Agenda of Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

Council Annual Plan

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Annual Plan Council held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Monday 06 May 2019, commencing at 10.28 am.

PRESENT

Chairperson	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Chairperson	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 Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Sandy Graham (General Manager City Services), Simon Drew (General Manager Infrastructure Services), Simon Pickford (General Manager Community Services), Dave Tombs (General Manager Finance and Commercial) Nick Dixon (Group Manager Ara Toi), Chris Henderson (Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions), Sharon Bodeker (Team Leader Civic), Richard Saunders (Group Manager Transport), Robert West (Group Manager Parks and Recreation), Des Adamson (Business Relationship Manager), Tom Dyer (Group Manager 3 Waters), Suz Jenkins (Finance and Operations Manager), Louise van de Vlierd (Team Leader Visitor Centre), Graham McKerracher (Communications and Marketing Manager), Joy Gunn (Manager Events and Community Development), Andrea Jones (Communications Team Leader), Paul Coffey (Senior Community Advisor), Tami Sargeant (Senior Policy Analyst), Tanisha Fernandes (Contractor Policy)

Governance Support Officers Lynne Adamson; Wendy Collard (Monday); Jennifer Lapham (Tuesday) and Lauren McDonald and Rebecca Murray (Wednesday)

1 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

2 Apologies

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Accepts the apologies from Cr Jim O’Malley for lateness and Cr Stedman for absence and Mayor Dave Cull for absence on Tuesday 7 May and Wednesday 8 May 2019.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/033)

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following alterations:

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

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/034)

4 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 (CAPCC/2019/035)

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

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

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/036)

Part A Reports

5 Hearing Schedule for the Annual Plan and Late Submissions

A report from Civic provided the Councillors with a schedule of submitters wishing to present their views at the Annual Plan hearings and to consider whether or not to accept late submissions received.

The report noted that submissions had closed on 15 April 2019 with approximately 465 submissions received. Of these, 61 submitters wished to present their submissions to Councillors and six submissions had been received since the closing date.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the report.

b) Accepts the late submissions.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/037)

6 Submissions
	The people who had indicated they wished to be heard in support of their submissions presented to the Council.
	Monday 6 May 2019 Yasmin Nowak Ms Nowak spoke positively on the proposed pedestrianisation of George Street. She spoke of her concern with the cost of buses in Dunedin and that it was cheaper to drive than use the bus to commute. Bus fares should be charged at a rate of 10-20 cents per stop with a cap at $2. Ms Nowak suggested consideration be given to using electric buses and to have more buses at night which would help minimse drunk drivers and people walking late at night. She spoke of recycling and utilising waste as a commodity which would in turn, create jobs for the community. Ms Nowak advised that compost was free in Vienna with compost bins around the city, and she suggested this be investigated for Dunedin. John Brimble and Owen Booth, Sport Otago John Brimble (Chief Executive Officer) and Owen Booth (Development and Capability Manager) spoke to the submission from Sport Otago, to request an annual funding increase of 60% to offset the lease of the Sargood Centre. Messrs Brimble and Booth thanked Council for their support and commented that Sport Otago was struggling to cope with fixed revenues and mounting costs. They commented that the lease costs represented a significant increase and was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Messrs Brimble and Booth then responded to questions. Cr Vandervis left the meeting at 10.56 am. Teresa Chan, Dunedin Shanghai Association Ms Chan spoke to the submission from the Dunedin-Shanghai Association requesting an increase in their annual funding grant. Cr Hall left at 10.59 am Ms Chan explained that the Dunedin Shanghai Association (DSA) supported the Sister City relationship between Dunedin and Shanghai. She commented that the role had increased as the relationship between Dunedin and Shanghai and their support had grown over the last few years and she believed the annual grant of $5,000 needed to be reassessed. Ms Chan would like an increase of $3,500 annually, as that would provide 50% of the cost of the annual trip to China. This was currently paid by the Chair and was no longer sustainable. The extra funding would also support initiatives to develop resources to maximise benefits for Dunedin. Cr Hall returned to the meeting at 11.06 am and Cr Vandervis returned at 11.08 am. Cr Lord left the meeting at 11.10 am. Tony Culling, Caversham Community Group Mr Culling spoke in support of the submission from the Caversham Community Group. He asked Council to appraise road safety in the area as the traffic volumes had increased significantly in the Caversham shopping area. Mr Culling raised concerns with housing in the area. There were a lot of run down, damp, cold houses which were still occupied. They would like DCC to take on a leadership role to rejuvenate housing improvements in the area and suggested meetings be held with home owners; tenants; lending institutions; construction firms and Council representatives to work out a plan. Cr Lord returned to the meeting at 11.14 am. Mr Culling commented on the need for new reserves and public areas and the enhancement of existing ones, as houses in the area had small yards. There was a very real need for adequate recreational places. The installation of amber capped LED lighting for any replacement street lights would ensure the protection of the night sky. Norcombe Barker, Larnach Castle Mr Barker spoke to his PowerPoint presentation in support of his submission. Mr Barker commented that the Enterprise Dunedin budget should be increased to enable more promotion and attraction of visitors to the city. Mr Barker commented that 70% of the tourism market was domestic with 30% international. He believed that there would be a slowdown in the tourism industry nationally and that if Dunedin did not provide more funding to enable the “Dunedin story” to be told, the city was at risk of losing millions. Mr Barker responded to questions. Liz Angelo, CITY RISE UP Ms Angelo spoke in support of the submission from CITY RISE UP. She noted that the total population living within community board areas within the city boundary was 35,487, which was 29.53% of Dunedin’s population. More than 84,000 people lived outside the community boards area yet did not have a board for support. Ms Angelo spoke of the proposed free bus loop and urged Council to move forward with the proposal and include smaller electric or low emission buses with frequent hop on-off stops that connect with ORC bus routes. She provided a suggestion of the area to incorporate in the bus loop and proposed stops. Ms Angelo spoke of the local community and commented that there was no community hall and no ability to speak to Councillors apart from attending public forums. Dave Hanan Mr Hanan provided a PowerPoint presentation in support of his submission. He advised that millions of dollars could be saved by keeping the Green Island Landfill open for as long as possible. Mr Hanan advised that in 2016 there was an estimated 1.6 million cu m of capacity left at the landfill which should provide an estimated 21 years of life. He suggested that rather than opening a new landfill at Smooth Hill, Council should obtain a 20 year resource consent extension for the Green Island landfill. Smooth Hill should be investigated for use when the Green Island landfill reached maximum capacity. Mr Hanan commented on recycling and suggested that the website https://waste-management-world.com may be of interest. He believed that we should not impose our waste on poorer, less fortunate countries. Mr Hanan believed Council should renegotiate the contract with Waste Management so the contract was a lump sum contract and not an incentive scheme. Council should recapture the waste stream it had lost and have Council funded wheelie bins of various size to cater for those that do not generate much waste. These should be funded through rates. This would result in a better, more effective, environmentally friendly service at a lower cost. Ian Griffin, Otago Museum Mr Griffin and Mr Mike Bailey spoke to the submission on behalf of the Otago Museum. They commented on the variances in funding for museums in New Zealand. They used the example of the moa egg display in which Te Papa and the Otago Museum were the only ones to house moa eggs. Te Papa is financially supported by all of New Zealand whereas the Otago Museum was supported by Dunedin only. Mr Griffin provided and spoke to the Museum’s Strategic Plan for 2019-2024. He commented on the challenges ahead with the redevelopment required in both the facility and ensuring the preservation of the exhibits. They thanked Council for its support and looked forward to continuing to work together in the future. Messrs Griffin and Bailey then responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: a) Adjourns the meeting and reconvenes at 130 pm. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/038)
	The meeting adjourned at 12.26 pm and reconvened at 1.30 pm. Paul Pope and John Beekhuis, Dunedin Amenities Society Mr Pope and Mr Beekhuis, on behalf of the Dunedin Amenities Society, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation which included the projects that the group had been undertaking along the Town Belt. Mr Beekhuis raised concerns about weed control along the Town Belt and asked Council to give consideration to amending contracts to include the footpaths and berm. He also requested that minor repairs be undertaken to the Frasers Gully Track which would allow the walking track to re-open. Mr Pope spoke of the creation of a memorial gardens, to the Maori prisoners from Ngati Ruanui iwi, at the old Kaituna Bowling Club and asked that Council give consideration to contributing to the project. Messrs Pope and Beekhuis responded to questions. Cr O’Malley entered the meeting at 1.58 pm. Alan Jackson and Prof Kevin Clements, The Archibald Baxter Memorial Trust Professor Clements and Mr Jackson, on behalf of the Archibald Baxter Memorial Trust, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation which included concept plans for the Archibald Baxter Memorial to be located in Albany Street. Professor Clements and Mr Jackson responded to questions. Cr Benson-Pope requested that staff provide the current cost of maintenance at this location. Geoff Patton, Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust Mr Patton spoke to the submission on behalf of the Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust which included upcoming works at the theatre. He requested a letter of support from Council that could be included with their funding applications for grants from other organisations. Mayor Cull advised that Council would be able to provide a letter of support. Kaitrin McMullan, Love the Lindsay Community Group Ms McMullan spoke on behalf of Love the Lindsay Community Group, and provided an update on their clean-up day. She requested that the toilets at the Chingford Pavilion be opened daily for casual users of Chingford Park and that a new rubbish bin be installed. Ms McMullan responded to questions. Cr Hawkins left the meeting at 2.27 pm. Cr Vandervis left the meeting at 2.29 pm. The meeting adjourned at 2.29 pm and reconvened at 2.50 pm. Fiona Clements, Sustainable Dunedin City Ms Clements spoke on behalf of Sustainable Dunedin City and in particular on the importance of developing a sustainable city and the role of today’s leaders to achieve this. Ms Clements thanked Council for the actions to date which included recycling hubs and ethical investing. Ms Clements responded to questions. The meeting adjourned at 3.00 pm and reconvened at 3.18 pm. Craig Werner, The Preservation Coalition Trust Mr Werner spoke to the submission from the Preservation Coalition Trust. He requested that Council provide additional funding for the monitoring of resource consents. Mr Werner responded to questions. Amanda Reid and Steve Hayward, Greater Green Island Community Network Ms Reid and Mr Hayward spoke to the submission from the Greater Green Island Community Network, and in particular on pedestrian safety concerns along Green Island and Concord. Ms Reid asked Council to give consideration to the DCC carpark on Main South Road, Green Island having a time limit of between 2 to 4 hours, as it was currently being used as long term parking. Ms Reid and Mr Hayward responded to questions. Cr Hawkins returned to the meeting at 3.49 pm. Philippa Jamieson and Alex King, Transition Valley 473 Ms Jamieson and Mr King spoke to the submission on behalf of Transition Valley 473 and thanked Council for its proactive stance on climate change. Ms Jamieson requested that Councillors strongly oppose offshore testing and drilling off our coast. Mr King commented on the Waterfront development and advised that they opposed the use of ratepayer funding for this project. Ms Jamieson and Mr King responded to questions.
	Bridie Lonie Ms Lonie spoke to her submission and commented that she supported the use of performance art as a way to communicate climate change projects and adaptation. She requested that adaptation be prioritised in the Te Ao Turoa (environment strategy) plan. Ms Lonie responded to questions. Scott Willis, Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust Mr Willis spoke on behalf of the Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust (BRCT submission. He requested that Council give consideration to purchasing three of the BRCT’s “climate-safe houses” which would provide new options for social housing. He advised that the cost of the houses was estimated at $250,000 each and would be designed to be easily assembled and relocatable. Mr Willis responded to questions. Judy Martin and Andy Barratt, OneCoast Ms Martin and Mr Barratt spoke on behalf of the OneCoast submission. Ms Martin commented on their proposal for a more extensive Community Resource Recovery Centre which would include a shop front, green waste processing and a community upcycle shed. They requested funding for the establishment of the infrastructure for the Community Recycling Centre at Waikouaiti Transfer Centre. Ms Martin and Mr Barratt responded to questions. Cr Lord left the meeting at 4.52 pm. Marty Brash and Korena Patterson, Broad Bay Boating Club Cr Garey withdrew from this item. Mr Brash and Ms Patterson spoke to the submission from the Broad Bay Boating Club. They asked for $100,000 to be provided for new clubrooms to be built at Broad Bay. Mr Brash advised that this would benefit the harbour development project and community as the current facility did not meet the needs of the club, community and city. They responded to questions Peter Dowden, Bus Users Support Group, Otepoti Dunedin Mr Dowden spoke on behalf of the Bus Users Support Group submission and reiterated their support for the proposed bus loop and lower bus fares. Cr Elder left the meeting at 5.12 pm Mr Dowden responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: a) Adjourns the meeting and reconvenes at 9.00 am on Tuesday 7 May 2019. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/039) The meeting adjourned at 5.13 pm and reconvened on Tuesday, 7 May 2019 at 9.00 am

Tuesday 7 May 2019

In Attendance: Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Simon Drew (General Manager Infrastructure Services), Simon Pickford (General Manager Community Services) and Dave Tombs (General Manager Finance and Commercial),Sandy Graham (General Manager City Services), Sharon Bodeker (Team Leader Civic), Tami Sargeant (Senior Policy Analyst), Andrea Jones (Communications Team Leader), Robert West (Group Manager Parks and Recreation) and Tanisha Fernandes (Contractor Policy)

Governance Support Officer: Jennifer Lapham

	Apologies were received from Cr Newell for lateness and Cr Hall for absence.
	Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Mike Lord): That the Council: Accepts the apologies from Cr Newell (for lateness) and Cr Hall for absence. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/040)
	Dougal McGowan, The Otago Chamber of Commerce Mr McGowan spoke to the Otago Chamber of Commerce submission and highlighted key points. In particular he commented on parking and the proposed centre city bus loop. Mr McGowan advised that the Chamber would like more information on the proposals, including the main arterial work and the centre city upgrade. Mr McGowan responded to questions from the Councillors. Michelle Reddy, South Dunedin Community Network Michelle Reddy spoke on behalf of the South Dunedin Community Network. She highlighted the issue of the cleaning up of King Edward Street. She advised that the gardens were barren and filled with rubbish and did not add any value to the street. South Dunedin people would like community gardens, green spaces and a celebration of the history of South Dunedin. Ms Reddy responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Adjourns the meeting. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/041)
	The meeting adjourned from 9.58 am and reconvened at 10.07 am.
	Liesel Mitchell Ms Mitchell spoke to her submission and commented on people living and moving around the city and in particular, highlighted that with the new bus hub there was no way of getting through the city. She was concerned about the lack of parking without sensible public transport options. Ms Mitchell responded to questions. John Burton Mr Burton spoke to his submission regarding the Fraser Gully walking track which had been closed since July 2017. He requested that the Council reopen the track as it is well used and he did not believe there were any health and safety issues to keep it closed. Mr Burton responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Adjourns the meeting. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/042)
	The meeting adjourned at 10.50 am and reconvened at 10.55 am.
	Peter Miller and Stuart Strachan, Archives and Records Association of New Zealand Messrs Miller and Strachan spoke to the submission on behalf of Archives and Records Association of New Zealand. They advised that they were concerned that the City Archives were held in the basement of the Civic Building, as the conditions were unsatisfactory. There was a high risk to the archived property as water pipes ran through the area. They advised that the Hocken Library needed to expand and Council should work with the Hocken to develop suitable housing for the archives. The General Manager Infrastructure Services provided an update on Council plans to ensure the safe storage of the archives. Sophie Carty, Otago Southland Cancer Society Cr Staynes withdrew from this item as he was on the Board of the Otago Southland Cancer Society. He advised that he would Chair the meeting but would not ask any questions. Ms Carty spoke to the submission from the Otago Southland Cancer Society and in particular commented on the need for Council to provide shade in playgrounds and smoke free public areas. Ms Carty responded to questions. Peter Foster Mr Foster spoke to his submission regarding the servicing of rural roads and advised that Contractors would take the cheapest option to fix roads. He spoke about parking at the new hospital build; the current light sequence concerns which held up traffic and the proposed bridge to the waterfront. Cr Newell entered the meeting at 11.39 am. Mr Foster responded to questions. William Dreyer and James Heath, Otago University Students’ Association Messrs Dreyer and Heath spoke to the submission on behalf of the Otago University Students’ Associations. In particular they asked for provision of voting booths at the University. They also sought the Council’s support for getting cheaper alcohol in licensed premises, noting that pubs were safe places for the students to drink but the cost of the drinks was a deterrent to drinking there. They also commented on recycling and establishing a recycling centre in the University area. They responded to questions. Tahu Potiki, Kāi Tahu Mr Potiki spoke to the submission from Kāi Tahu about a change in the way Kāi Tahu proposed to work with the Council. They sought a funding contribution of $250,000 which would be matched by Ngai Tahu. This would be used to work on core partnership activities, projects and treaty analysis as well as other priorities such as climate change, housing, waste management etc. Mr Potiki responded to question from the Councillors.
	Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Adjourns the meeting until 9.00 am on Wednesday 8 May 2019. Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/043)
	The meeting adjourned at 12.20 pm and reconvened on Wednesday 8 May 2019 at 9.00 am.
	Wednesday 7 May 2019 In Attendance: Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Simon Drew (General Manager Infrastructure Services), Simon Pickford (General Manager Community Services) and Dave Tombs (General Manager Finance and Commercial), Sandy Graham (General Manager City Services), Sharon Bodeker (Team Leader Civic), Tami Sargeant (Senior Policy Analyst), Andrea Jones (Communications Team Leader), Robert West (Group Manager Parks and Recreation) and Tanisha Fernandes (Contractor Policy) Governance Support Officer: Lauren McDonald An apology was received from Cr Newell for lateness. Suzanne Menzies-Culling Ms Menzies-Culling spoke to her submission. She felt that the DCC black plastic rubbish bags as a collection method was out of date and cost prohibitive to ratepayers. Council needed to change to bin collection for waste, paid for through rates. She encouraged Council to reduce the amount of rubbish going to landfill through targeted education for reduction of waste (through recycling, green and organic waste collection). Ms Menzies-Culling sought easier access to the routes with smaller buses in the central city due to the number of larger buses travelling on routes virtually empty outside of peak travel times . She would like to see Council look to local procurement to foster more employment in the city and to buy locally and sustainably. Ms Menzies-Culling responded to questions from Councillors.
	Andy McLean, Otago Hockey and David Booth, Kings High School Messrs MacLean and Booth spoke to the joint submission from Otago Hockey, Kings High School and Sport Otago for an artificial turf facility to be located at Kings High School, with the DCC as owner. They advised that the current turf was being used to maximum capacity and another facility with artificial turf was required in the South Dunedin area. They commented that provision of changing facilities, upgrades and maintenance at the site would be done through Kings High School and Otago Hockey as tenant. They confirmed community access would be provided. Mr MacLean and Mr Booth responded to questions from the Councillors. Cr Newell entered the meeting at 9:41am

Sandra Mandic, University of Otago

Ms Mandic spoke to her submission and commented in support of the proposed free central city bus service and the use of parking revenue to provide the service.

