Agenda of Council - 19 February 2019

Council

19 February 2019

Reports

Annual Plan 2019/20 update

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates the Council on the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20. It provides a proposed approach for engaging with the community on the draft budgets, and the development of an Annual Plan 2019/20 information document that will be delivered to every Dunedin home.

2 Community engagement on the Annual Plan 2019/20 will build on the success of last year’s community engagement on the 10 year plan 2018-28, to update the community on how the Council is tracking against the goals set out in the 10 year plan, and to seek community feedback on what the DCC is doing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Confirms the proposed approach for engaging with the community on the draft budgets and content of the Annual Plan 2019/20.

b) Notes the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 Information Document at Attachment A.

BACKGROUND

3 On 29 and 30 January 2019, the Council considered draft budgets for the Annual Plan 2019/20. The draft budgets include an overall rate increase of 5%, which is in line with the limit set in the Financial Strategy and year 2 of the 10 year plan 2018-28.

4 The Council adopted the draft 2019/20 operating budget for the purposes of developing the Annual Plan 2019/20 and engaging with the community. The Council resolved to hold hearings on the Annual Plan 2019/20 after the conclusion of the engagement period, and requested staff provide a high-level community engagement plan for the Council’s consideration.

5 The proposed key dates for engagement and decision-making are:

a) Community engagement will be open for four weeks, from Monday 20 March until Monday 15 April 2019.

b) Hearings will be held over a three-day period after the community engagement period has closed, from Monday 6 May to Wednesday 8 May 2019.

c) Deliberations are scheduled to begin on Monday 27 May 2019.

DISCUSSION

Community engagement approach

6 The aim for community engagement on the Annual Plan 2019/20 is to build on the success of the 10 year plan engagement, to update the community on how the DCC is tracking against the goals set out in the 10 year plan, and to seek community feedback on what the DCC is doing. Community feedback will also be sought on the proposed trial of a free central city bus loop.

7 The proposed community engagement approach includes:

a) Sending an information document to every Dunedin home;

b) Providing Annual Plan 2019/20 information at Central City Plan roadshow events during the period 18 March to 31 March 2019;

c) Facilitating a face-to-face session with Councillors (‘Councillor cuppa’) in the North Dunedin area, open to all the community and held during the week beginning Monday 1 April 2019;

d) Providing Annual Plan 2019/20 information at the South Dunedin Street Festival on Saturday 6 April 2019;

e) Working with Community Boards to facilitate engagement in their areas during the engagement period (e.g. Blueskin Bay A&P Show on Sunday 7 April 2019);

f) Networking with communities and stakeholder groups (e.g. Youth Council), and providing engagement packs including the information document and other engagement collateral such as posters for use by these groups;

g) Use of social media and other online channels, including Facebook, Twitter, and the DCC website;

h) Providing staff with key messages about the process and content of the draft budgets;

i) Providing Councillors and Community Boards with engagement packs, and encouraging and supporting elected members to use their social media networks to generate engagement;

j) Setting out how to access further information and provide feedback to the Council in media, FYI panels and advertising;

k) Setting up static displays in a variety of locations such as libraries and other community facilities; and

l) Convening hearings where the community can speak to the Council in person on Monday 6 May to Wednesday 8 May 2019.

Information document

8 A draft information document has been developed to support community engagement and participation in the Council’s decision-making processes relating to the content of the Annual Plan 2019/20. The draft information document is provided at Attachment A.

9 The draft information document is based on the decisions made at the Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019 and explains the Council’s proposals in plain English.

10 The draft information document includes information on:

a) Some of the activities and projects that were included in the 10 year plan and continue to be included in the draft budget for 2019/20, and some areas where costs have increased;

b) The proposed rates increase of 5%;

c) Proposed fee increase to on street parking fees and charging for staff advice on development proposals;

d) The proposed trial of a free bus loop in the central city;

e) The reports that will be provided to the deliberations meeting in May; and

f) Ways for the community to give feedback to the Council.

