Transport sought approval to submit the Dunedin Urban Cycleways preferred programme to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for approval.

The Group Manager Transport (Richard Saunders) and Senior Transportation Planner (Susan Lilley) spoke to the report and advised that evaluation undertaken had identified programme 8 as the preferred programme as it was most closely aligned with the strategic priorities of the investment partners.

Mr Saunders and Ms Lilley responded to questions on the options provided and requirements necessary for NZTA funding.

During discussion Cr Hall entered the meeting at 1.33 pm.

Staff were thanked for the work undertaken on the cycleways programme.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Approves the Dunedin Urban Cycleways programme – programme 8 for submission to NZ Transport Agency.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/152) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

12 Proposed parking changes - November 2018

A report from Transport appended the findings of the Bylaws Subcommittee on proposed changes to parking controls. The report noted that consultation had been undertaken in November and the Bylaws Subcommittee had considered the proposed changes, feedback received and submissions at a hearing held on 29 November 2018.

The Group Manager Transport (Richard Saunders) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

There was a discussion on the reduction of parks in the centre city and the need to ensure there was adequate and reliable public transport in place to encourage commuters to use this method of travel. As there were approximately 35,000 commuters travelling to the centre city from the south daily, the merits of trialling a commuter rail service was discussed.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Considers the recommendations of the Bylaws Subcommittee on proposed changes to parking.

b) Approves the changes to parking controls that are shown in the Dunedin City Council's traffic and parking controls database, 11 December 2018 update, https://tinyurl.com/DCCParkingBylaw.

c) Notes that all parking controls previously approved by Council and not shown as a change on the 11 December 2018 traffic and parking controls database, remain unchanged.

d) Confirms the Traffic and Parking Bylaw in relation to state highways within Dunedin City pursuant to the most recent instrument of delegation received from NZTA on 10 December 2018.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/153) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against

13 DCC submission: proposed Regional Pest Management Plan and Biosecurity Strategy

A report from Corporate Policy sought approval for the submission on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and Biosecurity Strategy to be submitted to the Otago Regional Council (ORC).

The General Manager City Services (Sandy Graham), Corporate Policy Manager (Maria Ioannou) and Biodiversity Officer (Aalbert Rebergen) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

The submission was approved pending some minor changes to the pest list and responsibility for the removal of noxious weeds being the land occupier. It was agreed that the DCC and ORC needed to work together to achieve the city’s pest management goals.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Council:

a) Approves a DCC submission on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan and Biosecurity Strategy to the Otago Regional Council.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/154)

14 Notice of Motion - Rain Radar

In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, an attached Notice of Motion had been received from Crs David Benson-Pope and Aaron Hawkins.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Make urgent representations to the Meteorological Service and other agencies in respect of the installation of Rain Radar(s) for Dunedin city and the surrounding area.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/155)

Resolution to exclude the public

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 November 2018 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	.
C2 Economic Development Committee - 20 November 2018 - Public Excluded		.
C3 Dunedin City Holdings Group Appointments and Re-appointments	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Arts Festival - Additional Funding Request	S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

That Dunedin City Holdings Ltd representative Jemma Adams (CEO, Dunedin City Holdings) be permitted to attend the meeting, after the public has been excluded, to speak to Item C3 to provide assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed.

Motion carried (CNL/2018/156)

The meeting moved into confidential at 2.46 pm, and concluded at 5.01 pm.

………………………………………

MAYOR

Council

29 January 2019

Reports

Short term visitor accommodation

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an alternative option for rating residential properties providing short term visitor accommodation (STVA) in Dunedin. The option would impact on STVA properties where the entire residence or separate part (a separately used or inhabited part (SUIP)) of a residential property is used for STVA for more than a designated number of nights a year.

2 While there are a range of reasons for councils changing the way STVA properties are rated the proposed option attempts to make rates fairer between STVA properties and traditional accommodation providers, such as hotels and motels. Traditional accommodation providers pay higher commercial rates, however in most cases residential STVA providers currently pay residential rates. All STVA providers receive a benefit from Council’s spending on marketing and economic development activities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Considers the implementation of a new rating method for residential properties being used for short term visitor accommodation from 1 July 2020, and if approved

b) Notes staff will begin pre-engagement with the community, in advance of full consultation with the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

BACKGROUND

3 Following a request by Council, the Rates and Funding Advisory Panel (the Panel) investigated alternative options for rating residential properties providing short-term visitor accommodation (STVA).