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 9:44 am and returned at 9:46 am.

Andrea Bosshard

Cr Hawkins, Cr Benson-Pope withdrew from this item.

Ms Bosshard spoke to her submission and in particular commented on climate change, and the proposed mine at Foulden Hills which would destroy the volcanic crater’s fossil record.

Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 10:01 a.m.

Ms Bosshard responded to questions.

Shane Loader

Mr Loader spoke to his submission. He expressed his concern of the Sutton Bridge being used for the proposed Diatomite mine at Foulden Hill and questioned the economic value to the city.

Cr Doug Hall returned to the meeting at 10:03 a.m.

Mr Loader responded to questions from the Councillors.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

a) Adjourn the meeting.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/044)

The meeting adjourned at 10.20 am and reconvened at 10.40 am.

Finn Campbell, Generation Zero

Finn Campbell spoke to the submission from Generation Zero and commented on the Central City Plan, advising that they would like to see continued consultation on this project.

Mr Campbell also commented on climate change and the need for renewable power sources. He concluded that they supported the proposed bus loop with electric buses.

Neill Harraway, Monarch Wildlife Ltd

Mr Harraway spoke in support of the submission from Monarch Wildlife Ltd and in support of the submission from Dunedin Host. He advised that the recommendations in the Martin Jenkin’s report needed to be followed up. Mr Harraway commented that the Council needed to work with the tourism industry in a collaborative manner.

Mr Harraway responded to questions.

Paul Phelan, Dunedin Host

Mr Phelan (Chairperson) spoke to the submission from Dunedin Host. He advised that they wanted to focus on the future of tourism and growing the economy of Dunedin. He commented on the Martin Jenkins report and the need for Council to have a Marketing Manager to encourage visitors to Dunedin, and the benefit of that position to be on the Visit Dunedin Board.

Mr Phelan responded to questions.

Rosemary McQueen

Ms McQueen spoke in support of her submission. She felt the cost of servicing parking areas should be reflected in the parking fee to the user. She did not support the use of powered scooters and sought a bylaw to ensure the safety of pedestrians on footpaths. She commented on the proposed bus loop which she felt should be extended to cover the area between the Town Belt and the Oval. She supported the use of park and ride facilities and a public bus route to include Olveston and other tourist activities.

Ms McQueen responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Committee:

a) Adjourn the meeting.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/045)

The meeting adjourned at 11.46 and reconvened at 11.55 am.

Elsie Taimalieutu-Freeman Dunedin Pacifica Womans Branch

Cr Laufiso withdrew from this item.

Ms Taimalieutu-Freeman spoke in support of the submission from Dunedin Pacifica Woman’s Branch for better outcomes and consideration for Pasifika whanau in the community. She outlined the services provided in the community by the Pasifika community themselves as they best understood the changes and needs required for community development.

Ms Taimalieutu-Freeman commented on the request for additional funding of $500,000 for the Social Wellbeing Strategy. She asked that some of this funding be specifically allocated to the Pacific Island Community for the wellbeing of Pasifika whanau and communities.

Cr Hall left the meeting at 12.04 pm and returned at 12.06 pm.

Ms Taimalieutu-Freeman responded to questions.

Phillipa Harris and Megan Bartlett, Dunedin Symphony Orchestra

Ms Harris and Ms Bartlett spoke on the submission from the Dunedin Symphony Orchestra. They provided an overview of the importance of the Orchestra and the programmes it covers.

They requested that Council provide an increase of $150,000 for the Town Hall portion of the Community Access Subsidy funding, that the Council provides to DVML. This would allow an increase in the subsidy for community users of the Town Hall. They also asked that the Council allocate a one-off grant of $100,000 to the Orchestra to allow it to continue to progress its planned programme until the Charcoalblue Study was completed.

Ms Harris and Ms Bartlett responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Committee:

a) Adjourn the meeting.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/046)

The meeting adjourned at 12.30 pm and reconvened at 1.30 pm.

Governance Support Officer: Rebecca Murray

Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (PDA) Dunedin

Mr Ford spoke to the submission from the Disabled Persons Assembly and highlighted points in the submission such as involvement in the Central City upgrade and the need to ensure that the voice of the disabled people was heard.

Mr Ford also commented on the proposed transport changes, rubbish, recycling and the local body elections which he believed should include phone voting as it would aid the disabled and allow them to fully participate.

Cr Vandervis entered the meeting at 1.37 pm.

Mr Ford responded to questions

Christine Kelle, Dunedin’s Loom Room

Ms Kelle spoke to the submission from the Dunedin Loom Room and in particular access to public transport by students and the cost of travelling the buses. She commented that this was an additional expense imposed on students.

Ms Kelle responded to questions.

Glen Howell and Kristy Booth, Mountain Biking Otago

Mr Howell and Ms Booth spoke to the submission from Mountain Biking Otago. They thanked the Council for the support they have received over the years and requested that Council provide support in updating tracks. They advised that the development of an iconic track would encourage mountain biking tourism in Dunedin.

Mr Howell and Ms Booth responded to questions.

Dave Sharp, The Landscape Connection Trust

Mr Sharp spoke to the submission from The Landscape Connection Trust. He advised that their focus was to work with the communities in the area around the Orokonui Ecosanctuary.

Mr Sharp express the Trust’s appreciation of all the predator free initiatives undertaken by Council.

Mr Sharp responded to questions.

Craig Waterhouse, South Dunedin Business Association

Mr Waterhouse spoke to the submission from the South Dunedin Business Association. He advised that the Association was extremely supportive of the South Dunedin Community Hub but were concerned that there was insufficient funding to complete the project. They sought information on the proposed timeline and assurance that the community would be kept informed of progress.

Mr Waterhouse advised that the Association would like consideration to be given to the installation of a good playground in the community.

Cr Newell left the meeting at 2.51pm

Tim McMullen

Mr McMullen spoke to his submission and commented on the cycling tracks around the city which he believed should be linked. He supported the proposed bus loop and infrastructure improvements.

Cr Lord left the meeting at 2.58 pm and returned at 2.59 pm.

Karen Anderson

Ms Anderson reiterated points outlined in her submission. She referred to the dog registration fees and the proposed increase in Official Information request fees.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Adjourn the meeting.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/047)

The meeting adjourned at 3.07 pm and reconvened at 3.20 pm.

Mary O’Brien, CCS Disability Action

Ms O’Brien spoke to the submission from CCS Disability Action. She advised that it was important to provide affordable accessible public transport as it was a benefit for everyone. Ms O’Brien raised a concern about how people would get to the hospital. She asked that Council undertake and audit of footpaths and their condition so work can be undertaken to make them safe to walk on.

Ms O’Brien responded to questions.

Geraldine Tait

Ms Tait spoke to her submission and in particular commented on issues around South Dunedin.

Ms Tait would like to see the Barnes Dance lights reinstated at Cargill’s Corner and the intersection of Macandrew Road and King Edward Street where the new library was proposed. Ms Tait asked Council to provide more funding for playgrounds and adventure facilities to cater for children of all ages.

Ms Tait responded to questions.

Tania Sharee Williams, Arai Te Uru Marae

Cr Laufiso withdrew from this item.

Ms Williams spoke to the submission from the Arai Te Uru Marae. She provided a brief outline of the history of the marae and the role it played in the Dunedin community.

Ms Williams advised that they wanted financial support from Council as the marae was voluntary based. She commented that priority be given to the signage for the Arai te uru Marae being corrected, firstly by shifting the sign that pointed to the Marae on Shetland St so it was opposite the Marae driveway. Ms Williams commented that it would also be advantageous to have signage from Kaikorai Valley Road installed.

Ms Williams asked Council to consider commissioning a collaborated multi-cultural art piece to identify with Dunedin’s diversity.

Ms Williams responded to questions.

Tess Trotter, The Valley Project

Ms Trotter spoke to the submission on behalf of The Valley Project. She advised that they appreciated the support from the Council and the funding they had received. They would like to work with the Council on projects and in particular Parks and Recreation. She advised that when using public spaces it would be good to have appropriate facilities i.e. Chingford Park.

Ms Trotter responded to questions.

Discussion took place on the reports that would be provided for the deliberations. Councillors were to advise the Chief Executive officer of any requests that they had for feedback on the submissions.

The meeting concluded at 4.20 pm. .

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

C H A I R P E R S O N

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Annual Plan 2019/20 - Budget Update

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Since the draft 2019/20 budget was approved, a number of changes have been identified. These changes require consideration by the Council, and if approved, will be incorporated into the 2019/20 Annual Plan budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the changes identified in this report to the operating expenditure budget for 2019/20.

b) Approves the changes identified in this report to the 2018/19 – 2027/28 capital expenditure budget.

BACKGROUND

2 The draft 2019/20 budget includes an overall increase in rates revenue of 5% which is within the Financial Strategy limit. The Financial Strategy limits rate increases to 5% on average annually over the period from the 2019/20 year.

3 The 10 year plan 2018-28 provides a capital expenditure budget of $878.267 million. In the first three years of the plan the budget is as follows:

10 Year Plan 2018-28	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
Capital expenditure budget	68.286	89.160	104.224

4 On 30 October 2018 the Council approved changes to the capital expenditure budget to reflect more up to date assumptions and circumstances. The changes included:

· Bringing forward budget of $16.300 million from future years to the 2018/19 year

· Rescheduling budget of $3.000 million from the 2018/19 year to later years and

· Approving new budget of $11.400 million for previously unbudgeted projects for an artificial turf at Logan Park, compliance work on the property at 54 Moray Place and Transportation related emergency works. New capital income of $8.000 million was also included.

5 As a result of these changes, the 10 year capital expenditure budget increased to $889.667 million. The table below provides a summary of the first three years:

Updated in October 2018	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
Capital expenditure budget	92.986	92.685	102.813

6 Staff indicated to Council during the 29 January 2019 Annual Plan Council meeting that a full review of the capital expenditure budget and timing for projects would be undertaken in time for Council consideration during the Annual Plan deliberations in May.

DISCUSSION

Operating Expenditure Budget

7 A small number of changes have occurred that impact on the operating expenditure budget for the 2019/20 year. These changes are summarised in the following table with further detail provided in the following paragraphs. Additional funding for the net increase in expenditure of $75k is not required because it is a current year budget carried forward to 2019/20.

Department and Item	2019/20 $m
City Development - pedestrianisation	0.075
Community Development and Events – housing action plan	0.130
Civic – elected member remuneration	0.102
Operational savings	(0.232)
Total Changes	0.075

8 The Council included $75k in 2018/19 and 2019/20 to support pedestrianisation trials and associated activities in the lower Octagon and Stuart Street. The total budget of $150k will now be spent in the 2019/20 year.

9 On Monday 6 May 2019 the Council approved the inclusion of $130k per annum in the next two years to coordinate and implement DCC related actions in the Housing Action Plan for Dunedin 2019-2039.

10 The budget for elected member remuneration has been updated based on the 2019/20 determination. This has resulted in an increase of $102k.

Capital Expenditure Budget

11 The capital expenditure budget review has resulted in timing changes for a number of projects and an increase in the overall programme of $20.500 million. The increase in the 10 year programme is made up of:

· An increase of $20.000 million for the peninsula connection project, of which $11.200 million is funded by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA),

· An increase of $0.500 million for the South Dunedin Library and Community Complex.

12 As a result of these changes, the 10 year capital expenditure budget increased to $910.167 million. The table below provides a summary of the first three years:

10 Year Plan 2018-28	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
Capital expenditure budget	95.923	124.958	128.433

13 The main changes are summarised in the following sections by 10 year plan activity group. The updated capital expenditure budget is provided in Attachments A-I. Please note the capital expenditure budget for the Regulatory Services Group is not attached because it is unchanged from the 10 year plan.

14 The Financial Strategy limits Council debt to $350 million. Current DCC debt levels are in line with the 10 year plan. There may be timing differences in the future as capital expenditure is brought forward due to increased capacity for delivery. The challenge going forward will be the competing pressure to maintain delivery of the capital renewal and development programme, alongside the resultant pressure on the level of debt. It is anticipated that the level of spend and debt limit will be reviewed as part of the next 10 year plan process.

Capital Expenditure - Three Waters

15 The budget for Three Waters reflects timing changes by accelerating funding from future years to the next four years from 2019/20 – 2022/23 so that additional work can be undertaken in these years. In the 2019/20 year, $16.960 million is brought forward. The budget also reflects a reallocation of projects between renewals and new capital. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2019/20 – 2021/22 years.

Department and Item	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m	2021/22 $m
Water - Renewals	6.008	1.575	5.641
Wastewater –Renewals	3.513	(0.058)	7.144
Stormwater – Renewals	7.837		6.682
Water – New Capital	0.902		0.500
Wastewater – New Capital	0.752	1.020	0.500
Stormwater – New Capital	(2.052)	2.400	0.500
TOTAL	16.960	4.937	20.967

16 The 10 year plan 2018-28 continued the Councils commitment to increasing the rate at which network assets are renewed by increasing staffing, particularly in infrastructure teams, to make sure capital projects can be delivered in a timely manner. The Three Waters Team have been focussing on this and have developed capacity within the Capital Delivery Team in order to increase the level of capital spend on the Three Waters network. Staff are confident that, in the absence of unknown future prohibitive events, the proposed acceleration of budget is achievable.

Capital Expenditure - Waste Management

17 The budget for Waste Management reflects timing changes and a re-categorisation of project budgets. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m
Waste and Environmental Solutions – Forrester Park		(0.090)
Leachate system at Forrester Park is not now required.
Waste and Environmental Solutions – Green Island Landfill		0.053
Bring forward budget from future years and re-categorise so that additional work can be undertaken in 2019/20.
Waste and Environmental Solutions – Waikouaiti Transfer Station	(0.150)	0.230
Realign transfer station budget from this financial year until 2019/20.
TOTAL	(0.150)	0.193

18 The costs for the proposed new waste disposal facility at Smooth Hill are currently in development as part of the detailed business case phase of the Waste Futures project. These costs will depend on the final procurement model chosen and will be included in the next annual or 10 year plan following Council consideration and community consultation.

Capital Expenditure - Roading and Footpaths

19 The budget for Roading and Footpaths reflects timing changes, a reallocation of renewal budgets and an increase in budget for the Peninsula Connection project. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 – 2020/21 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
Central City Upgrade	(1.000)	(2.250)	(4.000)
The budget has been reprofiled over all 10 years to reflect the timing of the upgrade to George Street, between Albany Street and Moray Place.
City to Waterfront Connection	(1.000)	(4.500)	3.000
The project has been reprofiled but still scheduled for completion in the 2021/22 year.
Peninsula Connection	9.000	11.000	11.000
This project has been rephrased and increased by $20.000 million. See paragraphs 20-22 for more detail.
LED Street Lights		2.000	(1.500)
The project has been reprofiled and increased by $0.500 million, offset by a reduction in pavement rehabilitations. It is still scheduled for completion in the 2020/21 year. NZTA subsidy rates are higher than anticipated in the 2018-28 10 year plan.
Minor Improvements		1.500	1.500
Bring forward budget from future years so that additional work can be undertaken in 2020/21 and 2021/22.
Tertiary Precinct Upgrade	(1.000)	(1.750)	2.000
The project has been reprofiled but still scheduled for completion in the 2022/23 year.
Renewals		1.679	(0.764)
Bring forward budget of $1.679 million from future years and reallocate from future years $3.500 million for column replacement and $0.500 million for LED street lights.
Column Replacement		2.000	1.500
$4.000 million of the pavement rehabilitations budget has been reallocated to the column replacement budget $3.500 million and LED street lights budget $0.500 million.
TOTAL	6.000	9.679	12.736

20 Funding for the Peninsula Connection has been reprofiled and increased by $20.000 million. It has been assumed that $11.200 million will be funded by NZTA. Final confirmation of the NZTA funding is expected in June, prior to adoption of the 2019/20 Annual Plan. The revised programme is scheduled as follows:

Peninsula Connection	10 Year Plan $m	2019/20 Annual Plan $m	Change $m
2018/19	11.000	20.000	9.000
2019/20	11.000	22.000	11.000
2020/21	11.000	22.000	11.000
2021/22	11.000		(11.000)
Total	44.000	64.000	20.000
NZTA Portion	23.980	35.180	11.200

21 The total cost for this project will be above estimates completed as part of the original business case process. Reasons for the increase were varied. Increased costs were tendered for preliminary work, which covers overheads associated with delivering the project, traffic management costs and site clearance and structures. A value engineering exercise has been undertaken with the preferred contractor to ensure that any potential savings can be realised. This has reduced the costs of the total project by $10.500 million. Part of that value engineering process was to remove sections of the project past Portobello township. This is due to the relatively low benefits that these sections deliver when assessing them as part of the business case.

22 The new project budget will deliver the Peninsula Connection project from the city to Portobello township. Sections still to be completed past this point will need to be funded separately using other budget lines, for example the minor improvements budget. It is recommended that they are completed at some time in the future to ensure a continuous safe route for all road users.