11 Branding of the document will be based on the graphic design and ‘Investing in our great small city’ tagline developed for the 10 year plan.

12 The information document will be delivered to all Dunedin homes, and will support the community engagement on the Annual Plan 2019/20. The more detailed supporting documents will be available online and at the DCC’s service centres and libraries.

Capturing feedback

13 The community will be able to provide feedback through an online form, print copies of the feedback form and at the engagement activities. All feedback will be collated, analysed and reported back to the Council for consideration at the deliberations beginning on 27 May 2019.

OPTIONS

14 As this is an update report on the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

15 Work on engagement planning is continuing and Councillors will be updated and asked how they wish to participate as planning continues.

16 The draft information document will be designed and delivered to every Dunedin home. Feedback on the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 will be sought from the community from 18 March to 15 April 2019.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Maria Ioannou - Corporate Policy Manager

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Annual Plan 2019/20 Information Document	34

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The development of the Annual Plan 2019/20 enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; and meets the current and future needs of the Dunedin communities for good quality public services in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses.

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	☒	☐	☐

The Annual Plan 2019/20 contributes to all of the objectives and priorities of the strategic framework as it describes the Council’s activities; the community outcomes; and provides a long term focus for decision making and coordination of the Council’s resources, as well as a basis for community accountability.

Māori Impact Statement

The Annual Plan 2019/20 provides a mechanism for Māori to contribute to local decision-making.

Sustainability

The Annual Plan 2019/20 contains content regarding the Council’s approach to sustainability. Major issues and implications for sustainability are discussed in the Infrastructure Strategy and financial resilience is discussed in the Financial Strategy.

10 year plan /Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report provides an update on the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Financial considerations

There is funding allocated in the 2018/19 Annual Plan budget for engagement activities,

Significance

The draft budgets are considered to be of low significance given that there are currently no material or significant changes from the content of the 10 year plan 2018-28 for the 2019/20 year.

Engagement – external

The content of the Annual Plan 2019/20 is of interest to the community and there will be engagement from 18 March to 15 April 2019 on the draft budgets and proposed content of the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from Council Communications and Marketing, Finance, Community and Planning, and Governance teams have been involved in this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The draft Annual Plan 2019/20 community engagement plan will be of interest to Community Boards. As discussed in the report, the proposed engagement approach includes working with Community Boards to provide an engagement activity in their area during the engagement period.

Council

19 February 2019

Otago Museum funding request outcomes discussion

Department: Ara Toi and Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the outcome of initial discussions between DCC staff and the Otago Museum in relation to the Museum’s request for additional funding.

2 DCC staff and the Museum have resolved to prepare a further financial report to submit to Council in time for May 2019.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that a further financial report on Museum funding will be delivered to Council in time for Annual Plan deliberations.

b) Notes the steps to be followed if the DCC formally objects to a Levy increase in the Museum’s budget.

BACKGROUND

3 At the 29 January 2019 Council Annual Plan meeting, Council noted the Otago Museum’s request for additional funding, correspondence and 2019-20 Draft Annual Plan.

4 The Museum has requested a 12% Levy increase to $4.838 million. In addition, the Museum has requested:

a) Future Levy increases in line with inflation in each subsequent year.

b) For capital expenditure assistance on larger compliance projects and some gallery developments.

5 The DCC has included a Levy increase of 3.5% in its draft budget for 2019/20.

DISCUSSION

6 On Thursday 7 February 2019, DCC staff met with representatives of the Otago Museum to discuss the Museum’s funding request and potential alternatives to funding other than an immediate Levy increase.

7 The meeting was positive with a number of topics discussed including:

a) The Museum’s need for longer term certainty to ensure day to day operations can be adequately funded;

b) The recognition that other funding sources would need to be explored to support the upgrades required to Museum facilities (outside of normal renewals);

c) Potential options to support the desired funding levels;

d) The impact of any change in Museum funding on proposed Council rate increases both in 2019/20 and beyond.