4 The Panel recommended that a new differential category be established for residential properties where the entire residence or separate part of a residential property is used for STVA. It was requested that options be presented on the number of nights a property could be booked for before it is included in the new category.

DISCUSSION

Identification of STVA properties

5 For rating purposes, residential STVA properties will be defined as all residential properties with four bedrooms or less where the entire property or an entire SUIP;

a) is used for short term visitor accommodation; and

b) it has a ‘daily tariff’; and

c) it is booked/let for more than a designated number of nights per year.

6 Residential properties with greater than four bedrooms available for STVA are currently included within the commercial or heritage bed and breakfast (B & B) categories.

7 The definition includes only those properties where the entire property or SUIP is used for STVA. This helps to ensure that cases where some rooms in the property are used for STVA while the owner remains in residence are not captured, as this is considered a homestay arrangement.

8 A ‘daily tariff’ is included within the definition to ensure that properties used for standard rental accommodation purposes are not captured by the higher rates charge. Please note that this terminology will be confirmed as the proposal is progressed.

9 Following a request by the Rates and Funding Advisory Panel, staff have begun the process of identifying properties that may meet the residential STVA property definition.

10 The identification process has involved searching websites, particularly online booking sites such as Airbnb and Bookabach, and working with interested parties to identify properties. Staff have so far compiled a list of 230 residential properties or SUIPs that have been identified as STVA providers and had their address confirmed. There are also another 91 properties that are unconfirmed and will require further investigation.

Communication with ratepayers

11 In order to assess a rate for STVAs, it will be necessary to collect information from each STVA property owner on the number of ‘booked’ nights each year. The assessment of booked nights would be based on the number of booked nights for the previous calendar year (1 January to 31 December). Where historic information is not available, say in the first year of operation, forecast booked nights would be used. This information would be gathered through an annual declaration from STVA property owners.

12 The annual declaration would require property owners to confirm whether their residential property is used for short term visitor accommodation and, if so, how many nights it was booked for during the previous calendar year. This information would be used to determine the appropriate rating differential to be applied to the property from 1 July the following year.

13 Using the calendar year rather than the rating year will allow for better planning and consultation during each Annual Plan period.

14 It is recommended that Council utilise the 2019 year as a transition year for STVA providers. This means informing affected property owners that the rating method will change from 1 July 2020, and request that they retain booking information for their property or properties from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. This will ensure that the affected properties will be included in the appropriate rating category for the 2020/21 rating year.

15 Regulatory matters are not addressed in this report, as they are dealt with separately by the appropriate Council staff as issues arise. The Council has advised property owners using their property for STVA of the District Plan and Building Act legislative requirements as they relate to property use.

Rating options

16 The options presented below consider how residential properties being used for short term visitor accommodation are rated in terms of the general rate.

17 It should be noted that properties are rated under the same differential for the full rating year. A STVA classified property purchased during the rating year for use as a residential home only would continue paying rates under the relevant differential for the remainder of the rating year.

18 Council may wish to consider what effect identifying properties as STVA providers may have on property values. For example, a property that is used for STVA for a significant portion of the year may have a higher property value than if it had been used solely for residential purposes, because it is identified as having a significant income stream. A higher property value would result in a higher rates charge.

OPTIONS

19 The table below provides a summary of how the different types of STVA are currently rated by the Dunedin City Council. A differential, described as a factor, is the degree to which the rate (the cents in the dollar) on each category of property is higher or lower than residential property. For example, the rate paid by commercial properties for the current year is 2.45 times more than the rate paid by residential properties.

Type of short term visitor accommodation	General rate differential category and factor
Hotels, motels, backpackers and camping grounds - traditional commercial accommodation	Commercial: 2.45
Commercial B & B* – B & B’s with greater than four bedrooms.	Commercial: 2.45
Heritage B & B* – B & B’s with greater than four bedrooms, meets ‘heritage’ criteria and the owner lives at the facility. The differential is set at a lower level to ease the rates burden on these operators.	Residential Heritage B & B: 1.75
Residential STVA – with four bedrooms or less.	Residential: 1.00

* B & B properties in this category are those the Council has knowledge of, or has been advised of.