Capital Expenditure - Reserves and Recreational Facilities

23 The budget for Reserves and Recreational Facilities reflects timing changes over the ten year period. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 – 2020/21 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
Mosgiel Pool (DCC contribution only)	(0.750)	(0.950)	1.700
The project has been reprofiled but still scheduled for completion in the 2020/21 year. Physical works are likely to start early 2020.
Hydroslide Renewal		(3.740)	3.740
Realign budget from 2019/20 until 2020/21.
Aquatic Services – Other	(0.422)	(0.153)	0.575
Realign minor improvement and renewal budgets.
Parks and Recreation	(0.452)	1.359	0.084
Realign minor improvement and renewal budgets including public toilets and sports field lighting. Renewal budgets have been brought forward to the 2019/20 and 2020/21 years from future years.
TOTAL	(1.624)	(3.484)	6.099

Capital Expenditure - Libraries and Museums

24 The budget for Libraries and Museums reflects timing changes for Art in Public Places and minor capital works. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 – 2020/21 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
DPAG – Art in Public Places		0.100	(0.100)
Bring forward budget to the 2019/20 year.
Library – Minor Capital Equipment		0.030
Bring forward budget from future years so that additional work can be undertaken in 2019/20.
Olveston Historic Home – Minor Capital Works	(0.018)	0.018
Realign the 2018/19 budget so that minor works can be completed in 2019/20.
TOTAL	(0.018)	0.148	(0.100)

Capital Expenditure - Property Services

25 The budget for Property Services reflects timing changes including the acceleration of budget from future years. Budget lines have also been reallocated to the different portfolios. The total change over the 10 year period is a net increase of $0.500 million for the South Dunedin Library and Community Complex. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 to 2020/21 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
New Capital – Sammy’s		(4.800)	4.800
Realign the 2019/20 budget to the 2020/21 year.
South Dunedin Library and Community Complex	4.750	(1.000)	(3.250)
This project has been rephrased and increased by $0.500 million. See paragraph 26 for more detail.
New Capital - Commercial		1.500
Acceleration of funding for commercial property purchases and the Manuka Causeway in the Wall Street Mall.
New Capital – Housing	(1.070)	2.050
Realignment of budget for new housing and housing upgrades.
Renewals – Commercial and Operational	(1.380)	(2.065)	0.163
These budget lines have been reallocated to the various portfolios in Property Services.
Renewals – Community	(1.055)	2.725
Realign the budget for the Edgar Centre and accelerate funding for other projects, including remediation of the Tarpits to the 2019/20 year.
Civic & Central Library Refurbishment	(0.180)	4.240	0.300
Realignment of renewal budget for Civic buildings including the central library refurbishment and the Civic Centre roof.
Renewals - Housing	(0.100)	1.855
Bring forward budget to the 2019/20 year.
TOTAL	0.965	4.505	2.013

26 Funding for the South Dunedin Library and Community Complex has been reprofiled to reflect the building purchase in the 2018/19 year. The remaining budget of $0.500 million has been increased to $1.000 million for the 2019/20 year to enable remedial work to be undertaken on the site as well as co-design/consulting work to occur. A more accurate costing of future expenditure can then be considered as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan process. The revised programme is scheduled as follows:

South Dunedin Library and Community Complex	10 Year Plan $m	2019/20 Annual Plan $m	Change $m
2018/19		4.750	4.750
2019/20	2.000	1.000	(1.000)
2020/21	3.250		(3.250)
Total	5.250	5.750	0.500

Capital Expenditure - Community and Planning

27 The budget for the Community and Planning Group reflects timing changes for urban design improvements. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 – 2020/21 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m	2020/21 $m
City Development – Warehouse Precinct Upgrades	(1.020)	1.020
Realign budget from this financial year until 2019/20.
City Development – Minor Amenity Centre Upgrades	(0.100)	0.100
Realign budget from this financial year until 2019/20.
City Development – Other Upgrades	(0.096)	0.096
Realign budget from this financial year until 2019/20.
Community Development and Events		0.073	(0.065)
Bring forward budget for replacement of the Christmas Tree and minor equipment purchases to the 2019/20 year.
TOTAL	(1.216)	1.289	(0.065)

Capital Expenditure - Governance and Support Services

28 The budget for the Governance and Support Services Group incorporates timing changes for Fleet Operations and Business Information Systems. The table below provides a summary of the changes for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 years.

Department and Item	2018/19 $m	2019/20 $m
Business Information Systems	(0.420)	2.382
Realign the 2018/19 budget for the electronic document management system. Bring forward budget from future years so that additional work can be undertaken in 2019/20 on a number of projects including mobility, online services and data warehousing.
Fleet Operations – Bookbus	(0.600)	0.600
Realign Bookbus budget from this financial year until 2019/20 pending a decision on EECA funding which is due in July.
TOTAL	(1.020)	2.982

OPTIONS

29 No options are provided in this report.

NEXT STEPS

30 If the budget changes discussed in this report are approved by the Council, the 2019/20 budget will be updated for inclusion in the 2019/20 Annual Plan budget.

Signatories

Author:

Carolyn Allan - Senior Management Accountant

Authoriser:

Gavin Logie - Financial Controller

Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	10 Year Capital Expenditure Budget	53
⇩b	Three Waters	54
⇩c	Waste Management	55
⇩d	Roading and Footpaths	56
⇩e	Reserves and Recreational Facilities	57
⇩f	Libraries and Museums	58
⇩g	Property Services	59
⇩h	Community and Planning	60
⇩i	Governance and Support Services	61

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The Annual Plan 2019/20 enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; and promotes the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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 capital expenditure programme primarily contributes to the objectives and priorities of the above strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

The capital expenditure budget provides for ongoing improvement to water quality and water management. There is iwi engagement on a case-by-case basis as projects are developed and implemented.

Sustainability

Major issues and implications for sustainability relating to the capital expenditure programme are discussed and considered in the 50 year Infrastructure Strategy approved last year as part of the 10 year plan 2018-28.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report informs the Annual Plan deliberations and provides updates to the 10 year plan 2018-28 and the draft 2019/20 budget.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in the report.

Significance

The budget updates are considered to be not material or significant changes from the content of the 10 year plan 2018-2028.

Engagement – external

The accelerated delivery of the capital programme was referenced in the Annual Plan 2019/20 information document.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the Council have been involved in the development of the updated capital expenditure programme.

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 budget updates.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Annual Plan 2019/20 - Summary of Community Feedback

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises the community engagement process and the feedback received on the draft Annual Plan 2019/20.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on: 3 waters; animal services; arts and culture / Ara Toi - general; central city plan; city development – general; climate change; community development; community housing; Council Controlled Organisations; cycleways; DCC communications, marketing and promotion; debt; elected members; Enterprise Dunedin; finance; general comments; lime scooters; parking fees and changes; parking services; parks and recreation; Peninsula Connection; policy; property; rates increase; regulatory services; South Dunedin library and community complex; transport; waste and environmental solutions; Waste Futures; and Waterfront.

BACKGROUND

2 Engagement to enable the community to have their say on the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budgets occurred in a four week consultation period between Monday 18 March and Monday 15 April 2019.

3 A plain-English information document titled ‘Dunedin’s annual plan information document | Te mahere pae tata ki Ōtepoti he puka pānui’ was developed to support community engagement and participation in the Council’s decision-making processes relating to the content of the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budgets.

4 Specific community feedback was also sought on the proposed trial of a free central city bus loop, and on using money from rates or parking charges to offset bus fares.

5 A range of community engagement activities was undertaken as part of the draft Annual Plan 2019/20:

a) Sending the information document to every Dunedin home;

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

c) A Councillor Cuppa Session was held on 10 April 2019 at the University Link to seek feedback on the draft 2019/20 Annual Plan budgets, and get feedback on other projects or ideas for consideration in the draft Annual Plan;

d) Community Board information packs: All Community Boards were provided with Annual Plan information packs to distribute and utilise as part of local engagement sessions;

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

f) Targeted outreach and notifications to representatives of Otago University Students Association and Otago Polytechnic Students Association;

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

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

i) Provided engagement packs to community groups (e.g. Youth Council) and other community representatives; and

j) Convening hearings where the community could speak to the Council in person on Monday 6 May to Wednesday 8 May 2019 (53 people attended the hearings).

6 A total of 469 feedback items were received during the consultation period. This included 360 responses completed via the online feedback form and 109 feedback items via hardcopy feedback forms, letters and emails.

7 Feedback comments were received on 47 topics. The ten topics most frequently commented on were:

Topic	Number of Comments
Transport – general	89
Central city bus loop	86
Public transport improvements (forwarded to ORC)	75
Bus fares (subsidised)	70
Rates increase	56
Tracks and trails	54
Parks and recreation – general	48
General comments	46
Waterfront	42
Parks and recreation – funding requests	40

8 Attachment A provides further information about the results of consultation including a table showing all feedback topics and number of comments made sorted by topic alphabetically.

9 Feedback was recorded in the Council’s consultation database for analysis and comment by staff and consideration by the Council.

Community feedback

10 A summary of the community feedback received is provided in the 10 year plan grouping of DCC activities and services below. Feedback which relates to budget option or update reports is summarised and analysed in the relevant report.

11 There may have been more references on these topics included in other submissions, and therefore the number of comments for each topic is indicative only and this report provides only a general summary of the community feedback received.

General Annual Plan comments

Rates increase

12 There were 56 comments relating to the rates increase. Some submissions expressed concern about the impacts of the proposed rate increase, particularly for older ratepayers on fixed incomes, while other submissions supported the proposed rate increase.

13 The Financial Strategy considered rates affordability overall and the strategy was underpinned by an assumption that affordability would be maintained, by limiting the rate increase to 8% for the first year of the 10 year plan and an average of 5% per year across years 2 to 10. The proposed rate increase for 2019/20 is in line with the limits set in the 10 year plan 2018-28.

Debt

14 There were six comments relating to debt. The Financial Strategy limits Council debt to $350 million. Current DCC debt levels are in line with the 10 year plan 2018-2028. There may be timing differences in the future as capital expenditure is brought forward due to increased capacity for delivery. The challenge going forward will be the competing pressure to maintain delivery of the capital renewal and development programme, alongside the resultant pressure on the level of debt. It is anticipated that the level of spend and debt limit will be reviewed as part of the next 10 year plan process.

General comments

15 There were 46 comments relating to general Annual Plan matters. Some submissions commented about the amount of money spent being was too much, and that work should be planned better going forward. There was also some commentary on increasing staff numbers, and commendation for their work.

16 Some of the submissions expressed concern over a variety of issues including the new hospital location, LGOIMA charges, the ‘marketing’ of Dunedin in DCC documents, and the visual standard of storefronts.

Roading and footpaths

Transport - general

17 There were 89 comments relating to Transport matters. Many of the transport matters raised by submitters have been covered off in specific reports but other topics raised include the waterfront, central city plan and tertiary projects. There was also comments on general roading and footpaths, LED streetlights and general cycling, walking and scooters matters.

18 Many of the matters raised are operational and will be referred to the appropriate teams. Public transport matters which are not within the remit of DCC Transport will be raised during staff meetings with the Otago Regional Council or through the Connecting Dunedin forum. Comments about specific capital projects already underway will be made available to the project teams for consideration.

Central city plan

19 There were 37 comments relating to the Central City Plan. Comments generally were around place making, movement, traffic congestion, and provision for car parking. Some submitters were positive about the Central City Plan Project and some submitters communicated concern about the allocation of funding.

Parking fees and changes

20 There were 32 comments relating to parking fees and changes. Four submissions specifically commented on the parking fee increase. Two were opposed due to the financial burden on individuals, and the increasing number of paid parks. Two supported the increase, if appropriate off-street parking was provided. Reasons for the support included managing parking demand, reducing congestion, encouraging mode shift, and the ensuing substantial environmental, social, mental and physical health benefits.

21 Six submissions requested parking changes, including more parking in the central city and the hospital, more short term parking, and more motorcycle parking. Changes to parking were also requested in Green Island and on the one-way system in front of the former Cadbury building. These requests have been referred to operational teams for investigation.

22 Five submissions commented on the difficulty of parking in the city, noting that the people who choose to travel by private vehicle should not be ignored. Five people suggested free ‘park and ride’ hubs should be created on the city outskirts, linking into bus services. These requests have been referred to operational teams for investigation.

Cycleways

23 There were 30 comments relating to cycleways. Some of the submissions requested more cycleways to make Dunedin a better cycle city. Requests for new and improved connections included: cycle lanes on wide roads, Chain Hill Tunnel Trail, Port Chalmers Back Beach, Green Island to Kaikorai Valley, Town Belt cycleway, St Clair and St Kilda to city.

24 Three submissions commented on submissions in a negative way. Eleven submissions commented on the harbour cycle connection, saying that it is great and urging to complete the full link to Port Chalmers.

25 Other requests included providing space and a rail for pushing bikes upstairs, supporting initiatives to increase confidence in cycling and taking measures against ‘bikelash’ and road rage.

Peninsula Connection

26 There were 18 comments relating to the Peninsula Connection. The matters raised in these submissions will be considered by the project team.

Three waters

Three waters - general

27 There were 23 comments relating to Three Waters matters. Five submissions related to water quality and they identified improvements to water quality as a priority for the DCC. One submission explicitly supported the allocation of additional funding for improving water quality. The submissions do not specify whether references to ‘water quality’ apply to drinking water, or fresh/coastal water.

28 Submissions on funding were supportive of plans to invest in 3 waters infrastructure. Other notable themes were greater co-ordination of investment and considering acceleration of the investment.

Reserves and recreational facilities

Parks and recreation - general

29 There were 48 comments relating to Parks and Recreation matters.

30 Several submitters want more and improved playgrounds that cater for all age groups. The Parks Group has embarked on a Play Spaces project which responds to Action 5 in the Parks and Recreation Strategy 2017-27. This work, which will be completed in 2019/20 year will provide a strategic plan to allow for informed decisions regarding future levels of provision and future investment on playgrounds. During 2018-19 and 2019-20, Parks Group is undertaking a $1.6 million programme (10 year plan funding) on upgrading playgrounds across Dunedin. Work is prioritised based on audit condition assessment that was completed in September 2018.

31 Several submitters requested more trees be planted at reserves and other locations around Dunedin, and increased investment on tree maintenance. The Parks Group budget for tree planting and maintenance has increased from $640k in 2018-2019 to $700k in 2019-2020. A complete condition assessment audit on all trees on DCC land is planned to be completed by July 2020. This will guide future investment and budget setting.

32 Several submitters requested investment in new public toilet facilities across the city. No new capital funding for public toilets is allocated in the 10 year plan. Strategic planning work is required prior to the next 10 year plan to advise on future need and investment.

33 Several submitters several gave general support to DCC efforts to support pest control and biodiversity work. One submitter has requested consideration be given to increasing funding for more predator, possum, and invasive weed, control within the Town belt.

Property

Community housing

34 There were seven comments relating to community housing. The submissions noted the need for properly insulated, low cost housing and to provide adequate social housing and/or rentals to accommodate incoming migrants.

Property - general

35 There were six comments relating to Property matters. Submissions requested that the DCC investigate the provision of a toilet at the top of Signal Hill, and also for more public toilets to be provided across Dunedin.

Libraries and museums

Arts and culture / Ara Toi - general

36 There were 16 comments relating to Arts and Culture matters. Three submissions requested longer opening hours for Waitati Public Library.

37 Other submissions requested greater transparency in the Ara Toi Group budgets, updated library services, a good mobile library service, investment in a sustainable arts infrastructure, support for the good work undertaken at DPAG and a request for more funding for it, more street art (murals), more public art to give more photo opportunities for tourists, more funding for libraries, more public art that reflects pre-colonial and diverse Dunedin, an objection to allowing the general public to use the Library car park.

South Dunedin Library and Community Complex

38 There were four comments relating to the South Dunedin Library and Community complex. Three of the submissions supported the South Dunedin Library and Community complex project. Submitters wanted to see the momentum of the project maintained and asked that Council provides adequate funding to ensure the completed facility meets community needs and expectations.

39 Negotiations with tenants in the spaces intended for the facility are continuing. Timeline scenarios and a functional brief for a preliminary design concept, procurement planning and establishment of a co-design process involving South Dunedin stakeholders are under development. Opportunities for co-location with social service providers are also being considered.

Customer and Regulatory Services

Regulatory services - general

40 There were 12 comments relating to regulatory services matters.

41 Dog poo bags are currently provided at all customer service centres. Dog poo bag holders are also in all dog parks and at several of the popular dog walking areas. Dog owners are encouraged to fill these with re-cycled bags. From a legal perspective, dog owners are required under the Dog Control Act 1996 to pick up their dog's faeces and the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 requires them to carry a receptacle for this purpose. Animal Services Officers patrol the city and will speak to dog owners that are not carrying an appropriate receptacle (e.g. bag).

42 It is proposed to review the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 within the next two to three years. A full consultation process will be undertaken during this review and the public will have a chance to put forward their views on such things as access to St Clair Beach.

Lime Scooters

43 There were six comments relating to lime scooters. The Council recently considered the use of electric scooters in Dunedin and commenced a review of the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw in order that the introduction of licences or permits for e-scooter share schemes can be considered.

44 The Council has also written to the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency seeking an urgent national approach to the use of helmets with e-scooters, the use of cycleways and speed limits. Staff are continuing to monitor e-scooter use and promote rider and pedestrian safety. Staff will report back to the Council on further mechanisms to restrict or control e-scooter use on footpaths in busy pedestrian areas.

Parking services

45 There were five comments relating to parking. Submissions noted the need for more parking at the hospital and city centre, and long-term car park at the airport. Comments were also made about the cost of parking and the lack of cheap or free parking.

Animal services

46 There were four comments relating to animal services. Some submissions referred to the dog registration fees. All of the Animal Services fees meet the legislative requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996. Any fee increase has been made in conjunction with whole of Council fee increases. The euthanising fee has increased significantly due to the cost increase by the provider. The Responsible Dog Owner fee is a one-off fee for staff time taken to visit the property and spend time with the dog owner. Revenue from this service is only used to fund services authorised under this Act which includes offering such services and programmes considered desirable to promote responsible dog ownership.

47 One submission noted the noise nuisance caused by roosters in residential areas is an issue that needs to be looked at. The Keeping of Animals Bylaw will be reviewed within the next 12-18 months.