8 During the course of discussions, the Museum understood that the Council’s draft annual plan currently has an average rates increase of 5%, which is in line with the limits in Council’s Financial Strategy.

9 It was agreed that as a first step Museum management would prepare a 10 year forecast of operating revenue and operating expenditure. This information would form the basis of development of a sustainable funding mechanism to provide the necessary future certainty to both parties.

10 A report would then be prepared for consideration by both the Museum Board and Council prior to the 31 May 2019 deadline.

Levies in the Otago Museum’s Budget

11 The Otago Museum Trust Board Act (1996) specifies that contributing Councils must pay the Levy set by the Otago Museum Board once the budget is adopted, unless the Council lodges an objection with the Otago Museum Board (section 16(1)) of the Act. If the DCC wishes to object the following steps are to be taken:

a) The DCC is to write to the Museum Board, no later than 31 May 2019, stating the grounds of objection.

b) Within 14 days the Museum Board is to convene a meeting of all contributing authorities, who are to be represented by at least one delegate. The meeting is to be held no later than 1 month following 31 May 2019.

c) Within 14 days of this meeting, the delegates are required to make a recommendation to their authority who are to inform the Board of such recommendations.

d) If an agreement cannot be reached within 28 days of the meeting, the contributing authorities may resolve that the total Levy be reduced to an amount not less than the previous year.

OPTIONS

12 This is an update report only.

NEXT STEPS

13 DCC staff will work with the Museum to prepare a financial report on the Otago Museum for Council’s consideration in time for Annual Plan deliberations.

Signatories

Author:

Nick Dixon - Group Manager Ara Toi

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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	☒	☐	☐

The Otago Museum is supported by Council and supports the Arts and Culture Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no sustainability impacts.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no immediate implications for the Long Term Plan.

Financial considerations

An increase to the Otago Museum’s 2019-20 Funding Levy would have budgetary implications for Council.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Relevant DCC staff have met with senior Museum representatives and financial advisers to the Museum.

Engagement - internal

Relevant staff provided input into the implications of the Council’s request and correspondence.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known or immediate health and safety risks. The Otago Museum Trust Board Act (1996) specifies that contributing Councils must pay the Levy set by the Otago Museum Board unless the Council lodges an objection with the Otago Museum Board (section 16(1)) of the Act. The Council will commence the objection process if it is decided not to pay an increased Levy in the future.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

19 February 2019

Mosgiel Aquatic Facility - Project Update

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility redevelopment project (the pool) and to seek approval from Council to disband the Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities Advisory Panel (the Advisory Panel) and replace it with a Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team (the Project Team).

2 The Advisory Panel, established by Council in December 2017, has achieved the purpose and objectives set out for it when it was formed, and now needs to be disestablished.

3 The Project Team will provide operational oversight of the pool development, monitor and assess progress against project milestones, monitor expenditure against budget, and ensure regular reporting through to the Infrastructure and Networks Committee.

4 The community fundraising target of $3.2 million set by Council as part of the Dunedin City Council 10 Year Plan 2018 – 28 has been met by the Taieri Community Facilities Trust.

5 The designation process for the Mosgiel Community and Recreation Area (Memorial Park, Memorial Gardens and Johnstone park) has been lodged and the Hearing Committee is set to meet on 18, 19, and 20 February 2019.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the fundraising target of $3.2 million has been met.

b) Notes that the Notice of Requirement for the designation of the Mosgiel Community and Recreation Area has been lodged.

c) Disbands the Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities Advisory Panel

d) Establishes the Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team

e) Constitutes the membership of the Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team as follows:

i) Taieri Community Facilities Trust Representative x 2

ii) Dunedin City Council Parks and Recreation Representatives x 3

iii) Mosgiel and Taieri Community Board x 1

iv) Advisory - Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Project Manager x 1

BACKGROUND

6 At the Council meeting of 11 December 2017 Council considered a report that proposed the establishment of the Advisory Panel.