Option One – Maintain the current rating method

20 This option involves maintaining the status quo. Residential properties with greater than four bedrooms available for STVA would continue to be included within the commercial or heritage bed and breakfast (B & B) categories. Properties with four bedrooms or less would continue to be rated within the residential category.

Advantages

· No administrative costs required to identify and monitor STVA properties.

· No increase in rates for small providers of STVA in Dunedin.

· Would not deter home owners from making their homes available as STVA at peak times, such as rugby games or concerts at Forsyth Barr Stadium.

Disadvantages

· Does not address the current perceived inequity in rates paid by traditional commercial accommodation providers.

· Allows potentially commercial accommodation operations to continue being undertaken in residential properties.

Option Two – Establish a new STVA rating category

21 This option creates a new STVA category for STVA properties booked for more than the designated number of nights. Properties in the new category would pay higher general rates than residential properties. If the property is let for the designated number of nights or less, there would be no change in rates.

22 Residential STVA properties will be defined as all residential properties with four bedrooms or less where the entire property or an entire SUIP;

a) is used for short term visitor accommodation; and

b) it has a daily tariff; and

c) it is booked/let for more than a designated number of nights per year.

23 The proposal will not result in increased rates revenue for the Council. The total amount of rates collected would remain the same but would be spread differently over a broader ratepayer base. The additional general rates paid by STVA providers would not have a material impact on the level of general rates paid by other ratepayers.

24 This change to the rating method would require formal consultation and an amendment to the 10 Year Plan, due to the introduction of a new rating category.

2.1 Designated Night options

25 There are three options for the booked night differential boundaries. They provide varying thresholds for the number of nights a residential property can be booked before being included in the new STVA rating category.

Option 2.1a – Booked for more than 14 nights

26 This differential boundary of 14 nights allows for property owners to let out their property for up to two weeks, for example at peak times such as concerts at Forsyth Barr Stadium, and recognises the limited revenue generated. Residential STVA properties will be rated as follows:

Booked nights	Differential Category
14 or less	Residential
More than 14	STVA

27 This option may deter property owners from wanting to be an STVA provider for more than 14 nights a year. It may also encourage more avoidance behaviour from property owners who do not wish to be identified as STVA providers.

Option 2.1b – Booked for more than 28 nights

28 A differential boundary of 28 nights allows for property owners to let out their property for up to four weeks, for example while on holiday, and recognises the limited revenue generated. Residential STVA properties will be rated as follows:

Booked nights	Differential Category
28 or less	Residential
More than 28	STVA

29 This option may deter property owners from wanting to be an STVA provider for more than 28 nights a year. It may also encourage some avoidance behaviour from property owners who do not wish to be identified as STVA providers.

Option 2.1c – Tiered system

30 This option involves creating a tiered differential boundary system for rating purposes. This is consistent with the approach taken by the Queenstown Lakes District Council. The upper boundary for Auckland Council is 135 nights. Residential STVA properties will be rated as follows:

Booked nights	Differential Category
28 or less	Residential
29 to 180	STVA
More than 180	Commercial

31 The upper boundary has been proposed at 180 nights, approximately half a year. After half a year, a residential property being used for STVA can reasonably be held to be operating as a commercial venture. As such, it is equitable to other accommodation providers to include these properties in the commercial rating category.

32 This option will rate longer-term STVA providers in line with commercial accommodation providers such as hotels and motels, while easing the burden on those providers that operate for a smaller portion of the year.

2.2 General Rate Category options

33 There are at least three options for the general rate differential that could be applied to STVA properties booked for more than the designated number of nights. They give differing levels of tolerance to strike a balance between enabling residential property owners to cost-effectively provide STVA and maintaining a fair market for all accommodation providers.

Option 2.2a – STVA category set at the heritage B & B differential

34 This would involve rating residential STVA properties that are booked for more than the designated number of nights a year at the same level as heritage B & B properties. Under this option, residential STVA properties would have a general rating differential of 1.75.

Option 2.2b –A new differential

35 This would involve creating a new differential factor for STVA properties. It is proposed that this new category would have a general rating differential of 2.10, which is approximately 25% residential and 75% commercial.