Waste management

Waste Futures

48 There were 29 comments relating to Waste Futures. Submissions on this topic covered funding for waste minimisation, replacing Council rubbish bags with waste bins, and providing green waste collections. The majority of submissions requested that Council provide additional waste minimisation services and reduce the cost of waste disposal to landfill.

49 The Council's Waste Minimisation and Management Plan and ‘Waste Futures’ preferred service model (i.e. kerbside recycling options, additional recycling centres, etc.) are currently in development. Any potential new kerbside collections will change DCC service levels and impact on rates, waste to landfill, and carbon emissions. There will be community engagement and consultation on options in August/September 2019. The outcome of this consultation will then feed into the 2020/21 Annual Plan Process.

Waste and Environmental Solutions - general

50 There were 25 comments relating to Waste and Environmental Solutions matters. Submissions on this topic covered landfill fees and charges, illegal dumping, assisted kerbside collections and creating a Council climate change action plan.

51 The submission from Disabled Persons Assembly NZ requested that DCC provide support for disabled persons who are not able to present waste and recycling to the kerbside on collection day. This service is currently available via the DCC rubbish and recycling Assisted Collection Service.

Community and planning

Waterfront

52 There were 42 comments relating to the Waterfront.

53 21 submissions did not support the Waterfront Development. Those that did not support the Waterfront Development and/or the Bridge noted the perceived cost to ratepayers, the preference that Council prioritises existing infrastructure costs, decreasing debt and other issues such as flooding in South Dunedin. There was a preference that the space should be used for public access only.

54 13 submissions supported the Waterfront Development and seven expressed reservations but were in favour of some sort of development. The focus of the supportive responses was on it being a good investment in the long-term future of the city, walkways and better use of public spaces. Respondents encouraged Council to hurry up and get the development started. While supportive, some respondents did note that they did not approve of some design aspects of the Waterfront Development or the amount to be spent on the bridge.

55 Some noted that building a waterfront development is not in keeping with the city's policies for climate change. Many referenced the cold and inclement weather. Some submissions also noted that they believe no consultation has occurred in relation to the Waterfront Development and the design aspects.

56 There is no specific funding provided for the Waterfront Development in the draft 2019/20 budgets.

Community Development - general

57 There were nine comments relating to community development matters. Submissions noted that a number of ideas put forward around improving housing within the city have been considered by the Mayor's Taskforce for Housing and a report by that Taskforce was considered by Council in May.

58 Some submissions requested continued funding and support for a wide range of diverse projects and initiatives which support the wellbeing of Dunedin residents. Where individual funding requests have been made for contestable community grant funding, staff will follow up with the relevant submissions.

City Development - general

59 There were eight comments relating to city development matters. The submissions covered general ideas around improving city amenity, the need to provide for housing, suggestions around resource management monitoring, and concerns about Port noise.

Economic development

Enterprise Dunedin - general

60 There were 15 comments relating to economic development and employment. Some of the submissions referenced the Economic Development Strategy that seeks to address employment issues and other matters regarding Dunedin's economy. Since 2013 over 4,700 new jobs have been created in a variety of employment areas.

61 Submissions included support for, and encouragement to deliver the Dunedin Destination Plan. The implementation plan is being developed in conjunction with key stakeholders. Support for additional funding for marketing the city, especially in the shoulder season, was also included in these submissions.

Governance and support services

Climate Change

62 There were 24 comments relating to climate change. Submissions consistently supported the DCC’s actions in this area. Submissions focused on the following: assessing carbon impacts, identifying climate risks, protecting the local environment, and, supporting sustainability measures. One submitter questioned the immediate need for climate change adaptation measures. Work at the DCC is focused on both developing climate change adaptation planning and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, both citywide and as an organisation. Shorter-term adaptation work is focused on interventions that aim to alleviate flooding in vulnerable areas such as South Dunedin. Alongside this, work to developing a forward-looking programme for responding to the medium to longer-term climate-driven challenges in the city is underway.

63 Since 2015, the DCC has been a signatory to the Global Covenant of Mayors and has, as part of this commitment, completed a citywide inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment, and is continuing to work with stakeholders citywide to explore emissions reduction targets and adaptation measures as part of a future Dunedin Climate Action Plan. The DCC has also developed, in close partnership with the community, the Te Ao Tūroa Environment Strategy that focuses on ensuring Dunedin has a healthy environment.

Policy - general

64 There were six comments relating to policy matters. These submissions highlighted the need to provide better transparency and access to information on the roles and responsibilities of the DCC. There was also support for more engagement with diverse communities and youth, as well as iwi involvement in the proposed projects.

Finance - general

65 There were three comments relating to Finance matters. The submissions supported for selling the stadium, a robust procurement policy with emphasis on taking care of people and environment, and a suggestion to make rates able to be paid online.

66 The Council is currently looking at implementing on-line payment by credit card and local procurement forms part of the Council's procurement policy.

Council controlled organisations

67 There were two comments relating to council-controlled organisations. The submissions referenced making Dunedin’s power poles underground and seeking assistance to control the financial losses expected for DCHL and DCC stadium.

DCC Communications, Marketing and Promotion

68 There were two comments relating to DCC communications, marketing and promotion matters. The comments highlighted some issues with the DCC website. For example, the audio reader feature on the website did not work very well on any of the webpages, including the annual plan webpage. There were also issues with links to climate change and environment reports.

69 Different formats for future Council documents was also suggested for full accessibility. Suggestions included having a wide range of formats (e.g. braille, large print or speech-only audio), and availability of important documents online in NZ Sign Language.

Elected members

70 There were two submissions relating to elected members. Submissions included reference to the role of elected representatives to make decisions for the wellbeing of all residents and communities in Dunedin.

Next steps

71 During deliberations the Council will consider the community’s feedback on the draft Annual Plan 2019/20.

72 As part of the development of the final Annual Plan 2019/20, some budget updates may need to be made following any decisions made by Council during the deliberations process.

Signatories

Author:	Tami Sargeant - Senior Policy Analyst
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Annual Plan 2019/20 Feedback Topics	75

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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 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

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

These considerations are the subject of the report.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in the report.

Significance

The summary of community feedback is considered to be of low to medium significance in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Community feedback on the engagement on the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 has been summarised in the report.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the Council have been involved in the analysis of the community feedback.

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 this report, and were involved in the Annual Plan engagement.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Annual Plan 2019/20 - Funding Requests

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises the funding requests from external organisations and DCC activities and projects which were received during the community feedback period on the Annual Plan 2019/20.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the external funding requests from organisations.

b) Considers the feedback from the community on resourcing of DCC activities and projects.

Funding requests

2 The following requests were received from organisations and are currently not included in the draft 2019/20 budgets.

3 As a guide, an addition of $149k of operating expenditure would add 0.1% to the 5% rate increase proposed in the draft 2019/20 budget.

Summary of request	Amount sought 2019/20
Aukaha / Ngāi Tahu (712662): To support the treaty partnership and provide match funding by Ngāi Tahu to $500k to cover core partnership activities and projects across the annual work plan.	$250k annually
Broad Bay Boating Club (712559): To support stage 1 of the rebuild of the Broad Bay Boating Club to build the foundations and platform for the project. That DCC staff work with the Broad Bay Boating club to investigate options for the DCC to support the Broad Bay Boating club rebuild project.	$110k Unspecified.
Caversham Community Group (711517): To complete stages 2 and 3 of the Caversham Reserve.	$50k
Dunedin Shanghai Association (707532): For Dunedin Shanghai Association events (eg. Shanghai travel, 25th anniversary projects).	$10k annually
Dunedin Symphony Orchestra (713899): A one-off adjustment for DSO funding to enable the orchestra to continue to operate sustainably until its long-term operating environment is clarified pending the outcomes of the Charcoal Blue Study and the next DCC 10 year plan. Increase DVML community access fund to facilitate the use of the Town Hall venue for the Dunedin community.	$100k $150k
Sport Otago (710487): To provide relief for lease costs, potentially through a property arrangement grant.	$57k
Araiteuru Marae (712505): Street signage for the Araiteuru Marae, and support for completing the adornment of the wharenui with tukutuku and whakairo.	Unspecified.
Archibald Baxter Memorial Trust (713267): To assist in the construction of the Archibald Baxter Peace Garden, a national memorial for conscientious objectors at the intersection of George and Albany Streets. The total cost for project is around $428k + GST and the Trust has sourced community funding of over $115k and seeking funding from Lotteries. Seeking in-kind support from the DCC, eg. purchasing construction materials.	Unspecified.
Dunedin Amenities Society (712590): To support the development of Cattle-market Reserve at Kaituna on the corner of Serpentine Avenue and Maori Road as appropriate in terms of land use and reserves management practices for the Town Belt Reserve. The total project cost is expected to be $170k to $230k.	Unspecified.
Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust (712523): More support from DCC for large fundraising efforts to improve and maintain the Theatre.	Unspecified.
Otago Hockey (712071): To coordinate and project manage the building of the artificial turf to be located on the Kings High School grounds; and utilise DCC expertise, knowledge and resource to develop the request for proposal and manage the tender process. For the DCC to assume ownership and insurance of the hockey turf facility thought a lease to the Ministry of Education on completion of the build.	Unspecified.
OneCoast (712581): To fund buildings and equipment to support a community resource recovery centre at the Waikouaiti Transfer Station.	Unspecified.

DCC Resourcing requests

4 There were some requests for resourcing of DCC activities and projects. There may have been more references on these resourcing requests included in other submissions, and therefore the number of submitters is indicative only.

5 The following table identifies the requests for resourcing of DCC activities, most of which have unspecified values:

Summary of request	Amount sought 2019/20
Tracks and trails (26 submissions): For additional resourcing for improving, building and maintaining walking and mountain bike tracks around Dunedin, including investigating the development an iconic Dunedin trail (eg. the 3 Peaks trail). One submitter requested a dedicated person to work on the maintenance and development of tracks in Dunedin.	Unspecified. There is a report on tracks.
Enterprise Dunedin (3 submissions): Evaluate, prioritise and execute the recommendations of the Martin Jenkins report on the Enterprise Dunedin review and allocate budget to ensure they are all carried out urgently.	Unspecified.
Outdoor recreation facilities (3 submissions): More support for outdoor recreation opportunities in Dunedin, including playgrounds and biking facilities.	Unspecified.
3 waters (2 submissions): More capital investment in water infrastructure across the Taieri and general improvements to infrastructure plans.	Unspecified.
Archives (1 submission): Requests a long-term solution for the storage of archives, possible as a joint venture with the ORC or the Hocken Library.	Unspecified.
Community funding (1 submission): More community funding to support community wellbeing (eg. Pasifika communities).	$500k
Enterprise Dunedin (1 submission): Provide resourcing to identify ways to support Dunedin to double in population to 250,000 people by 2050.	Unspecified.
Local body elections (1 submission): Setup special voting booths within libraries around Dunedin and encourage students to participate in local body elections.	Unspecified.
Resource consents (1 submission): Increased DCC monitoring of subdivision and land use resource consent conditions.	Unspecified.
Waste minimisation (1 submission): To subsidise cloth nappies, such as providing vouchers for cloth nappy businesses to families.	Unspecified.

Next steps

6 The level of funding, if any, determined by the Council will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Signatories

Author:	Tami Sargeant - Senior Policy Analyst
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and promotes the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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 funding requests contribute to the objectives and priorities of the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The funding requests include requests from Ngāi Tahu and Aukaha.

Sustainability

No specific impact on sustainability.

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

These considerations are the subject of the report.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in the report.

Significance

This report informs Annual Plan deliberations and a full consultation has been undertaken.

Engagement – external

Community requests for funding have been summarised in the report.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the Council have been involved in the analysis of the community feedback.

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 this report.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: Central City Bus Loop

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises the community feedback on a free central city bus loop received during the Annual Plan 2019/20 engagement and presents options on how to develop this project.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Allocate $100k to undertake a joint feasibility study with ORC on the implementation of a central city bus loop as part of the transport options within the central city area.

· Implement a central city bus loop as described in the draft Annual Plan 2019/20.

· No funding provided in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for a trial central city bus loop or a feasibility study.

3 The draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budgets do not include funding for a central city bus loop.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on a central city bus loop.

b) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for work on a central city bus loop.

BACKGROUND

4 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

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

That the Council:

a) Works with the ORC to facilitate a trial of a low carbon, free small-bus loop in the central city and seek funding for this from the ORC, NZTA and EECA.

b) Agrees that the route in general terms would be from the Museum reserve via George St to the Exchange, Queen’s Gardens, Anzac Square, Hospital, Campus (or reverse).

c) Agrees that the trial should begin as soon as practicable after the Bus Hub becomes operational and would need to be accommodated as street works progress in George Street.

d) Agrees that the proposal to be included for consultation in the Annual Plan, including up to $400,000 p.a. of Council funding (which might be recovered from parking revenue).

Division

The Council voted by division.

For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Damian Newell, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Conrad Stedman, Kate Wilson and Dave Cull (13).

Against: Nil

Abstention: Cr Lee Vandervis

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/0013)

5 There is no specific funding included in the 10 year plan 2018-28 or the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budgets for a central city bus loop.

6 Currently, nearly all the bus routes service the central city area via the bus hub to allow for transfer. Frequencies vary depending on route, time of day and day of the week. The Otago Regional Council (ORC) will commence a review of its Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) in 2019/20. This provides an opportunity to review bus fares and to change or introduce new bus routes and services.

7 The ORC has previously commissioned an ‘Investigation of potential CBD Circular bus route for Dunedin’. In May 2018, a three-page report concluded that ‘such a route would largely duplicate existing and future services and that the investment required to deliver a CBD Circular bus route may be better used to boost service levels on existing core routes. Alternatively, the CBD Circular route could be considered for tourist purposes in which case this is not generally the core business for regional councils.’

DISCUSSION

Community feedback

8 The Council sought specific feedback from the community on a central city bus loop. The Council received 82 feedback forms where respondents indicated whether or not they support a free central city bus loop service.

Support for the free central city bus loop	Number of responses	Percentage
Supports the free central city bus loop	70	85%
Does not support the free central city bus loop	12	15%

9 Key topics commented on are described below.

Route

10 Many comments state that the area of the proposed route was too small and is already walkable and would not deter people bringing their cars into town. Instead, some comments suggested extending the route to South Dunedin, North Dunedin and the hills to provide park and ride options. Others suggested that the route should run via low socio-economic communities such as South Dunedin or Brockville.

Fares for bus loop

11 Many people considered a minimal fee ($0.50 or $1) would be acceptable. This would also help gain revenue from tourists. Another suggestion was to provide a free inner-city bus zone, like there is in Melbourne, Australia.

Vehicle type, integration and frequency

12 Many people wanted to see a fully accessible, environmentally friendly (electric) vehicle to run the service. The need for a bus loop and the Orbus service to be fully integrated was also strongly supported. Some people wanted a bus loop to be serviced at high frequency using a ‘hail down’ method.

Other priorities

13 Some considered that there are more pressing priorities than a bus loop, namely an airport bus connection, cheaper bus fares generally and a park and ride service.

Legislation

14 Public Transport is regulated by the Land Transport Management Act 2003. This legislation requires that all public transport services must be provided under contract with a Regional Council. While there are some exemptions to this rule, the operation of a central city bus loop would be defined as a public transport service.

15 Thorough assessment of any funding and operating model is required to ensure that any future bus loop is lawful.

Strategic fit

16 The central city bus loop would support a number of objectives within the city’s strategic framework. These include providing travel choice, resilient network and connectivity of centres (Integrated Transport Strategy); connected people (Social Wellbeing Strategy); support for a city that is resilient and carbon zero, depending on vehicle and uptake (Environment Strategy); and the Spatial Plan.

OPTIONS

Option One – $100k additional funding for a joint feasibility study to explore the potential implementation of a Central City Bus loop as part of the transport options within the central city area

17 Undertake a feasibility study with the aim to fully explore risks, issues, benefits and all options relating to a central city bus loop. The study would focus on demand, trip origins and destinations, cost, fares, frequency, vehicle type, and integration with the Orbus service.

18 The study would need to explore options regarding the route and alternatives such as free Orbus service within zone 1 and frequency increases of existing buses. It is suggested that this study would be jointly funded by DCC and ORC (50/50) with a maximum value of $200k ($100k each).

19 The study would be commissioned early in the 19/20 year to be completed before the RPTP review commences. This would allow for findings to feed into the RPTP review.

Advantages

· Enables DCC to explore all options to identify a preferred way forward.

· Enables informed decision making.

Disadvantages

· Undertaking a feasibility study incurs cost and results in extended timeframes which are contrary to public expectations as reflected in community feedback.

Option Two – Implement a central city bus loop as described in the draft 2019/20 Annual Plan

20 Work with ORC to plan, commission and evaluate a trial for a free bus loop in the central city. The brief would be to develop a service that connects the Otago Museum, hospital, bus hub and the exchange with a low emission bus service.

Advantages

· Responds to public feedback from the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 as the majority of feedback supported a free central city bus loop.

Disadvantages

· Could result in significant and unknown cost to Council.

· May not comply with existing legislation covering the operation of public transport services.

· In the absence of a feasibility study, it is unclear if this is option would provide best value for money and if there are better options to consider.

· Does not take into account community feedback where people were generally in favour of the project, but suggested changes to the original proposal.

Option Three – To not take the project forward

21 This option would not take the project further as either a trial of a central city bus loop or a feasibility study.

Advantages

· No financial or cost impact on Council.

Disadvantages

· Does not align with the community feedback received from the Annual Plan engagement which was mostly supportive of a free central city bus loop.

· Not all options have been properly considered and evaluated.

NEXT STEPS

22 The level of funding determined by the Council for the central city bus loop will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/20.

23 DCC Transport will work with ORC to develop a statement of work for a feasibility study and appoint consultants to undertake this work.

24 Findings of the feasibility study will be shared with both ORC and DCC Councils as part of the RPTP review.

Signatories

Author:	Richard Saunders - Group Manager Transport
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

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 promotes the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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	☐	☐	☒

Key contributions to the Council’s strategic priorities and plans are providing travel choice, resilient network and connectivity of centres (Integrated Transport Strategy), connected people (Social Wellbeing Strategy), resilient and carbon zero, depending on vehicle and uptake (Environment Strategy) and Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua

Sustainability

Public transport contributes to sustainability by reducing private vehicle emissions. Further reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved if the central city buss loop service is operated with an environmentally friendly vehicle and if the service results in mode shift.