7 The purpose of the Advisory Panel was to provide stakeholder direction to the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility project by co-ordinating the efforts of stakeholders for the delivery of the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility. On 11 December 2017 Council resolved:

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Approves the establishment of the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Advisory Panel.

b) Appoints six members to the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Advisory Panel as follows:

i) Economic Development Committee Chair – Cr Staynes (Chairperson)

ii) Infrastructure Services and Network Committee Deputy Chair – Cr O'Malley

iii) Planning and Environment Committee Deputy Chair - Cr Stedman

iv) Taieri Community Facilities Trust Representative – Irene Mosley

v) Taieri Community Facilities Trust Representative – Bill Feather

vi) Taieri Community Facilities Trust Representative – Martin Dillon.

c) Notes that the terms of reference will be developed in consultation with the Taieri Community Facilities Trust and brought back to the Council early in 2018 for confirmation.

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting following the adjournment at 11.00 am.

Motion carried (CNL/2017/001)

DISCUSSION

Fundraising

8 As part of the Dunedin City Council 10 Year Plan 2018–28 deliberations in May 2018 Council resolved to approve $10.8 million for the DCC contribution to the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility. This level of funding was subject to the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (the Trust) achieving a fundraising target of at least $3.2 million and the Council approval of the project.

9 At the 28 November 2018 meeting of the Advisory Panel the Trust advised that the fundraising target of $3.2 million had been achieved.

Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Project Advisory Panel

10 The Advisory Panel was established in December 2017 with the purpose to provide stakeholder direction and to co-ordinate the efforts of stakeholders for the delivery of the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility. The Advisory Panel met regularly throughout 2018 and made significant progress.

11 At the same meeting of the Advisory Panel the members discussed the next phase of the pool development project, and the best way to drive the operational (design and build) phase of the project.

12 The Advisory Panel proposed that it be disestablished and a new Project Team be formed to oversee project through to completion in June 2021.

13 The Advisory Panel agreed unanimously to put the disestablishment of the Advisory Panel and establishment of a Project Team to Council for consideration.

Mosgiel Designation

14 The Council is proposing to designate Memorial park, Memorial Gardens and Peter Johnstone Park within the Dunedin City District Plan for recreation and community purposes.

15 The designation will establish the planning framework for the site. This will enable Council to progress any developments or upgrades within the site, including the pool, without seeking further planning approval. This is subject to any proposed development complying with the conditions of the designation.

16 The Notice of Requirement documentation was publicly notified on the DCC website and in the local newspaper from the 9 November 2018 and submissions were received up until the 7 December 2018.

17 In total 22 submissions were received. There were 12 in support, 1 was neutral and 9 were in opposition to the designation.

18 Because submissions were received, a hearing will be required. A Commissioner has been appointed to preside over the hearing process. A hearing date has been set for 18, 19, 20 February 2019.

19 6 submitters wish to be heard at the hearing and one does not make it clear whether they wish to be heard or not. Of the 6 wanting to be heard, 4 are in opposition to the notification and 2 are in support.

Mosgiel Pool Project Management Update

20 Parks and Recreation staff have met with the Council’s Procurement Team to assist with the appointment of an external project manager for the project. It is expected that this will occur early in 2019. The project manager will advise the Project Team, and lead the project from design through to completion in June 2021.

OPTIONS

Option One – Disband the Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities Advisory Panel and establish a Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team

21 The Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team would be comprised of DCC Parks and Recreation officers, Taieri Community Facilities Trust representatives, Mosgiel Taieri Community Board representative, and supported by the Project Manager.

22 The Project Team will provide operational oversight of the pool development, monitor and assess progress against project milestones, monitor expenditure against budget, and ensure regular reporting through to the Infrastructure and Networks Committee

Advantages

· The Project Team would provide regular oversight for the operational phase (design and build) of the project through to completion in June 2021.

· Councillor involvement will be maintained by regular reporting to the Infrastructure and Networks Committee throughout the project.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Status Quo – continue with the Advisory Panel

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· The project requires a different governance structure for the next phase of development as identified by the panel itself.