Option 2.2c – STVA category set at the commercial differential

36 This would involve rating residential STVA properties that are booked for more than the designated number of nights a year at the same level as properties in the commercial rating category. As such, the affected properties would have a general rating differential of 2.45.

37 Under this option, residential STVA properties that are booked for more than the designated number of nights a year would be rated for general rates in line with commercial accommodation providers, such as hotels and motels.

38 Attachment A provides a visual of the proposed option, collating the options for designated nights and general rate categories provided above.

Advantages

· Would make rates fairer between STVA properties and traditional accommodation providers, such as hotels and motels.

· Would not deter home owners from making their homes available for STVA at peak times, such as rugby games or concerts at Forsyth Barr Stadium for less than the designated number of nights a year.

· Would not impact on properties where only one or two bedrooms in the house are available for STVA and the owner lives in the residence.

Disadvantages

· It is difficult to identify and monitor STVA providers based on the limited available information. This process would require additional resources on an annual basis, a high reliance on internal investigative work and property owners providing correct information on the occupancy of STVA properties.

· May deter property owners wanting to be an STVA provider and making their homes available at peak times, such as rugby games or concerts at Forsyth Barr Stadium for more than the designated number of nights.

· May drive avoidance behaviour, in which providers attempt to avoid being identified as short term visitor accommodation providers.

· Increases rates for STVA providers who would be included in the new differential category.

· Properties are rated under the same differential for the full rating year. A STVA classified property purchased during the rating year for use as a residential home only would continue paying rates under the relevant differential for the remainder of the rating year.

· Identifying and rating STVA properties at a higher rate may result in higher property values. This would result in a higher rates charge for affected property owners.

NEXT STEPS

39 If Council choses to progress a change in the rating of STVA properties, staff will begin pre-engagement with the community.

40 Staff will continue to identify and confirm the addresses of residential properties being used for STVA. Once the list has been finalised, affected property owners would be sent letters advising them of Council’s proposal and requesting that they record booking information for each calendar year.

41 Staff will prepare a full proposal for the 2020/21 Annual Plan consultation period. This proposal will require an amendment to the 10 Year Plan due to the introduction of a new rating category.

42 Staff will continue work through regulatory issues as they arise.

43 Staff will consider appropriate changes to how other rates are charged to STVA properties. For example, the Panel discussed the application of the Economic Development Targeted Rate.

Signatories

Author:

Carolyn Allan - Senior Management Accountant

Authoriser:

Gavin Logie - Financial Controller

Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Option summary	28

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The review of rating policies enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by considering whether any changes are required.

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	☒	☐	☐

Aspects of rating policy changes may touch on the strategies selected including the Revenue and Financing Policy.

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

Any decision to establish a new rating category will require an amendment to the 10 Year Plan. If Council choses to progress the establishment of a new rating category, a fully formed proposal will be consulted on during the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications at this stage.

Significance

This administrative decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy but any proposal to introduce a new rating category will be fully consulted on with the community.

Engagement – external

There has not been any external engagement at this stage on the proposal provided.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred with staff in the relevant departments.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal advice will be sought prior to any change in the rating method being implemented.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

This is likely to be of interest to Community Boards as there will be STVA properties in the Community Board areas. Community Boards will be involved in any consultation that is undertaken on STVAs.

Council

29 January 2019

DCC submission: local government funding and financing issues paper

Department: Community and Planning and Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for a submission (Attachment A) to the Productivity Commission (the Commission) on the Local government funding and financing: Issues paper (the issues paper).

2 This paper is part of the Commission’s local government funding and financing inquiry, which is at an early stage. The draft submission identifies issues the DCC would like the Productivity Commission to consider as the inquiry progresses. These issues are organised into three broad topic areas: partnerships, innovation, and funding and financing tools.

3 The comments and recommendations in the draft submission aim to ensure the Commission’s inquiry addresses funding and financing issues important to the DCC and produces recommendations tailored to enhance the ability of the DCC and other councils to deliver on strategic priorities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the DCC submission to the Productivity Commission on the Local government funding and financing: Issues Paper at Attachment A.

b) Notes the DCC will have further opportunities to contribute to the Productivity Commission’s local government funding and financing inquiry in 2019.