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

The project is not included in the 10 year plan and draft Annual Plan budget. There will be implications if further funding is required to undertake a feasibility study.

Financial considerations

The cost of undertaking a feasibility study is suggested to be maximum $200k with a recommendation that ORC would pay 50% of it. This cost is unbudgeted.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Community feedback was sought on a central city bus loop through the Annual Plan engagement. Some preliminary conversations have been held with the Otago Regional Council, and the Connecting Dunedin forum (Otago Regional Council and New Zealand Transport Agency) are aware of this report.

Engagement - internal

The transport planning team has been engaged with providing content for this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no legal / health and safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: Offset Bus Fares In Dunedin

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises the community feedback received during the Annual Plan 2019/20 engagement regarding offsetting bus fares in Dunedin.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Assess mechanisms for subsidised bus fares. Carry out this assessment with Otago Regional Council (ORC) in the review of their Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP).

· Take no further action on exploring mechanisms for subsidised bus fares.

· Assess mechanisms for subsidised bus fares. Carry out this assessment independent of the ORC review of the RPTP.

3 The draft annual plan 2019/20 budget does not include specific funding to offset bus fares in Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on offsetting bus fares in Dunedin.

b) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the final Annual Plan 2019/20 for offsetting bus fares in Dunedin.

BACKGROUND

4 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Work with the ORC to develop options to offset bus fares in the city, including funding through parking charges and/or DCC rates and bring these back for consideration as part of the Annual Plan deliberations meeting in May 2019.

b) Work with central government to achieve greater flexibility in the Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM), including the Farebox Recovery Rate and the obligation to accept "lowest bidder" tenders; and

c) Advocate for an amendment to the Land Transport Management Act, or the introduction of a local bill with a similar effect, to allow the option of transferring public transport governance from the ORC to the DCC.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/001) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

5 This report addresses item a) in the above resolution which was included in annual plan consultation. Items b) and c) have are being addressed separately through discussions with the Connecting Dunedin group and Local Government New Zealand.

6 There is no specific funding included in the 10 year plan 2018-28 to offset bus fares in Dunedin.

7 Public transport is currently provided by the ORC. The operating costs of public transport are funded through the National Land Transport Fund, ORC funding and farebox recovery of at least 50%. There is currently no monetary contribution from the Dunedin City Council.

DISCUSSION

Community feedback

8 The Council sought specific feedback from the community on offsetting bus fares in Dunedin. The Council received 79 feedback forms where respondents indicated whether or not they support offsetting bus fares in Dunedin.

Support for offsetting bus fares in Dunedin	Number of responses	Percentage
Supports offsetting bus fares in Dunedin	62	78%
Does not support offsetting bus fares in Dunedin	17	22%

9 Key topics commented on are described below.

Environment, health and social connection

10 The main reasons people supported offsetting bus fares included traffic reduction and to support progress toward a carbon neutral Aotearoa. Several people also commented on the health benefits from a move toward increased public transport (and associated increase in physical activity as part of the journey), and the improved social connection for people who currently are limited in mobility due to low income or disability.

Price

11 Some people suggested Dunedin use the Queenstown $2 flat fare as a model, and further suggested free fares would be even better.

Other methods to increase bus patronage

12 Several people thought that other methods needed to be used to increase bus patronage. Suggestions included providing more regular and reliable services, improving bus priority on the road, changes to the ticketing system, and a change to the current farebox recovery ratio which does not encourage growth in patronage. These suggestions came from both those that supported and those that opposed the offsetting.

Funding source

13 Several people opposed offsetting as they did not want a rates increase, and considered that a user pays model was more appropriate.

14 Eight people supported the offsetting from parking revenue or rates, two from rates only, and 14 people only supported the offsetting from parking revenue (including some people who stated that overall they opposed the offsetting).

Funding rationale

15 DCC has initiated conversations with ORC through the Connecting Dunedin partnership on offsetting bus fares. ORC is due to undertake a review of its Regional Public Transport Plan, to be initiated in 2019/20. It is considered that this review is the appropriate forum for jointly developing a model for offsetting bus fares.

16 ORC has successfully worked with Queenstown Lakes District Council and NZTA to establish a mechanism for subsidised bus fares. Under legislation, the funding of public transport services is conferred solely upon regional councils. Thorough assessment of any potential subsidising model would be needed to ensure that any mechanism is lawful.

Strategic fit

17 Offsetting bus fares in Dunedin would support a number of objectives within the city’s strategic framework. These include providing travel choice and a resilient network, and the city’s net carbon zero target.

OPTIONS

Option One - Assess mechanisms for subsidised bus fares as part of the Regional Public Transport Plan review commencing in 2019/20

18 This option would involve Council working with ORC in the review of its Regional Public Transport Plan. Mechanisms for subsidised bus fares in Dunedin would be assessed, including funding source options (rates or parking revenue) and corporate, financial and legal analysis.

19 This assessment would also include possible other methods to improve public transport and increase patronage, including the other methods suggested in community feedback.

20 The total estimated cost of Council contribution to the assessment is $80k to cover inputs into the RPTP review.

Advantages

· The review of subsidising bus fares can be completed as part of the comprehensive review of the RPTP, rather than in an ad-hoc manner.

· Responds to clear majority of community feedback support on offsetting, and explores concerns raised on the source of funding.

· Offsetting bus fares supports Council’s strategic direction, and complements other Council projects, including ongoing parking changes, travel demand management initiatives, and central city safety, access and amenity upgrades.

Disadvantages

· Additional cost incurred.

Option Two – Do not assess mechanisms for subsidised bus fares

21 This option would involve no further action on exploring mechanisms for subsidised bus fares.

Advantages

· No additional cost.

Disadvantages

· Does not respond to the majority of community feedback support on offsetting.

· Does not support Council’s strategic direction and other Council projects.

Option Three – Assess options for subsidised bus fares independent of the review of the Regional Public Transport Plan

Advantages

· Assessment of options can begin immediately.

· Responds to clear majority of community feedback support on offsetting, and explores concerns raised on the source of funding.

· Supports Council’s strategic direction and other Council projects.

Disadvantages

· The review would not form part of the comprehensive RPTP review.

· ORC resources and information required for this review may not be available.

· Additional costs would be incurred if this study is undertaken outside of the RPTP review.

NEXT STEPS

22 The level of funding determined by the Council for offsetting bus fares in Dunedin will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/20.

23 Staff will work with the ORC to decide the best way to assess mechanisms for subsidised bus fares as part of the RPTP process. Staff will continue to update Council on progress before the RPTP is released for consultation.

Signatories

Author:	Richard Saunders - Group Manager Transport
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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	☐	☐	☒

Key contributions to the Council’s strategic priorities and plans are providing travel choice, resilient network and connectivity of centres (Integrated Transport Strategy), connected people (Social Wellbeing Strategy), and resilience and carbon zero, depending on vehicle and uptake (Environment Strategy).

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

A reduction in carbon emissions may result if the fare offsetting results in a mode shift from private vehicle use to public transport.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The project is not included in the draft Annual Plan budget. There will be implications if funding is approved to assess mechanisms to subsidised bus fares.

Financial considerations

The cost to assess mechanisms to subsidise bus fares is $80k, and is currently unbudgeted.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Community feedback was sought on offsetting bus fares through the Annual Plan engagement. Some preliminary conversations have been held with the Otago Regional Council, and the Connecting Dunedin forum (Otago Regional Council and New Zealand Transport Agency) are aware of this report.

Engagement - internal

The Transport Planning and Corporate Policy teams have provided input into this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflict of interests.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards, although the topic may be of interest to Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: Otago Museum funding

Department: Ara Toi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an agreed position between DCC staff and the Otago Museum in relation to the Museum’s local government funding.

2 As a result of collaborative discussions between Museum representatives and DCC staff, the Museum has revised its funding request for 2019/20 to reflect an increase from 2018/19 of 5%. This is premised on the basis that similar increases will be approved for the following two years to bring the funding contribution to a more sustainable level.

3 The DCC had originally included a levy increase of 3.5% to fund the Museum in the draft 2019/20 budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Confirms the local authority funding for the Otago Museum for the 2019/20 at $4,525,150, being an increase over 2018/19 of 5%.

b) Confirms that the DCC contribution to this Levy of $4,239,613 be included in the annual plan for 2019/20, an increase of $67,637 over the draft figure.

c) Confirms that the DCC will grant a further $75,000 in 2019/20 towards the Otago Museum’s Tangata Whenua Gallery redevelopment in line with the commitment made in the 10 year plan 2018-2028.

d) Confirms that the DCC will include a further $8,000 in the 2019/20 annual plan as rates relief for the Otago Museum.

e) Delegates DCC senior management to negotiate the allocation of the balance of the Levy between the remaining contributing Councils.

BACKGROUND

Previous Council consideration of Museum funding

4 At the 29 January 2019 Council Annual Plan meeting, Council noted the Museum’s request for additional funding, correspondence and 2010/20 Draft Annual Plan (CAPCC/2019/001).

5 The Museum had originally requested a 12% Levy increase to $4.838 million, including capital expenditure assistance and future Levy increases to correspond with inflation.

6 At the 19 February 2019 Council meeting, Council noted the outcome of initial discussions between DCC staff and Museum representatives, the formal steps to be taken if Council did not support a Levy increase, and the further consideration of future funding options for the Museum (CNL/2019/002).

Otago Museum funding arrangement

7 The Otago Museum Trust Board is a legal entity established under the Otago Museum Trust Board Act (1996). The Act requires the DCC to provide two functions:

a) Serve as an appointment body and select four Board members to the Otago Museum Trust Board.

b) To make an annual payment to the Museum (known as the Levy).

8 Schedule 2 of the Act directs that the levy be paid by each contributing authority; Central Otago District Council; Clutha District Council; and Waitaki District Council. The DCC provides the remainder of the levy, which generally amounts to over 90% of the annual local government funding contribution.

DISCUSSION

Otago Museum Levy breakdown

9 The Levy paid to the Museum has not significantly increased since 2015 ($4.102 million). This has coincided with financial pressures on the Museum’s operations including collections care; visitor services; and increased staffing costs.

10 The levy breakdown is as follows.

2018		2019	2020	Increase
3,920,123	Dunedin City Council	4,037,727	4,239,613	201,886	5.0%
26,273	Central Otago District Council	27,061	28,414	1,353	5.0%
181,570	Clutha District Council*	190,757	200,295	9,538	5.0%
52,546	Waitaki District Council	54,122	56,828	2,706	5.0%
4,180,512	Total levy	4,309,667	4,525,150	215,483	5.0%
Clutha District Council has only paid $123k in the current year, this is the minimum it is required to pay under the Act. Contributions DCC*
3,920,123	Otago Museum Levy	4,037,727	4,239,613	201,886
75,000	Capital Grant	75,000	75,000	-
6,000	Rates Relief	7,678	8,000	322
4,001,123	Total contributions DCC	4,120,405	4,322,613	202,208
Note that all figures exclude GST where applicable.

Ongoing Museum and DCC collaboration

11 The revised funding request has been the result of close collaboration between both DCC and Museum staff throughout the 2019/20 Annual Plan process.

12 Both parties have noted the need for longer term financial certainty for the Museum, and recognised the importance of exploring other funding sources to upgrade Museum facilities going forward.

13 The DCC sees strong merit in working on matters of shared interest going forward for the benefit of both parties including:

a) Accessing external funding to support the operation and redevelopment of Museum facilities in Dunedin;

b) Operating efficiencies and areas where resources can be shared; and

c) Work collaboratively on long-term planning with a view that the Museum will complete at long-term master plan to coincide with, and thus inform, the 10 year plans of the contribution authorities.

OPTIONS

Option One – (Recommended option) Council supports the revised levy and other DCC assistance measures to the Museum

14 This option aligns with the agreed discussions between the Museum and the DCC. It would mean the DCC contribute a Levy of $4,239,613 in the Annual Plan2019/20, and the assistance measures and actions listed in the recommendation.

Advantages

· Places the Museum on stable long-term financial footing, and reflects matters of shared interest.

· Offers an opportunity for alignment between the DCC’s 10 year plan and the Museum’s Long Term Master Plan.

· Addresses increasing financial pressures on the Museum, in particular, around gallery redevelopments other capital expenditure projects.

Disadvantages

· Departs from the 3.5% Levy originally anticipated in the draft 2019/20 budget.

Option Two – (Status quo) Council does not support the revised levy and other DCC assistance measures to the Museum

15 Under this option, Council would support the Museum with the 3.5% Levy originally anticipated in the draft 2019/20 budget.

Advantages

· Does not require further financial assistance to the Museum beyond that already anticipated in the draft 2019/20 budget.

Disadvantages

· Does not secure long-term financial certainty for the Museum.

· Departs from matters of shared interest and agreed discussions.

· Does not address increasing financial pressures on the Museum, in particular, around gallery redevelopments other capital expenditure projects.

NEXT STEPS

16 If the Council agrees to the recommended option, DCC staff will make the necessary amendments to the 2019/20 budget and initiate the other assistance measures and actions identified.

17 If Council does not agree to the recommended option, DCC staff will revert to the original Levy and present this as part of the 2019/20 budget, and also work with the other contributing Councils regarding their contributions.

18 DCC staff will continue to work with the Museum to ensure the Museum’s Long Term Master Plan aligns with the DCC 10 year plan in terms of capital and operational expenditure.

Signatories

Author:	Nick Dixon - Group Manager Ara Toi
Authoriser:	Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and cultural wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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

The Otago Museum’s long-term economic sustainability may be impacted by not ensuring a long-term financial sustainability.

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

There are no immediate implications for the Long-Term Plan, however, under the preferred option alignment between Council’s 10 Year Plan and the Otago Museum’s Master Plan could be realised.

Financial considerations

An increase to the Otago Museum’s 2019/20 Levy, and the other forms of assistance identified as part of the preferred option, 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, and has shared this report with the other contributing authorities.

Engagement - internal

Relevant staff from Legal, Finance, Ara Toi and Corporate Policy have provided input into the implications of the revised request from the Museum.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

This is a risk that the other contributing authorities will not meet with funding requirements with any shortfall being the responsibility of the DCC.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: St Clair Esplanade

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide options for St Clair Esplanade and to summarise the community feedback received during the Annual Plan 2019/20 engagement.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Consider works to St Clair Esplanade as part of the Centres Upgrade programme already identified in the 10 year plan (Year 6).

· Develop a feasibility study and consider budget required to deliver a future project. This would require Council to consider a $40k budget for survey work, site analysis and costs in preparing the study.

3 The draft 2019/20 budgets do not include specific funding for urban amenity improvements to St Clair Esplanade.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on the St Clair Esplanade.

b) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for the St Clair Esplanade.

BACKGROUND

4 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

Moved (Cr Conrad Stedman/Cr David Benson-Pope):

“That the Council:

a) Request that staff prepare a report for consideration at the Annual Plan deliberations in May 2019 on options (including funding) for master planning parking options and the road network and changes to recreation facilities on the existing raised carpark and the reserve land on Bedford Street and at the St Clair Esplanade and the surrounding area.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/012)

5 There is no specific funding included in the 10 year plan 2018-28 for the St Clair Esplanade. There is $8.5 million capital expenditure included in the Roading and Footpaths from 2023/24 financial year (year 6 of the 10 year plan) for ‘major centre upgrades’.

Works undertaken to date

6 As noted below, there have been discussions and proposals over more than 10 years regarding the St Clair Esplanade.

2006 concept plan

7 In May 2006, Council’s then Architecture and Urban Design (AUD) Department undertook a feasibility study, site analysis and concept plan and proposed the following changes to the configuration of the Esplanade (the 2006 concept plan is included in Attachment A).

8 The 2006 concept plan retained the existing reserve/carpark layout and the existing access path from Bedford Street to connect through to the Esplanade, and reduced some spaces for car parking. The eastern section of the carpark was developed into a shared space (allowing only for three car park spaces) to encourage and provide space for events and activation. The southern edge of the carpark provided for pedestrian / amenity space and the existing green spaces were connected to provide pedestrian options through the space.

2009 Heritage New Zealand

9 In 2009, Heritage New Zealand approached the Council to initiate the reserve as a significant heritage site following rare urban moa bones discovered within the site.

2011 survey

10 In September 2011, Council was approached by a local landowner to consider their vision for the area in relation to his development. This included a formal property agreement to develop part of the reserve for commercial purposes. Concerns raised included car parking and traffic congestion in the area in response to which Council staff completed an accurate data set and survey.

11 The results showed that despite high parking occupancy on the Esplanade and neighbouring streets, there was enough parking within a short walking distance to the beach to meet demand in the vicinity. Pedestrian activity was high on the Esplanade and overall satisfaction by visitors was high with two-thirds of visitors not deterred due to parking.

12 The recommendation was to make no change to the layout of function of the Esplanade as no safety issues were identified, and there was adequate turnover and sufficient parking at that time.

2014 Via Strada concept plan

13 In May 2014, through development of the South Dunedin cycle network, consultants Via Strada considered alterations to the Esplanade as part of traffic calming interventions specifically with a focus of cycling (the 2014 Via Strada concept is included in Attachment B).

Other proposals

14 In 2015, a local development firm approached Council with a lease arrangement proposal for reserve land adjacent to Hotel St Clair. The proposal sought to develop the adjacent land for outdoor space with an option for public access. The proposal was not taken forward due to heritage considerations.

15 Since 2015, the urban environment around the Esplanade has developed and become increasingly popular with residents, visitors, businesses. The Pool is currently receiving its highest attendance figures to date and demand for a high-quality recreation and reserve space, adequate parking, traffic safety and congestion is evident alongside developing St Clair as a destination.

DISCUSSION

Community feedback

16 The Council did not specifically seek feedback on the St Clair Esplanade through the Annual Plan engagement. However, feedback received from the public has highlighted that there is a desire from the community to improve the urban environment as well as rectify parking and safety issues relating to vehicular access and developing the urban environment further as a destination.