NEXT STEPS

23 If approved, the Mosgiel Aquatic Project Team will be established and begin meeting.

24 The process for appointing a project manager will continue.

25 Regular reports on the progress will be provided to the Infrastructure and Networks Committee.

Signatories

Author:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure 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	☐	☐	☐

The Parks and Recreation Strategy vision is that Dunedin’s communities are more active, more often, in facilities, parks and open spaces that are connected and valued. The proposed Mosgiel Aquatic Facility will contribute to achieving this vision by providing infrastructure that meets the changing needs of the community and encouraging people to participate in organised and informal recreation, sport and physical activity.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no identified impacts for tangata whenua, but if issues arise these will be addressed within the project.

Sustainability

Sustainable design principles will be incorporated into the final design of the facility.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

As part of the Dunedin City Council 10 Year Plan 2018–28 deliberations in May 2018 Council resolved to approve $10.8 million for the DCC contribution to the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Funding for the project (DCC contribution) has been included in the Long-Term Plan. This level of funding was subject to the Taieri Community Facilities Trust achieving a fundraising target of at least $3.2 million and the Council approval of the project. The fundraising target has been achieved.

Financial considerations

There are no identified financial considerations identified.

Significance

The proposal is low in terms of significance.

Engagement – external

The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board and Trust have been consulted with regard to the establishment of the Project Team.

Engagement - internal

The Parks and Recreation and Civic teams have been consulted with regard to the establishment of the Project Team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are none identified.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board have been involved throughout the process, and will continue to be involved in the project development through representation on the Project Team.

Council

19 February 2019

Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 - Amendment 9

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report attaches the findings of the Speed Limits Bylaw Committee on proposed changes to speed limits as per Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 Amendment 9.

2 On 10 December 2018, the Speed Limits Bylaw Committee (the Committee) considered the proposed changes along with feedback received and heard submitters. The findings of the Committee resulted in a revised proposal for the Speed Limits Bylaw Amendment 9 for adoption by Council.

3 The Committee recommended the following additions to the proposed Speed Limits Bylaw Amendment 9:

a) Extending the Central City School Cluster school zone an additional 90 metres into Rattray Street, stopping short of Queens Drive.

b) Extending the Northeast Valley School Cluster school zone an additional 65 metres into Opoho Road and 25 metres into Knox Street.

c) That staff review the use of Queens Drive.

4 The preferred option is to proceed with the speed limit changes as recommended in Amendment 9 with the key implications being:

a) There is strong support for speed limit changes from the majority of submitters.

b) Speeds in affected areas will be reduced, which will improve safety for all road users.

c) The rollout of 40 km/h variable speed limits around all schools provides a consistent message to drivers on how to behave around schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the recommendations of the Speed Limits Bylaw Committee on proposed changes to speed limits.

b) Adopts the changes to speed limits as noted in Amendment 9 to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004.

c) Decides that the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 9 will take effect from March 2019.

d) Notes the staff will review the use and sped limits of Queens Drive as recommended by the Speed Limit Bylaw Committee.

BACKGROUND

5 The speed limit review that led to the proposed changes was undertaken in accordance with Land Transport Rule 54001: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (the Rule) as was legally required.

6 The Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee approved the Statement of Proposal for Amendment 9 to the Dunedin City Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 to be publicly notified for consultation at their 15 October 2018 meeting.

7 At the same meeting, the Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee appointed the Committee of three councillors to hear and consider any submissions received and report recommendations back to Council. The minutes of this meeting are included as Attachment A.

8 Table 1 summarises the processes in Amendment 9 to date.

Time	Actions	Origin
2018
October	Staff to publicly notify the Statement of Proposal for Amendment 9 for consultation from 23 October to 20 November 2018. Appoint a Hearings Subcommittee comprising of Councillors Wilson, O’Malley and Stedman to hear and consider any submissions received and report back to the Council.	Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee motion (15 October)
October/ November¹	Public Consultation: 23 October – 20 November.
October/ November	Staff collate responses.
10 December	Staff Report to Hearings Committee.
10 December 2018	Public Hearings.
2019
19 February 2019	Report to Council.
19 February 2019	Council Resolution.
March 2019	Bylaw Effective.