BACKGROUND

4 The Productivity Commission is an independent Crown entity established in 2011. The Commission advises the New Zealand Government on productivity-related issues. The Commission has previously completed inquiries into topics relating to local government, including using land for housing, urban planning and local government regulation.

5 In July 2018 the Government asked the Commission to look at the local government funding and financing system – to examine options and approaches for improving the current system where the Commission identifies shortcomings.

6 The inquiry’s terms of reference note local government cost pressures have grown significantly over the past decade and that local authority rates and payments increases have outpaced increases in the local government cost index.

7 In November 2018 the Commission published the Local government funding and financing: Issues paper, which includes 49 consultation questions, and called for submissions. Submissions on the issues paper close on 15 February 2019.

8 The issues paper discusses and seeks feedback on:

a) local government roles and responsibilities, the cost of services provided by local government and how they are paid for;

b) local government cost pressure points: population change (including growth, decline and ageing); tourism; expansion of local government responsibilities; Treaty of Waitangi settlements; climate change and other natural hazards; rising prices; and non-core expenditure; and,

c) local government funding and financing trends, covering the ways in which the tools are currently applied, and the ways in which these tools – or new tools – may be applied in the future.

9 The DCC will have further opportunities to contribute to the Commission’s inquiry. On 5 March 2019 the Commission will hold a cluster meeting in Dunedin for the DCC and neighbouring councils. The Commission is also working with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) to meet with local authorities through LGNZ’s programme of zone and sector meetings. Meetings involving the DCC are the zone 5 and 6 meeting on 19 March 2019, and the metropolitan sector meeting on 22 March 2019.

10 The Commission will publish a draft report in June 2019 and submissions on the draft will be open until August 2019. The Government has asked the Commission to provide a final report by 30 November 2019.

DISCUSSION

11 Funding and financing underpins the DCC’s ability to deliver its strategic priorities. In addition, local government funding and financing has significant impacts on the financial situation of local communities, particularly through the affordability of property-based rates.

12 With the Commission’s inquiry at an early stage, the DCC submission is high-level. The submission highlights issues the DCC would like to see receive full attention as the inquiry progresses. The issues have the potential to enhance local government’s ability to deliver on its strategic priorities and improve affordability for local communities.

13 The submission also recommends the Commission notes the work currently underway to reinstate the four aspects of well-being in the Local Government Act and sets recommendations with a view to this change.

Key points of DCC submission

14 The issues highlighted in the DCC submission are presented in three broad areas – partnerships, innovation, and funding and financing tools – and include:

a) financial impacts of the expansion of local government responsibilities and requirements through changes made at the central Government level;

b) partnerships between local government and private or non-governmental sectors to enhance service delivery and community outcomes;

c) costs associated with community engagement;

d) the decision-making benefits realised as a result of the DCC’s strategic framework;

e) legislative and central Government reporting/compliance/process requirements;

f) restrictions on local government’s ability to use particular funding tools to fund activities; and,

g) the advantages (and any disadvantages) of local government retaining the GST charged on rates to support delivery against increased responsibilities.

OPTIONS

Option One (Recommended option) – Submit on the Local government funding and financing: Issues Paper

15 Approve the draft submission on the issues paper, with any suggested amendments, to the Productivity Commission.

Advantages

· Allows the DCC to highlight issues that could benefit from full attention as the Productivity Commission’s inquiry progresses.

· Supports an inquiry into local government funding and financing that is attuned to the specific needs and concerns of DCC.

· Supports self-review of the DCC’s use of the existing suite of local government funding and financing tools.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on the Local government funding and financing: Issues Paper

16 Do not approve the submission to the Productivity Commission on the issues paper.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to highlight issues that could benefit from full attention as the Productivity Commission’s inquiry progresses.

· Missed opportunity to support the local government funding and financing being attuned to the specific needs and concerns of local government.

· Missed opportunity to support self-review of the DCC’s use of the existing suite of funding and financing tools.

NEXT STEPS

17 If the Council approves the submission it will be sent to the Productivity Commission for consideration.

18 Staff will update elected members on the Productivity Commission’s local government funding and financing inquiry as it progresses towards the date scheduled for completion in November 2019. This will include details of further opportunities for DCC input through submissions and participation in meetings.