Project delivery: Feasibility Study

17 A feasibility study could be developed and delivered from within City Development.

18 The feasibility study could include:

a) Initial costings for budget setting for capital/construction works and proposed physical changes to the Esplanade and reserve layout

b) Baseline data collection for traffic figures through integrated traffic plan and site survey works including cultural, heritage and geotechnical assessments

c) Survey of parking provision

d) An outline work programme for project delivery from inception to completion.

19 A preliminary scoping and site analysis budget of $40k is required to complete a comprehensive site analysis and data set for the works area.

20 Should the project be developed, City Development Team would work across departments of Council to develop a holistic approach that seeks to meet the demands as stated above, but also consider changes and solutions appropriate in the current environment.

21 The project work stages would be as follows:

a) Feasibility and project initiation

b) Stakeholder engagement (Stage 1) and public consultation to inform aspects of the proposal

c) Concept design development

d) Stakeholder engagement (Stage 2) and public information of concept

e) Refining the design through to construction

f) Construction period on site

g) Completion and maintenance.

Strategic fit

22 The St Clair Esplanade supports several objectives within the city’s strategic framework. The vision aligns with the Economic Development Strategy by providing economic benefits and improving vitality of the city. It aligns with the Spatial Plan objectives of having vibrant centres, noting that St Clair is identified as a neighbourhood (destination) centre in the 2GP. It also provides opportunities for increased social connection. Changes to the car parking and traffic on the Esplanade will provide for increased safety and accessibility as part of Council’s Integrated Transport strategy. Potential changes and development of the reserve aligns with the Parks and Recreation Strategy.

OPTIONS

Option One – Consider works to St Clair Esplanade as part of the Centres Upgrades programme already identified in the 10 year plan (Year 6).

23 Works to St Clair Esplanade would be considered as part of the Centres Upgrades programme already identified in the Long-Term Plan (Year 6). This programme was developed through the Spatial Plan and 2GP, and prioritised centre upgrades based on transport and amenity criteria. These priorities will need to be reviewed given the changes and passage of time since the original work.

Advantages

· Responds to feedback received from the community and acknowledges scope for project of St Clair Esplanade.

· Allows Council to consider prioritisation of works relating to all suburban centres.

Disadvantages

· The earliest that work on St Clair Esplanade would commence is year 7 of the 10 year plan (design funding in year 6, with budget for physical works in year 7).

· St Clair Esplanade could potentially be upgraded later than other prioritised centres.

· The community may feel that St Clair Esplanade is not being afforded due priority.

Option Two – Develop a feasibility study and consider budget required to deliver a future project

24 Develop a feasibility study and consider budget required to deliver a future project. The feasibility study would revisit the baseline data and give the opportunity to analyse the opportunities and issues relating to the project. The study would provide an accurate budget for proposed physical changes to the Esplanade and reserve.

Advantages

· Responds to feedback received and provides the opportunity to analyse the opportunities and issues relating to the project, including revisiting baseline data.

· Provides opportunity, after detailed analysis, for budget setting, if appropriate.

Disadvantages

· Unbudgeted costs (estimated at $40k) to collect comprehensive data set to complete the feasibility study in 2019/20.

· Staff time diverted away from agreed Council priorities to develop feasibility study and budget investigations.

· Council cannot give due consideration to determining centres which should be prioritised for capital investment.

· Other Centres upgrades potentially deferred if St Clair Esplanade is upgraded ahead of other centres.

NEXT STEPS

25 The level of funding, if any, determined by the Council for the St Clair Esplanade will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Signatories

Author:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	St Clair Esplanade Concept Plan (2006)	109
⇩b	St Clair Esplanade Concept Plan (2014) by Via Strada Consultants	110

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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 St Clair Esplanade supports several objectives within the city’s strategic framework. These include delivering on the objectives of the Spatial Plan, and the Social Wellbeing, Integrated Transport, Economic Development and Parks and Recreation strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Ngāi Tahu would be involved in any potential project as a Treaty partner. It is proposed that Ngāi Tahu would be key partners in progressing and the design of masterplanning of public areas.

Sustainability

The proposed feasibility report is key in ensuring a sustainable approach to project delivery. Sustainability is also a core element of the vision, designed to provide a destination that contributes to a sustainable city environment.

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

The 10 year plan does not provide funding for this project.

Financial considerations

The proposal outlined in this report is would identify budget/resources required to deliver improvements to St Clair Esplanade.

Significance

The significance of this decision is assessed as low, in terms of Council’s significant engagement policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on developing the feasibility study. Feedback from the community has been sought in respect of earlier proposals outlined in the report and has been subject to submissions for Annual Plan deliberations.

Engagement - internal

The project in its initial considerations has been discussed with the Group Managers for Transport, Community and Planning and Parks and Reserves.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is a risk that potential foreseen safety issues are not considered and rectified within the urban environment of St Clair Esplanade, if a feasibility study is not undertaken.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications or interests for community boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: Green Island Landfill second weighbridge

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides options for installing a second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill and summarises the community feedback received during the Annual Plan 2019/20 engagement.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Installation of second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill.

· No second weighbridge at Green Island Landfill (status quo).

3 The most accurate mechanism to assess the weight of a waste load to the Green Island Landfill is by using a weighbridge to measure the vehicle weight on the way in and the way out, with the charge to be applied based on the differential weight. This method is currently used for most large vehicles.

4 If the weighbridge approach was to be used for all vehicles, a second weighbridge would be required. This is to allow safe and effective management of traffic without prolonged waiting at the booth during busy periods.

5 The draft 2019/20 budget does not include funding for a second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on the Green Island Landfill weighbridge.

b) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for installing a second weighbridge at Green Island Landfill.

BACKGROUND

6 As part of the Council meeting on 19 February 2019, the Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Request that staff provide a report on the cost and implications of a second weigh bridge being installed at the Green Island Landfill for Annual Plan deliberations.

Motion carried (CNL/2019/001) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

7 Since the introduction of the DCC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan in 2013, waste minimisation education and promotional activities have assisted in reducing the annual tonnage of domestic waste disposed of by the general public at Green Island Transfer Station by 25% (from 9,708 tonnes in 2013 to 7,237 tonnes in 2017).

8 However, due to the closure of the Fairfield Landfill in 2017, the total waste to Green Island Landfill from all users (excluding special waste) has increased by 64% (from 42,591 tonnes in 2013 to 69,841 tonnes in 2017).

9 Further background information on the charging regime at Green Island Landfill, fees and charges, and specific goals and objectives related to the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan is at Attachment A.

DISCUSSION

Community feedback

10 The Council did not specifically seek feedback on installation of a second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill through the Annual Plan engagement. However, feedback received from the public included eight submissions on this topic. Four submissions were in favour of a second weighbridge, two opposed, and two were neutral.

Project delivery and funding

11 The project planning for installation of a second weighbridge is currently at concept stage only, and no detailed design or detailed costings have been completed. It is estimated that detailed design, procurement, installation, and commissioning of a second weighbridge would take approximately eight to ten months to complete.

12 There is no specific funding included in the 10 year plan 2018-28 for installation of a second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill.

Strategic fit

13 A second weighbridge at the Green Island Landfill supports Council’s obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act), to protect the environment from harm; and provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits. Part 4 of the Act specifies that territorial authorities must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district.

14 A second weighbridge would mean that all customers would be charged based on the weight of material they have disposed of at the facility, instead of being charged based on an average vehicle load. This would promote waste minimisation and increased recovery of reusable items and recyclables by incentivising diversion of these materials to the resource recovery area and Rummage Store prior to weighing in at the landfill booth.

OPTIONS

Option One – Installation of a second weighbridge at Green Island Landfill

15 A second weighbridge would be installed at Green Island Landfill. All vehicles would be weighed on the way in and the way out, with the charge to be applied based on the differential weight. This would mean that all domestic customers would be charged on the basis of the weight of material they have disposed of at the facility, instead of being charged for the average vehicle load. This could provide an incentive for waste minimisation.

16 The capital cost for installing a second weighbridge is between $200k to $250k.

Advantages

· A weight-based charging system would improve fairness and transparency in the landfill charging regime by applying charges based on actual weight (as currently occurs with heavy vehicles).

· A weight-based charging system would provide a financial incentive for public landfill users to divert recoverable material to the resource recovery area prior to weigh-in at the landfill booth.

· A second weighbridge would reduce the risk of customers being charged incorrectly, either by mistake or by fraudulent activity.

· A second weighbridge would enable improved accuracy in reporting waste quantities for calculating both Waste Levy and Emission Trading Scheme obligations.

· A second weighbridge would assist in accurate calculation of the remaining landfill volume, which is considered critical as the site approaches the consented capacity.

· Both weighbridges would remain in use for the redeveloped Green Island Transfer Station post closure of the Green Island Landfill.

Disadvantages

· The capital cost for installation of a second weighbridge is between $200k to $250k.

· There would be a small increase in operational costs for ongoing calibration and maintenance of the second weighbridge.

· Potential for delays and congestions at peak times if all vehicles are required to weigh on the way in and on the way out.

· Would create uncertainty for domestic users as to what the cost for waste disposal at the Green Island Landfill would be.

Option Two – No second weighbridge at Green Island Landfill (Status Quo)

17 The landfill charges paid by light vehicles (less than 3.5 tonnes) would continue to be based on the vehicle type and size, using the Ministry for the Environment average weight for un-compacted general waste of 1 cubic metre = 200kg. Light vehicles considered to be well in excess of the average weight can be weighed in and out of the Transfer Station using the existing weighbridge.

Advantages

· No additional capital expenditure would be required.

· No ongoing operational costs for calibration and maintenance of the second weighbridge would be required.

· Retains certainty for domestic users for the cost of waste disposal at Green Island Landfill.

Disadvantages

· No additional incentive for increased waste diversion to the resource recovery area.

· Calculation of the remaining landfill volume would continue to include assumptions based on average weights.

· Calculations for both Waste Levy and Emission Trading Scheme charges would continue to include some assumptions based on average weights.

· Public perception that landfill fees are not fair and equitable would not be addressed.

· Ongoing Health and Safety risks due to opposing traffic flows over the single weighbridge.

NEXT STEPS

18 If Council supports the installation of a second weighbridge, it is estimated that detailed design, procurement, installation, and commissioning of a second weighbridge will take approximately eight to ten months to complete.

19 After the installation of the second weighbridge, the schedule of fees and charges for the landfill would be reviewed and considered by Council.

Signatories

Author:	Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Green Island Landfill Further Information and Background	117

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal relates to providing local infrastructure, a public service and regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

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

The Council's Waste Minimisation and Management Plan and ‘Waste Futures’ service model (i.e. kerbside recycling options, additional recycling centres, etc.) are currently in development.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

A second weighbridge would mean that all domestic customers would be charged on the basis of the weight of material they have disposed of at the facility, instead of being charged for the average vehicle load. This approach would promote waste minimisation and increased recovery of reusable items and recyclables by incentivising diversion of these materials to the resource recovery area and Rummage Store prior to weighing in at the landfill booth.

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

The draft annual plan 2019/20 budgets do not include specific funding for this proposal.

Financial considerations

The draft annual plan 2019/20 budgets do not include specific funding for this proposal.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

No external organisations have been engaged with providing content for this report, beyond the feedback provided as part of the draft 2019/20 community feedback and engagement process.

Engagement - internal

Relevant DCC staff from Waste and Environmental Solutions, 3 Waters, and Corporate Policy have provided input to this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

If the weighbridge approach was to be used for all vehicles, a second weighbridge would be required. This is to allow safe and effective management of traffic without prolonged waiting at the booth during busy periods.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known impacts for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: Climate resilience work programme

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report sets out a proposed work programme to meet climate change mitigation and adaptation planning needs for DCC and the city. This programme is proposed for 2019/20 and 2020/21, and acknowledges that the next 10 year plan will be developed for 2021/22, where the opportunity for a longer-term work programme will be considered.

2 This report is focused on the establishment of a dedicated work programme to catalyse activity, and does not include work already underway within DCC activities that contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as the Waste Futures project.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the proposed climate resilience work programme and key work to date on climate change.

b) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for climate change resilience.

BACKGROUND

3 Dunedin has clear goals as a city about the wish to become net carbon zero and to prepare to adapt to climate change impacts. The recent work undertaken as participants in the Covenant of Mayors has further clarified these ambitions.

4 Translating these visions into concrete action that is not only about discrete projects but refocusing business as usual (BAU) activity is now necessary if Dunedin is to build its climate resilience, minimising and mitigating climate risks now and in the future.

5 Some of these risks are significant and known. For example, the issues facing South Dunedin were put into the national spotlight by the 2016 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report (Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty).

6 Other risks have not been investigated in any significant detail for Dunedin or the DCC – for example, the future litigation risks around disclosure of information – although there is increasing work nationally that is beginning to highlight what these risks may entail.

7 Dedicated spend on climate change mitigation and adaptation planning and delivery at the DCC has been focused on discrete environmental projects and servicing compliance commitments and agreements.

8 This is in line with the national and global picture. Under-investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation is noted at all levels of government and in other sectors despite widespread acknowledgement of the necessity to address it.

Changing strategic context driving more activity

9 The risks of such under-investment are increasing. This is made starker in the context of a shift in focus globally from talking about climate change to talking about ‘environmental breakdown,’ where the full gamut of environmental challenges, and how they interact with each other, is included.

10 With the Paris Agreement in place and the current New Zealand Government’s indicated intent to tackle climate change in New Zealand, there are some specific recent drivers for stepping up the level of investment including:

· In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C setting out a need to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030;

· In May 2019, the introduction of the proposed Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill;

· Inclusion of South Dunedin Future activity in the Deep South National Science Challenge activity;

· The Productivity Commission inquiry into local government funding and financing highlighting the impacts of climate change as one of the key drivers of local government costs now and into the future;

· The recent Local Government New Zealand report (Vulnerable: The quantum of local government infrastructure exposed to sea level rise) that indicated, following a conservative assessment, approximately $2.7 billion of roading, three waters, and building infrastructure is at risk from a 0.5 metre rise in sea levels;

· The DCC’s current completion of the third stage of its Covenant of Mayors commitments, which is the development of a mitigation and adaptation action plan;

· Increasing community engagement in climate change in some parts of the city, including South Dunedin and the Blueskin Bay area, and in some sections of the community (e.g. school children as part of the global Strike 4 Climate Change movement); and,

· The DCC supporting the Otago Polytechnic commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which have a specific focus on climate action and several related goals.

Work to date

11 The DCC has progressed work on climate change since around 2006.

Dedicated activity to drive climate resilience

12 The focus of this work has primarily been strategic direction setting, early stage and high-level planning, and data collection and monitoring. This includes, and is not limited to:

· 2010 climate change adaptation project plan (Attachment A) and work since to develop thinking for adaptation, with a particular focus on South Dunedin;

· Setting a net zero carbon by 2050 goal in Te Ao Tūroa, the city’s environment strategy;

· Climate change projections included in the Significant Forecasting Assumptions for the 10 year plan;

· Covenant of Mayors outputs: city carbon footprint, climate change risk and vulnerability assessment, and carbon reduction targets; and,

· DCC organisational annual carbon footprint monitoring.

13 Dedicated budgets are limited. There is currently an annual budget of $36.5k for ‘climate change and sustainability,’ of which about $28k is spent completing the organisation’s annual carbon footprint, with some ad hoc budget allocated in single years at various points in time e.g. $55k within the Te Ao Tūroa budget for 2018/19.

Related DCC activity contributing to climate resilience

14 There is work across the DCC’s activities that contributes to mitigating, or adapting to, climate change. Often this work is taken forward as a result of drivers not related to climate resilience. This work includes:

· Mitigation: the Waste Futures project; delivery of the cycleways network; delivery of the city’s Energy Plan, including progressing a district heating loop; the street lighting asset renewal; development of the Moana Pool strategic plan including exploring other options for heating; development of a Corporate Sustainability Framework; and, DCC internal energy management activity.

· Adaptation: place-based activity in South Dunedin; supporting adaptation work in Blueskin Bay; the flood alleviation project for South Dunedin; and, the wider South Dunedin adaptation activity.

DISCUSSION

A cohesive approach

15 Although there is now a strong embedded strategic direction to climate change activity in Dunedin the lack of a clear work programme and coordinated approach to activity has led to confusion both internally and externally regarding the mandate for progressing work.

16 Mitigation and adaptation are separate but linked activities and the establishment of this work programme would enable the DCC to begin to realise synergies and take advantage of present opportunities.

17 As the work to plan for and catalyse activity to build Dunedin’s climate resilience has so far been discrete, establishing a formal, dedicated work programme would enable this activity to feature in future planning and budget rounds. This would make investment decisions explicit and enable the community to both track progress more easily and voice thinking as to whether the level of investment is appropriate comparative to other work programmes of the DCC.

18 With a work programme in place, it will also be easier to assess how to allocate existing operational resourcing to support climate resilience. This has been an ongoing challenge as the priority of climate activity has been hard to assess.

19 It may be necessary over the next 10 years to establish a unit within the DCC focused only on climate change activity. The Corporate Policy team has been fulfilling this role to date and, with the ramping up of activity, risk and pressure to respond to a changing context at the national level, the current level of resourcing may be insufficient.

20 The key opportunity is the potential to reshape BAU activity – from business case development to the delivery of, for example, minor improvements to infrastructure – to build climate resilience rather than increase Dunedin’s climate risk profile. It is anticipated that this work programme will strengthen the push to make this happen.

21 The proposed work programme also presents an opportunity to shape and inform Dunedin’s next 10 year plan, with a focus on resilience through growth, and responding to both climate change challenges and the pressures of a growing city.

22 This work needs to take a cross-Council approach, funding the planning work associated with climate change resilience, and is additional to capital projects like South Dunedin Flood Alleviation.

Key components of proposed work programme

23 The proposed work programme sets out four key strands of work:

· Climate resilient decision-making

· Improve climate change disclosure and reporting

· Establish programme of climate resilience projects

o South Dunedin Future

o Other projects

· Build climate leadership through capacity building and funding.