Table 1: Summary of Speed Management Changes Process

¹The following were specifically asked for feedback: Mosgiel Taieri Community Board, NZ Transport Agency, NZ Police, NZ Fire, Automobile Association, Otago Regional Council, St John, Heavy Haulage, Road Transport Association NZ, SPOKES, VICTA, CCS Disability Action, Disabled Persons Assembly, Blind Foundation and BRONZ.

DISCUSSION

9 A list of the recommended changes to variable and permanent speed limits as part of Amendment 9 are included in Attachments B & C. Maps of variable speed school zones as well as permanent speed limit changes are included in Attachments D & E. The lists and maps represent any revisions post consultation with the recommendations of the Speed Limits Bylaw Committee.

Consultation

10 At the Infrastructure Services Meeting on 15 October 2018, the proposed speed limit changes (Amendment 9) were approved for public consultation. Consultation was open for 26 working days from 23 October to 20 November 2018. Information was delivered to properties in the affected areas, schools and community boards as well as key stakeholders. The proposed changes were publicly advertised in the Otago Daily Times and information was available on the Council website from 23 October 2018.

11 A total of 175 submissions were received during consultation. 120 of these submissions indicated full support, 37 submissions indicated partial support, and 16 submissions opposed the proposed bylaw changes. A summary of the submissions is included in Tables 2 – 11 in Attachment F. Individual submissions are available on the online consultation programme (www.dunedin.govt.nz/dcc-consult).

12 Eight submitters spoke at the hearing held on 10 December 2018.

13 Deliberations were held and the Speed Limits Bylaw Committee supported the recommended changes as per the Speed Limit Bylaw Committee report with three further recommendations:

a) Extending the Central City School Cluster school zone an additional 90 metres into Rattray Street, stopping short of Queens Drive.

b) Extending the Northeast Valley School Cluster school zone an additional 65 metres into Opoho Road and 25 metres into Knox Street.

c) That staff review the use of Queens Drive.

OPTIONS

14 Following the recommendations of the Bylaw Committee staff are putting forward a proposal that includes the three further recommendations made by the committee.

Option One – Recommended Option

15 Recommends that the Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 9 be revised to include extensions to the following school zones:

a) Central City School Cluster – add Bishops Road and Bishops Place and extend north on Rattray Street an additional 90 metres (163 metres total) from Arthur Street;

b) Fairfield School – extend an additional 40 metres (300 metres total) into Old Brighton Road;

c) Kaikorai Valley College – extend an additional 25 metres (80 metres total) onto Bryant Street;

d) North East Valley School Cluster – extend an additional 65 metres (225 metres total) into Opoho Road and 25 metres into Knox Street;

e) Waitati School – extend an additional 80 metres to the south on Mount Cargill Road (245 metres total) south of Shortcut Road.

16 Recommends that the Draft Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 9 be revised to include a variation to the times of operation for all schools to include “10 minutes at any other time when children cross the road or enter or leave vehicles at the roadside”.

17 Recommends that the Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 9 be revised to include lower speed limits for the following roads:

a) Dalziel Road – first 100 metres from Three Mile Hill Road;

b) Brighton Road – an additional 60 metres (220 metres total) north of Friendship Drive;

c) Henderson Street (full length);

d) Paterson Road (full length);

e) Crossan Terrace (full length);

f) Magazine Road (full length);

g) Puddle Alley – additional 40 metres (200 metres total) north of Gladstone Road North;

h) Friends Hill Road – first 100 metres from Gladstone Road.

18 Recommends that the revised Draft Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 9 be adopted by the Council, with speed limits to come into effect after March 2019.

19 Recommends that staff review the use of Queens Drive.

Advantages

· There is strong support for speed limit changes from the majority of submitters.

· Speeds in affected areas will be reduced, which will improve safety for all road users.