Signatories

Author:

Maria Ioannou - Corporate Policy Manager

Scott Campbell - Policy Advisor

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC submission: local government funding and financing	28

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

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 submission has been made in line with the goals and objectives of the DCC strategic framework above.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua at this stage.

Sustainability

The DCC submission promotes inquiry into ensuring the economic sustainability of services local government provides to communities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The DCC submission promotes inquiry into improving the local government funding and financing system, but has no impact on the 10 year plan or financial strategy at this stage.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications at this stage.

Significance

This decision has been assessed under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

Engagement – external

Staff reviewed draft responses to the Productivity Commission’s issues paper by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).

Engagement - internal

Councillors and DCC staff from the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), Finance and Corporate Policy have had input into the draft DCC submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards may be interested in the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into local government funding and financing and the DCC submission.

Council

29 January 2019

DCC Submission: Draft Aotearoa New Zealand Government Tourism Strategy

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for the Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Government Tourism Strategy (Tourism Strategy).

2 The submission outlines the DCC’s tourism role and strategic objectives and provides general comments on the draft Tourism Strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the DCC submission on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Government Tourism Strategy.

BACKGROUND

3 The draft Tourism Strategy sets out the government’s ambitions for tourism and how it plans to enrich New Zealand through sustainable tourism growth, working across government as well as within the tourism sector, iwi, local government, communities and other stakeholders.

4 Public consultation for the draft Tourism Strategy closes 5pm Monday 4 February 2019.

DISCUSSION

Strategic context

5 This submission aligns with the goals of Dunedin’s Economic Development Strategy and the Dunedin Destination Plan. The strategy and plan note the importance of tourism to Dunedin’s economy and the activity underway to leverage visitor contributions and create compelling and distinct experiences to attract people.

Key points of DCC submission

6 The DCC submission is generally supportive of the draft Tourism Strategy. The Strategy’s outcomes and priority work areas align with the goals and actions of Dunedin’s Economic Development Strategy and Dunedin Destination Plan.

7 The DCC submission also notes support for the Government’s continuing focus on marketing to diverse range of markets. The draft submission recommends Government include a focus on the student market as it provides strong economic contributions to Dunedin and New Zealand.

8 The submission supports stakeholders in the international education sector who are pushing for more collaborative relationships with the tourism sector.

9 The submission also supports Creative New Zealand’s submission on the Tourism Strategy and highlights the benefits of arts and culture being a core component of tourism.

10 Sustainable tourism is crucial for Dunedin and the rest of New Zealand, and the submission on the Tourism Strategy highlights its importance and the need to have appropriate resources to manage growth.

OPTIONS

Option One (Recommended Option) – Submit on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Tourism Strategy

11 Approve the submission, with any suggested amendments, to MBIE on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Tourism Strategy.

Advantages

· Supports collaboration with central government on tourism management.

· Highlights importance of tourism to Dunedin.

· Spotlights the student tourism sector.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Tourism Strategy

12 Do not approve the submission to MBIE on the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Tourism Strategy

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to support cross-collaboration on tourism outcomes with central government.

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on central government’s goals for NZ tourism.

NEXT STEPS

13 If the Council approves the submission it will be sent to MBIE for their consideration.

Signatories

Author:

Jessie Wu - Policy Advisor

Authoriser:

John Christie - Director Enterprise Dunedin

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Submission on the Draft NZ Government Tourism Strategy	28
⇩b	Draft Aotearoa NZ Government Tourism Strategy summary document	28

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and 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	☒	☐	☐

This submission contributes to the Economic Development Strategy, and other strategies, plans and policies relating to effective and sustainable tourism management.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The submission supports sustainable tourism growth as outlined in the draft Tourism Strategy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications.

Significance

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

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 identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The draft Tourism Strategy may be of interest to the Community Boards.

Council

29 January 2019

Resolution to Exclude the Public

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 11 December 2018 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C2 South Dunedin Community and Culture Centre	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 Review of Borrowing Arrangements	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Enterprise Dunedin 2018 Review	S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	Recommendations from the report will need to be discussed with stakeholders and staff following the outcome of the meeting..
C5 Confirmation of Minutes	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 11 December 2018	20