South Dunedin Future

24 Work to explore climate change adaptation for the South Dunedin area has been in progress since 2010. A large-scale climate change engagement process with the South Dunedin community, and wider, will kick off later this year to support work towards establishing the potential options for the longer-term.

25 The scale of the challenge is significant and hinges on rising sea levels as a result of climate change impacting on the already high groundwater level in a low-lying, reclaimed part of the city. Added to this, is the interaction of these changes with the predicted changes to increased storm intensity and frequency. This is further complicated by existing issues with regard to water and waste service levels in South Dunedin and the challenges of aging infrastructure.

26 However, the challenges faced are not purely physical issues, and neither are the opportunities. The South Dunedin Future work programme is an opportunity to catalyse the regeneration of South Dunedin communities, reducing deprivation and the associated poor health and wellbeing outcomes.

27 Whilst the DCC identified $35M of capital expenditure for flood alleviation in South Dunedin in the current 10 year plan, in order for the technical work to be effectively carried out, there is a need for operational spend to support great outcomes. This includes potentially utilising the climate change driver to find ways to resolve more intractable issues.

28 The planned engagement will support the wider work to develop longer-term Dynamic Adaptative Policy Pathways, identifying the values and thinking to inform the development and assessment of options in both the short and longer-term.

29 The proposed budget for the project includes a portion of funding to support the community to take forward actions they identify along the way.

30 It is an important step to move from understanding the challenge ahead to beginning to be able to deliver critical activity signalled as a result of the research, policy and option development that has been carried out to date.

31 Longer delays to undertaking climate resilience work creates new climate risks, which increases the scope for maladaptation and undermines the capacity to effectively respond to these risks over time.

OPTIONS

Option One – Establish and commence delivery of a detailed work programme for climate mitigation and adaptation

32 This option includes the four key strands of work on climate resilient decision-making; improving climate change disclosure and reporting; establishing a programme of climate resilience projects (includes South Dunedin Future); and building climate leadership through capacity building and funding. The proposed cost of this work for 2019/20 is $525k, and $572k in 2020/21 (see Attachment B for details).

Advantages

· Establishes a strategic, mandated and resourced work programme to build climate resilience.

· Enables climate mitigation and adaptation to be considered more easily in future planning and budget rounds, making investment decisions and progress more explicit to both Council and the community.

· Enables potential to reshape BAU activity to build climate resilience rather than increase Dunedin’s climate risk profile.

· Presents an opportunity to shape and inform Dunedin’s next 10 year plan with a focus on resilience as growth occurs.

Disadvantages

· Requires significant additional financial resourcing.

Option Two – Fund key projects in the climate change mitigation and adaptation space (Status Quo)

33 This option sees no additional funding for the proposed work programme but continued support to current DCC projects and activities that contribute to mitigating, or adapting to, climate change.

Advantages

· Continues the progression of current and agreed pieces of work and projects with a focus on mitigation and adaptation.

Disadvantages

· Increases the scope for maladaptation and a decreasing ability to effectively respond to climate risks over time.

· Magnifies the potential for sunk investment.

· Sustains the potential for not responding to climate change risks in Dunedin as part of a cohesive package of work.

Option Three – Initiate a work programme for climate change mitigation and adaptation

34 This option includes phasing some aspects of the four key strands of work on climate resilient decision-making, to reduce the cost in 2019/20. The proposed cost for this work in 2019/20 is $395k, and $572k in 2020/21 (see attachment B for details).

Advantages

· Establishes a strategic, mandated and resourced work programme to build climate resilience.

· Lower cost than option one.

Disadvantages

· Reduced budget in 2019/20 would slow the progress that could be achieved.

· Reduces the capacity to respond to the increasing climate risks facing Dunedin.

· Risk that some community expectations around how the DCC will respond to climate change would not be met.

· Potentially gives a mixed message to the community about the importance of climate change as a strategic priority for the DCC.

· Increases the potential for sunk investment.

· Limits the possibility for the DCC and the city to take advantage of some opportunities in the face of climate challenges.

NEXT STEPS

35 If the proposed work programme is established, Corporate Policy will work with the General Manager City Services and the General Manager Infrastructure Services to map out the programme spend for the 2019/20.

Signatories

Author:	Maria Ioannou - Corporate Policy Manager
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	2010 Climate Change Adaptation Plan	128
⇩b	Budget details for options one and three	137

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal promotes the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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 proposed work programme contributes to the majority of strategies but, in particular, the Environment Strategy by acting to minimise the effects climate change will have on Dunedin, specifically South Dunedin. The proposal enlists four strands of strategic work that supports decision making with respect to climate change, improving climate change information accessibility, implementing climate resilience projects, and promoting climate-resilient leadership to ensure the Council is aware of risks and can act accordingly.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known implications for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are strong implications for sustainability that include offsetting climate change impacts (environmental), and over time minimising financial aid needed to communities who face the climate change related challenges in the future (economic and social).

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The work programme is not currently included in the Annual Plan. The proposed work programme presents an opportunity to shape and inform Dunedin’s next 10 year plan, with a focus on resilience through growth.

Financial considerations

The recommended option of a work programme does carry a significant cost of $525k and is currently unbudgeted.

Significance

Notwithstanding the importance of the climate change work, the decision on budget for this work is considered low in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no specific external engagement on this work programme, other than strong feedback and community sentiment received for DCC’s work on climate change during the 2019/20 Annual Plan public engagement period.

Engagement - internal

Relevant staff from Corporate Policy, Infrastructure and Finance have provided relevant input to inform the proposed work programme.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The report highlights the risks of not undertaking a detailed work programme going forward and the consequences of maladaptation with the potential exacerbation of climate change issues currently facing South Dunedin (sea level rise).

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Budget Option: City Event Activation

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides options for funding city event activation programmes. The options presented in this report are:

· Increase the budget from $50k to $250k.

· Increase the budget from $50k to $200k.

· Retain the budget at $50k.

2 Under all options the funding would be administered by the Events and Community Development team, in line with the city event activation framework set out in Attachment A.

3 Presently the Events and Community Development team leads city event activation for activities such as large concerts, test matches (rugby and cricket) etc. The annual budget for the 2019/20 year is $50k. Based on the events held within the city over the past 18 months, a Cricket Test in March 2020 and forecasts by Dunedin Venues Management Limited (DVML) for concerts in 2019/20 (including Fleetwood Mac in September 2019 and Elton John and Queen concerts in February 2020), additional expenditure of $150k to $200k is anticipated.

4 With prior knowledge of key events within the city for the 2019/20 year, the Council may wish to consider increasing the budget for this work.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Determines the level of funding, if any, in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for city event activation programmes.

BACKGROUND

5 City event activation is the set of planned activities that promote and support a key event within Dunedin attracting high numbers of visitors.

6 Prior to March 2018, when the “Paint the Town Ed” city event activation programme was implemented, the Council had not provided such activation programmes for concerts. Providing a level of city activation for concerts is now seen as a ‘norm’, rather than a rare event, alongside regular city activation for significant sporting events. This is mainly due to the numbers of visitors that concerts bring into the city.

7 In addition to holding concerts, DVML has taken on the role of proactively bidding for major events for the city. Event bidding is competitive, and Dunedin must showcase itself as a centre of vibrancy, quality service, innovation and creativity. Dunedin also needs to be seen as a “good host” city with sufficient transport, accommodation, entertainment and shopping options.

8 Council has not always been able to accurately forecast event activation costs as announcements for concerts and sports event have often come outside of budgeting timeframes. At times events are announced only months ahead of time. These events have significant value however, due to the economic, city marketing and wellbeing benefits they deliver to the community, and it is important city event activation is adequately funded.

9 The economic impact of events planned for 2019/20 will be in the tens of millions.

DISCUSSION

10 City activation is Council-led but planned in partnership with external stakeholders via the City Coordination Group, a city-wide group of key stakeholders (listed in the Summary of Considerations). All stakeholders are consulted on how activities can support the event involved and add value to retailers, accommodation providers and the wider community.

11 The city event activation process set out in Attachment A has been developed by staff to clarify processes, roles and responsibilities.

12 It includes a framework for deciding on the scope and scale of city event activations. The framework sets out activity options that can support and highlight events and provides a clear pathway for staff and external partners to decide on a programme for each event.

13 The 2019/20 budget for city activation is $50k. Based on the events held within the city over the past 18 months and forecasts by DVML for concerts in 2019/20, unbudgeted expenditure for city activation programmes, is anticipated to be between $150k to $200k.

OPTIONS

14 Three options are set out below. Under all options the budget would be administered by the Events and Community Development team in accordance with the city events activation framework set out in Attachment A.

Option One – Increase the budget from $50k to $250k

15 This option would see the events activation programme budget increased from $50k to $250k with the scope and budgets for individual events determined using the Council’s city activation framework.

Advantages

· Provides adequate funding to resource the collaborative city-wide approach to city activation.

· Provides adequate funding to ensure that the economic and social benefits of city activations are realised.

· Enables community expectations regarding city activations to be met.

· Provides for efficient planning and delivery of city activation, particularly where there are short lead-in times for events.

Disadvantages

· Increased cost of $200k.

Option Two – Increase the budget from $50k to $200k

16 This option would see the events activation programme budget increased from $50k to $200k with the scope and budgets for individual events determined using the Council’s city activation framework.

Advantages

· Provides some funding to partially resource the collaborative city-wide approach to city event activation.

· Provides some increased funding to ensure that some of the economic and social benefits of activations are realised.

· Less financial impact than Option 1.

Disadvantages

· Budget unlikely to meet the costs of events planned for 2019/20, putting pressure on existing budgets.

· Community expectations (particularly of the business community) regarding city event activations may not be met.

Option Three – Budget remains at $50k (status quo)

17 This option would see the events activation programmes budget remain at $50k.

Advantages

· No increase in funding required.

Disadvantages

· Budget unlikely to meet the costs of city activations planned for 2019/20, putting pressure on existing budgets.

· Community expectations (particularly of the business community) regarding city event activations may not be met.

NEXT STEPS

18 Staff will plan city event activation programmes around the budget determined by Council and using the city event activation framework.

Signatories

Author:

Joy Gunn - Manager Events and Community Development

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	City Event Activations Framework	144

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, economic and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

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	☒	☐	☐

Aligns with the Destination Plan and Festivals and Events Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

Positive event experiences by visitors and the community contribute to the city’s positive reputation, which can increase the city’s economic sustainability and community’s sense of wellbeing.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Due to the nature of events that attract people to Dunedin, often announced with short planning and delivery timeframes, costs cannot be accurately forecast for each year. The existing allocation of $50k in the Events and Community Development operating budget provides for one or two events per year.

Financial considerations

Option One would result in an increase of $200k per annum additional costs. Expenditure would be regulated by the budget approval process outlined.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Discussions regarding the City Event Activation framework and processes have been held with the City Coordination Group (which includes DCC, DVML, Dunedin Host, Dunedin Airport, Retail Association, Chamber of Commerce, Allied Press, and Otago University Students Association) and more detailed discussions held with DVML management.

Engagement - internal

Engagement on the City Activation costs and process for approving expenditure on activations, has been undertaken with Enterprise Dunedin, Marketing and Communications, Transport, Waste Environmental Solutions, Property, City Development, and Parks and Recreation.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

As the number of events qualifying for City Activation programmes varies from year to year and cannot be accurately predicted to align with Council’s annual budget process there is a risk that the budget is inadequate or not spent. This risk will be managed through the approval process.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Update: Integrated Transport Strategy

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide options for the review of the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS).

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Commence the review of the ITS in 2020/21 to better align with other significant transport projects.

· Commence the review of the ITS in 2019/20.

3 The draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budgets do not include specific funding for the review of the ITS.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves commencing the review of the Integrated Transport Strategy in 2020/21.

BACKGROUND

4 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Initiate a review of the Integrated Transport Strategy in the 2019/20 year; and

b) Request that staff provide a report for consideration at the Annual Plan deliberations in May 2019 on how the review would be accommodated within existing budgets, and if not, what additional resource would be required.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/001)

5 There is no specific funding included in the 10 year plan 2018-28 for the review of the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS).

DISCUSSION

Community feedback

6 The Council did not specifically seek feedback on the review of the ITS through the Annual Plan engagement and there was no specific feedback received from the public.

Project delivery

7 The ITS was adopted in 2013 and states it will be reviewed every five years. As Dunedin’s challenges and priorities continue to evolve it will be appropriate to review the ITS.

8 Monitoring of the transport system is ongoing, including a recent monitoring plan which takes advantage of newer technology. This work will support the review of the Integrated Transport Strategy.

9 There are several other projects currently underway that will help inform the ITS review:

· Council intends to review its strategic framework early in the next triennium.

· The Dunedin Liveability Programme (a joint project of Connecting Dunedin). The Programme goal is that by mid-2020 the partners have confirmed and committed to the best long-term transport and urban mobility system for central Dunedin to enable integration of the new hospital with the city, promotion of economic growth and regeneration, improve city liveability and provide for safe and accessible people friendly streets.

· The Otago Regional Council have committed to commence a review of the Regional Public Transport Plan in 2019/20.

· Public transport work on the central city bus loop and offsetting bus fares, as discussed in annual plan deliberation reports.

10 It will therefore be appropriate to commence an ITS review in 2020/21 following the completion of, or substantial progress on the projects listed above.

Strategic fit

11 The review of the ITS will contribute to the whole strategic framework.

OPTIONS

Option One –Commence the review of the ITS in 2020/21 year

12 This option would commence an ITS review in 2020/21. Any associated costs could be considered in the next Annual Plan.

Advantages

· No expenditure in 2019/20.

· The review of the ITS will be better informed by other relevant work.

Disadvantages

· The ITS will not commence in 2019/20.

Option Two – Commence the review of the ITS in the 2019/20 year

13 This option would see the review of the ITS commencing in the 2019/20 year.

Advantages

· Approach is consistent with the resolution of Council.

Disadvantages

· The review of the ITS will not be able to fully consider the outcome of key projects already underway or commencing in the 2019/20 year.

· Expenditure will be required to commence this review as current staff are committed to existing transport projects.

NEXT STEPS

14 If the decision is to review the ITS in 2019/20, a draft project scope and timeframe would be developed.

15 If the decision is to review the ITS in 2020/21, funding of this work will be considered in the next Annual Plan 2020/21 and monitoring of the transport system to support the ITS review will continue.

Signatories

Author:	Richard Saunders - Group Manager Transport
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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	☒	☐	☐

A review of the Integrated Transport Strategy will contribute to the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts of this decision for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Sustainability will be considered in the review of the ITS.

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

There is no funding included in the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 budget.

Financial considerations

Costs will be considered in the next Annual Plan 2020/21.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement with Connecting Dunedin partners (Otago Regional Council and New Zealand Transport Agency) is ongoing to ensure a ‘whole of network’ approach.

Engagement - internal

The Transport Planning and Corporate Policy teams have inputted into this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflict of interests.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Update: Tracks in Dunedin

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises community feedback received through engagement on the Annual Plan 2019/20 regarding the provision of tracks in Dunedin.

2 Submissions to the Annual Plan 2019/20 indicate support for improving the level of investment in provision of tracks in Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on improving the track network in Dunedin.

BACKGROUND

3 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

Moved (Cr Rachel Elder/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Requests that Parks and Recreation staff prepare a report for the Council meeting being held in May 2019, which outlines the expenditure and resources needed to meet anticipated service levels as a result of the track audit, for Council’s consideration for inclusion in the 2019-20 Annual Plan.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/001)

Review of tracks in Dunedin

4 Council manages a vast network of tracks across Dunedin. There has been a lack of asset management and strategic planning in relation to tracks in recent years.

5 An implementation action in the Parks and Recreation Strategy 2017-2027, is to “Undertake and audit of existing parks, open spaces and tracks and map the results to establish an understanding of the level of provision and the quality of Dunedin’s parks, open spaces and tracks”

6 To inform funding for the provision of tracks in Dunedin, two projects are currently away:

a) Tracks audit – To understand the level of services Parks and Recreation embarked on a comprehensive audit of Dunedin’s track network in December 2017. It was expected that this audit would have been completed in time for the Annual Plan 2019/20 deliberation process. However, the audit is not complete but is expected to be completed in June 2019. The audit will inform the development of an asset management plan and support strategic planning to guide future investment decisions relating to the track network.

b) Tracks - Levels of Provision project – To provide a strategic plan for track development in the city. This project is expected to be completed during the 2019/20 financial year and involves DCC staff and community representatives and groups with an interest/expertise in tracks.

7 The scope of the Tracks – Levels of Provision project encompasses:

a) Collating information on tracks for people of all abilities, including the mobility aided, wheel chair users, and people with strollers/buggies

b) Development of a comprehensive database of tracks and track types incl. sealed and unsealed tracks

c) Classifying track types and methodology for assessment of tracks

d) Developing a process for prioritising development of planned and unplanned expansion

e) Creating a framework for development, management, promotion and monitoring of tracks

f) Identifying levels of service and assigning priorities to track works and related management

g) Identifying signage, both directional and informative, associated with tracks

h) Recommending a portfolio of future projects for sustainable management of the walking track network.

DISCUSSION

Funding for tracks in Dunedin

8 The tracks operational maintenance budget for the current 2018/19 financial year is $235k, and increases to $365k in the 2019/20 financial year. This is an increase of 55%. Operational funding is for proactive maintenance and reactive works when required.

9 There is also $50k of new capital budget for track development allocated in each year of the 10 year plan 2018-28. The new capital funding is for new track development or significant track upgrades.

10 In the 2018/19 financial year, $50k was provided to community groups involved in track maintenance and development, including $30k to Mountain Biking Otago for the development of mountain bike and multi-use tracks.

Community feedback

11 The Council did not specifically seek feedback on the levels of provision for tracks through the Annual Plan engagement. However, feedback received from the public was very supportive of improving the track network.

12 Multiple submissions were received from members and supporters of Mountain Biking Otago. These submissions all requested continued Council support and increased funding for the maintenance of existing and development of new mountain bike tracks, in particular at Signal Hill.

13 Specific feedback was received from several submitters regarding a need to re-open the Frasers Gully walking track, following closure because of several landslides during successive heavy rain events.