· The speed changes that are recommended in this report are appropriate for the roadside environment.

· The rollout of 40 km/h variable speed limits around all schools provides a consistent message to drivers on how to behave around schools.

Disadvantages

· Costs associated with speed limit changes will come from funding which could be used for other safety projects.

Option Two – Status Quo

20 Do not proceed with the speed limit changes proposed as part of the DCC Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment 9.

Advantages

· Capital expenditure could be used for other safety projects.

Disadvantages

· Speed limits around schools remain 50 km/h permanent speeds at all times with the exception of the five schools with 40 km/h variable speed limits already in place as part of Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment 7.

· Schools would not get the speed reductions that they support.

· Will not provide a consistent message to drivers for lower speed limits around schools.

· Areas of urban expansion would remain 70 km/h which would not be appropriate for the roadside environment.

NEXT STEPS

21 Should the Speed Limits Bylaw Amendment 9 be adopted by Council, the amended version of the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 must be sent to NZTA and NZ Police at least 14 days prior to it coming into effect.

22 Staff will arrange for the changes in speed limits to be publicised, and the necessary changes in signage be implemented.

Signatories

Author:

Lisa Clifford - Senior Transportation Engineer

Authoriser:

Hjarne Poulsen - Transportation Safety Team Leader

Richard Saunders - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Minutes of Speed Limit Bylaw Committee	56
⇩b	List of Revised Variable Speed Limit changes Around Schools	61
⇩c	List of Revised Permanent Speed Limit Changes	65
⇩d	Maps of Revised Variable Speed Limit Changes Around Schools	66
⇩e	Maps of Revised Permanent Speed Limit Changes	75
⇩f	Summary of Submissions	80

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, by reducing speeds and minimising infrastructure costs.

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	☐	☐	☒

Ensuring Dunedin is a safe city which is prioritised in the Social Wellbeing Strategy, Spatial Plan and Long-Term Plan, as well as the Integrated Transport Strategy. Safer speeds is one of the four pillars under the Safe System approach to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on Dunedin’s road network. Safe speeds and appropriate speeds not only address safety but the efficiency of the road network, which contributes to the Economic Development Strategy.

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

There are no known implications.

Financial considerations

Funding for infrastructure is included in the current ten year plan through the Low Cost Low Risk Programme.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

External engagement has occurred with the schools and some of the key stakeholders, including engagement with the Central City School Cluster catchment area; further engagement and community views will be sought as part of the engagement exercise.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement within the Transport Team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The proposed speed limit changes will “treat” the risk by reducing speed to fit the road environment.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

All community boards were invited to participate in the community engagement process where speed limit changes are proposed to roads within their areas.

Council

19 February 2019

Community Board Remuneration

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) gives the Remuneration Authority (the Authority) the responsibility for setting remuneration for local government elected members, including Community Board members.

2 In December 2018, a request was received from the Authority, seeking feedback on how Community Board members should be remunerated (Attachment A). Key data was provided on the current remuneration of Community Boards (Attachment B - D). This request follows the recent review that was undertaken to set remuneration for Councillors. The request was sent to both Councillors and Community Board members, asking for their feedback, and at the recent round of Community Board meetings, this matter was discussed. Community Board feedback is presented in Attachment E.

3 The purpose of this report is to present the feedback that has been received from Community Boards, and to seek feedback from Council, which will then be forwarded to the Authority for its consideration.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Community Board feedback that will be provided to the Remuneration Authority.

b) Provides Council feedback on how Community Board members should be remunerated.

c) Notes that the Council feedback will be forwarded to the Remuneration Authority for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

4 The Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and the LGA set out matters that the Authority must take into account when setting remuneration. The Remuneration Authority Act requires that the Authority have regard to the need to:

· Achieve and maintain fair relativity with remuneration received elsewhere

· Be fair to individuals or groups, and taxpayers or ratepayers

· Recruit and retain competent persons.

5 The current approach used by the Authority to remunerate Community Board members is to allocate a base pay for each member. The Authority is now looking at remuneration for Community Board members, in preparation for the Determination to be issued on 1 July 2019.

6 The Authority has requested views on the following two issues:

a) “The Remuneration Authority is introducing a pool system under which there will be a “governance pool” for each Council reflecting the size of each Council’s total responsibilities. Should this governance pool include remuneration for Community Boards and, if so, how should it account for the impact on the relativities between Councils with Community Boards and those without?

b) There appear to be big variations in member numbers of Community Boards, even between Boards with similar populations. Regardless of your answer to (1) above, should Community Board remuneration reflect the number of residents represented by the whole board or the number of residents represented by each member?”

DISCUSSION

7 The Authority is introducing a governance pool for every Council, with each Council then determining how the pool is to be allocated to councillors. This is a change and reflects the previous approach to remuneration setting. A copy of a covering report on remuneration of elected members, that went to the 28 August 2018 Council meeting, is at Attachment F for information purposes.

8 The Authority is now asking if the pool should also be used to remunerate Community Board members. If the pool were to be used, this implies that Council would therefore be responsible for determining the allocation of remuneration to Community Board members.

9 Feedback received from Community Boards did not support the option being part of the governance pool. Comments included that the Authority should continue to set the remuneration for Community Board members, and that their remuneration should not be part of the governance pool. Remuneration should be paid separately and independent of its parent council. Some noted that to include the remuneration in the governance pool would put Council in a difficult situation.

10 On the question of the basis of remuneration, feedback from Community Boards was clear that population should not be the sole basis for determining the level of remuneration. Many variables impact the work load of Community Boards, for example, the size of the area that a Community Board covers, and local influences such as areas of high tourism. Feedback noted that regardless of the size of the population being represented, all boards still need to carry out the same base amount of work.

11 Council is now asked to provide feedback on the questions asked by the Authority.

12 If Community Board members were to be remunerated from the governance pool, there are some advantages and disadvantages as follows:

Advantages:

· In setting the remuneration account could be taken of variables other than population, e.g. local issues dealt with, size of area etc.

Disadvantages:

· Against the wishes of the Community Boards. They do not believe it appropriate for Council to set their remuneration.

· Lose the independence of how remuneration is set for Community Board members.

13 If Community Board members were to be remunerated from the governance pool, the question has been asked on how to account for the impact of the relativities between Councils with Community Boards and those without. This question could imply that the work load of Councils without Community Boards may be greater than those with Community Boards, and that there may not be an increase in the governance pool relative to the level of remuneration Community Board members currently receive.

14 With respect to the question about whether Community Board remuneration should reflect the number of residents represented by the whole board, or the number of residents represented by each member, consideration could be given to providing consistency with how the governance pool for Council is intended to work. The Authority has said that the governance pool for councillors will not have any relationship to the number of councillors on a council, so if the number of councillors were to increase or decrease, the pool will remain the same.

OPTIONS

15 There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

16 The feedback received from both Community Boards and Council will be forwarded to the Remuneration Authority.

Signatories

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Request from the Remuneration Authority	91
⇩b	Key Statistics	93
⇩c	Remuneration Sorted by Population	94
⇩d	Remuneration Sorted by Governance Cost Per Capita	96
⇩e	Feedback from Community Boards	99
⇩f	Remuneration of Elected Members - Report to 28 August 2019 Council	101

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	☐	☐	☒

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.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial impacts.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

Councillors were asked to provide feedback on the questions asked by the Remuneration Authority.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Board members have been consulted on providing feedback on the questions asked by the Remuneration Authority.

Council

19 February 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 - 29 January 2019 - 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. 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). 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)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.	.
C2 Appointment to Dunedin Indoor Sports Venue Trust	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.
C3 South Dunedin Library & Community Complex Update on Purchase	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.
C4 Appointment to the Otago Museum Trust Board	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.

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.

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

	Title	Page
⇨a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 January 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
⇩a	Executive Leadership Team Register of Interest	17