14 Planning and design work for the remediation of the Frasers Gully walking track is currently underway and will be carried out next financial year. This work is being funded from existing budgets.

OPTIONS

15 As this is an update report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

16 During the 2019/20 financial year, PARS will complete the Tracks – Levels of Provision strategic review, which includes the track audit.

17 Budgets will be prepared for Council’s consideration based on the outcome of the Tracks - Levels of Provision strategic review for the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Signatories

Author:	Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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	☐	☐	☒

Aligns primarily with Parks and Recreation Strategy objectives – People are Active, Open spaces and facilities support Dunedin’s communities to thrive, Our parks natural landscapes flora and fauna are treasured by the community, and We work with others.

Also contributes to the Social Well Being Strategy, Economic Development Strategy and the Environment Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Parks and Recreation will be seeking input from tangata whenua as part of the Tracks – levels of Provision review.

Sustainability

The provision of adequate recreational tracks has positive implications on the social, environmental, and economic well-being of the community.

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

Any decision by Council to increase funding (operational or new capital) as part of 19-20 annual plan deliberations will result in an increased level of track maintenance and/or development in 2019-2020.

Financial considerations

Financial implications will be determined by decision of Council.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Annual plan submissions received have been supportive of increased funding for investment in tracks.

Engagement - internal

No internal engagement has occurred.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No identified risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest

Community Boards

There are tracks in all community board areas and the Boards will have an interest in track development. An annual plan submission was received from the Otago Peninsula Community Board in support of more track investment.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Update: Living Wage

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the implementation of the Council’s commitment to pay a living wage for DCC staff and options for becoming an accredited living wage employer.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· That the Council becomes an accredited living wage employer.

· That the Council does not become an accredited living wage employer.

3 To become an accredited living wage employer, the Council needs to: be paying DCC staff a living wage; have developed a plan for requiring DCC contractors to pay staff undertaking services for the DCC a living wage; and developed a plan to work with Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) to commit to paying their staff a living wage.

4 The Council currently pays DCC staff the living wage, and this is provided for in the draft 2019/20 budget. There is no provision for any costs associated with requiring DCC contractors to pay their staff a living wage in the 10 year plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the feedback from the community on the living wage.

b) Commits to becoming an accredited living wage employer.

BACKGROUND

5 The Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand defines the ‘living wage’ as “the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.”

6 The living wage concept is an alternative to the market rate and the minimum wage rate set by Central Government each year. It reflects the basic expenses of workers and their families such as food, transportation, housing and childcare.

7 The 2019 living wage is $21.15 per hour and the 2019 minimum wage is $17.70.

8 The criteria for becoming an accredited living wage employer are provided at Attachment A. In general terms, the Living Wage Movement advise that to become an accredited living wage employer, there are three key requirements:

· Council needs to be paying DCC staff a living wage;

· Council needs to have developed a plan for requiring DCC contractors that provide services to the Council on a ‘regular and ongoing basis’ to pay their staff the living wage while working for the DCC; and

· Council needs to have developed a plan for Council Controlled Organisations to commit paying their staff a living wage.

9 Currently Wellington City Council is the only council recognised as an ‘accredited living wage employer’. They currently pay their staff a living wage and have developed a 10 year plan for requiring their contractors to pay their staff a living wage. Auckland Council and Wellington City Council have included CCOs in their living wage programmes, whereas Christchurch City Council has not included CCOs.

10 Around five years ago, senior management made an operational decision to ensure all employees are paid the living wage. At the 10 year plan Council meeting on 11 December 2017 there was discussion on the living wage and the Council resolved to:

· Commit to paying all staff, on permanent or fixed term contracts, at or above the living wage; and

· Request a report be provided to the draft Annual Plan 2019/20 on options to include contracted staff over time in the commitment to pay a living wage and to consider, as part of that report to bring some services back in house.

11 At the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29 January 2019, the Council approved a Living Wage Update report which stated that staff would continue to “investigate the implications of, and potential process for requiring contractors to commit to, paying a living wage”.

12 The draft 2019/20 budget provide for paying DCC staff a living wage, but there is no provision for any costs associated with requiring DCC contractors to pay their staff a living wage in 2019/20 or in any other year in the 10 year plan.

DISCUSSION

Living wage for DCC contractors

13 Staff investigated the implications of, and potential process and criteria for requiring contractors to pay a living wage to staff undertaking services for the DCC. Some of the factors included the status of the contracts; range and scope of DCC contractors providing ‘regular and on-going’ services for the DCC; increased costs for contractors and subsequently the DCC; compliance monitoring; and implementation.

14 It is proposed that staff develop a plan for requiring DCC contractors to pay their staff a living wage. The major steps involved in this process, are to:

· Identify the contractors/subsidiary companies captured by this;

· Ascertain when current arrangements expire;

· Include a requirement for DCC contractors providing ‘regular and on-going’ services for the DCC to pay their staff the living wage; and

· Work with contractors to resolve challenges of implementation.

15 It is likely that the living wage requirement would increase Council’s costs, but the quantum is difficult to estimate as it depends upon many unknown variables including: future levels of minimum wage and living wage; the range of contracts to which this would apply; and the level of costs that Contractors would pass on to Council.

16 If the Council seeks to become an accredited living wage employer, staff would have to develop a plan with the key steps, timelines and implementation milestones for requiring all of the relevant DCC contractors to pay their staff the living wage while working for DCC.

Council controlled organisations

17 Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) advise that two subsidiary companies would be affected by paying their staff a living wage.

18 It is proposed that staff will work with DCHL to develop a plan for requiring CCOs to pay their staff a living wage. The major steps involved in this process, are to:

· Confirm which CCOs would be impacted; and

· Understand the implications for commercial competitiveness and assess the impact, if any, on dividends on the Council.

Community feedback

19 The Council did not specifically seek feedback on the living wage through the Annual Plan engagement. However, the Annual Plan information document referenced that the Council was looking into what would be required for DCC contractors to pay their staff a living wage.

20 Most of the submissions supported the principle of the DCC requiring their contractors to pay their staff a living wage.

Strategic fit

21 The living wage supports some objectives within the city’s strategic framework. These include goals around social and economic wellbeing of residents and communities:

· Economic development strategy goal: an average $10,000 of extra income for each person.

· Social wellbeing strategy priority: Dunedin people can afford to exercise genuine choices.

OPTIONS

Option one - That the Council becomes an accredited living wage employer

22 This option would involve staff developing a plan with key steps, timelines and implementation milestones for requiring all the relevant DCC contractors to pay their staff the living wage while undertaking services for the DCC. As relevant contracts are reviewed, they would include a living wage requirement. The Council would also develop a plan to work with CCOs to pay their staff a living wage.

23 This would qualify the Council to be recognised as an accredited living wage employer and would have a ‘staged’ transition for full implementation.

24 If issues around requiring CCOs or DCC contractors to commit to paying their staff a living wage cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of Council, then the Council could withdraw from the living wage accreditation at any stage.

Advantages

· Paying the living wage to all relevant DCC contractors and CCOs would provide a greater number of workers and their families in Dunedin with access to the living wage.

· Becoming an accredited living wage employer supports the economic development strategy goal to increase incomes in the city and the social wellbeing priority that Dunedin people can afford to exercise genuine choices.

· It may be argued that CCOs and relevant DCC contractors would benefit from paying a living wage by decreased staff turnover and resultant training cost.

Disadvantages

· There will be additional costs, possibly significant, for CCOs and DCC contractors to pay their employees the living wage while working for the DCC, which may be reflected in procurement costs.

· There is significant work to develop a plan to require relevant DCC contractors and CCOs to pay their staff the living wage.

Option Two - That the Council does not become an accredited living wage employer

25 There would be no requirement for DCC contractors and CCOs to pay their staff a living wage.

Advantages

· There are no additional costs for the DCC in procurement.

Disadvantages

· Some employees working for the DCC’s contractors and CCOs would continue being paid below the living wage.

NEXT STEPS

26 If the Council seeks to become an accredited living wage employer, staff would develop a plan with the key steps, timelines and implementation milestones for requiring all of the relevant DCC contractors to pay their staff the living wage. Council would also develop a plan to work with CCOs to pay their staff a living wage.

27 Following these steps, staff would seek living wage employer accreditation from the Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand. If issues around requiring CCOs or DCC contractors to commit to paying their staff a living wage could not be resolved to the satisfaction of Council, then the Council could withdraw from the living wage accreditation at any stage.

Signatories

Author:	Tami Sargeant - Senior Policy Analyst
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Living Wage - employer accreditation policy	163

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, and in the future.

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	☒	☐	☐

Living wage commitments impact on the social and economic wellbeing of communities.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua, although Māori may benefit from the Council becoming an accredited living wage employer.

Sustainability

Living wage commitments have implications on economic and social sustainability.

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

Potentially this could increase Council’s cost base which could, in turn, increase Council debt.

Financial considerations

At this stage the financial impact for including contractors and CCO staff in the Living Wage commitment is unknown, but there is no expected impact on the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Significance

This report is considered to be low to medium significance in terms of Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Some feedback was received during the Annual Plan engagement. External engagement would be undertaken with contractors and CCOs if the DCC becomes an accredited living wage employer.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Procurement, Corporate Policy, Legal and Finance teams have been involved in drafting this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No risks have been identified.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Waiving Resource Consent Fees for Selected Activities

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report responds to the request of the 29-30 January 2019 Annual Plan Council meeting to review the types of resource consent applications where the application fee is waived (identified as Category A in the fees schedule). The processing fees are waived for these applications because there is an element of public good, with the processing cost being rates funded.

2 The options presented in this report are:

· Amend the current list of resource consent activities for which fees are waived,

· Continue to use the current list and consider changing it when there is useful data available regarding applications under the 2GP.

3 The draft Annual Plan 2019/20 assumes around $50k of fees will be waived for certain application types. The amount will vary from year to year as the application mix varies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers changes to the activity types eligible for the waiver of Resource Consents fees (Category A in the Resource Consents Fees schedule).

BACKGROUND

4 As part of the Annual Plan Council meeting on 29-30 January 2019, the Council resolved the following.

“Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Adopts for the purposes of developing the Annual Plan 2019/20 and engaging with the community:

i) The draft 2019/20 operating budget for the Community and Planning Group as shown/amended at Attachment A.

ii) The draft 2019/20 fees and charges schedules for Resource Consents as shown/amended at Attachment B, with the addition that matters that cannot be charged under Section 36AAA(3) of the Resource Management Act be included in category A.

Motion carried (CAPCC/2019/024)”

5 While the resolution refers to section 36AAA(3) legal advice is the key section is subsection 36(1)(b). It refers specifically to councils being able to set charges for all resource consent applications.

6 There are three other sections that are used to provide guidance on determining charges; 36AAA, 36AAB and 36AA. These are included as Attachment C for reference.

7 Application fees can be waived. Council exercised this discretion when setting the current resource consent fee schedule; identified as Category A of the fee schedule.

DISCUSSION

8 The Council has discretion to determine as matter of policy to process certain applications with a full or partial fee waiver.

9 There are presently seven different activities entitled to a waiver of the resource consent fee (Table 2 in Attachment A). Four of the activities could be permitted activities if they were not included in a precinct or as a scheduled item. Murals, temporary signs and the interim rule for areas of significant conservation value (a range of activities such as native vegetation clearance) all require resource consent, no matter where they are in the city.

10 The 2GP made some change to activities that previously triggered the need for resource consent. There are some activities that are now permitted. There were some changes where additional planning layers increased the potential of requiring a resource consent.

11 The current list or resource consents eligible for waiver of fees was reviewed using the following criteria:

· Is there an element of public good?

· Is the applicant a not-for-profit organisation?

· Is there are an option to use a permitted activity rule? and

· Is it for commercial purposes?

12 The assessment matrix used to assess various activities against the criteria is included in Attachment B. This assessment is the basis for the recommended revised list of waived fee types (Table 1 in Attachment A).

13 Change to the list of activities subject to a waiver of resource consent fee is intended to ensure it more closely reflects an element of public benefit and changes in the 2GP. It is recognising property owners who are undertaking development which provides an element of public good, for example building work within a precinct designed to meet identified heritage values.

Funding rationale and community feedback

14 A total of up to $50k of fees is projected to be waived as part of the 2019/20 budget. This amount was estimated using information from completed applications.

15 Of this total, $17k is for non-notified applications, $21k for the notified tree applications, and $12k is allocated for resource consents for very minor work on significant trees. On average, the number of Category A applications processed each year is 26 non-notified applications, six notified applications for scheduled trees, and 27 for very minor work on significant trees (a consultant arborist does most of this work).

16 If the type of applications subject to fee waiver is changed the amount of waived revenue will change. Reducing the number of notified scheduled tree applications would have a notable impact. It could reduce the fees waived by around $10k - halving the applications.

17 Changes to the application types subject to a fee waiver list might take the waived fees down from $50k to around $40k, but this is dependent on what is actually applied for during the 2019/20 financial period.

18 Specific feedback on waiving of Category A resource consent fees was not sought through the Annual Plan engagement. No submissions about resource consent fees were received.

OPTIONS

Option One – Amend the current list for waiving of resource consent fees

19 This option would continue to provide fee waivers for some activities already receiving them while also recognising changes made by the 2GP framework. The total amount of waived fees is approximately $40k.

Advantages

· Recognises a degree of public benefit associated with the relevant rules of the District Plan.

· Aligns with changes to the planning framework of the 2GP.

· Likely to be an increase in revenue in the draft budget by around $10k.

Disadvantages

· Due to the annual variability in the number and type, the cost of applications for fee waivers can only be estimated.

Option Two – Retain the status quo and then review the list for waiving of resource consent fees when there is data available from using the 2GP

20 This option would provide for the continued use of the existing list pf resource consent activities subject to a fee waiver, until a review can be undertaken when there is useful data available from using the 2GP. The total amount of waived fees is estimated to be $50k.

Advantages

· Recognises a degree of public benefit associated with the relevant rules of the District Plan.

· Provides the opportunity to better understand the potential impact of the new planning framework of the 2GP and achieve better alignment.

Disadvantages

· Risk of fee waivers that are no longer appropriate due to changes in the 2GP are provided in the interim.

· Does not reflect changes in the planning framework under the 2GP, in the short term.

NEXT STEPS

21 If changes to the list of application types subject to a fee waiver are agreed, the fee schedule can be amended accordingly.

Signatories

Author:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Recommended and Existing Category A Fee Table	169
⇩b	Assessment of Current Category A List and Recommended Changes	170
⇩c	RMA Provisions Concerning Fees	171

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	☒	☐	☐

The resource consent process is a key tool to give effect to the policy framework of the Spatial Plan and the District Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts on the tangata whenua from the proposed fee changes.

Sustainability

The activities in Category A are very limited in scope and would have a negligible impact on sustainability.

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

Category A resource consents are not expected to impact on service or performance measures.

Financial considerations

This report deals with financial considerations.

Significance

The decision to change Category A fee waivers is assessed as having a low significance when assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement has been through the Annual Plan process.

Engagement - internal

Discussion was undertaken with City Development staff.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks associated with the resource consent option.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for community boards, although community boards may be interested in the fee waiver categories.

Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations

29 and 30 May 2019

Adoption of 2019/20 Fees and Charges

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The schedule of fees and charges for the 2019/20 financial year is presented to the Council for adoption.

2 Fees and charges are presented for adoption in advance of the Annual Plan 2019/20 adoption to allow Council activities sufficient time to complete necessary work prior to the schedules becoming effective on 1 July 2019.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Adopts the attached schedule of fees and charges for 2019/20.

BACKGROUND

3 Draft schedules of fees and charges for Council activities were approved for community engagement at the Council Annual Plan meeting held on 29-30 January 2019. These fees and charges were included in the Annual Plan supporting information made available to the public on the Council website and in hard copy at Council service centres. Changes to fees and charges for 2019/20 were highlighted in the Annual Plan information document (page 7).

4 Fees and charges have been increased by 3% in most cases. There are exceptions to this, for example where the fee is set by legislation. There has been no increase in fees for Aquatic Services.

5 The draft budget included a proposed increase for on-street parking meters between 50 cents and $1. Over the last ten years there has been no increase in on street parking fees. This fee proposal addresses the significant period of time since a fee increase and begins the process of reviewing on and off street parking costs in the CBD.

DISCUSSION

6 The schedule of fees and charges for adoption and subsequent inclusion in the Annual Plan 2019/20 is attached.

7 The final deliberations and decision-making processes undertaken at this meeting confirm the revenue budgets these fees and charges pertain to. If a change to a fee and associated revenue budget is approved at this meeting the fee concerned would not be adopted with the rest of the schedule. The revised fee would instead be adopted at the Council meeting to adopt the Annual Plan 2019/20 on 25 June 2019.

Changes made since approval of fees and charges for consultation

8 In the Regulatory Services schedule (Attachment F), there is a new parking infringement fee included for the offence of “stopped, stood or parked a vehicle in a parking area reserved for the charging of electric vehicles when the vehicle was not an electric vehicle” for $60.

9 In the Governance and Support Services schedule (Attachment J):

a) The fees for land information memorandums and hazard information reports have been increased by $10 and $5 respectively.

b) There is a new fee for “credit card surcharge” of up to 2% of the transaction value. This will be purely cost recovery and excludes current credit card surcharge arrangements (eg. parking meters).

10 If changes to the activity types eligible for the waiver of Resource Consents fees (Category A) are approved, this will be updated in the Community and Planning schedule (Attachment H).

OPTIONS

11 No options are presented as the fees and charges presented were previously considered by Council in January 2019.

NEXT STEPS

12 Staff will be advised that fees and charges have been adopted by Council and the complete schedule of fees and charges will be made available on the Council website.

Signatories

Author:	Tami Sargeant - Senior Policy Analyst
Authoriser:	Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Three Waters Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	176
⇩b	Roading and Footpaths Group Fees and Charges 2019/20	178
⇩c	Reserves and Recreational Facilities Group Fees and Charges 2019/20	180
⇩d	Property Group Fees and Charges 2019/20	187
⇩e	Libraries and Museums Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	188
⇩f	Regulatory Services Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	191
⇩g	Waste Management Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	203
⇩h	Community and Planning Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	206
⇩i	Economic Development Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	211
⇩j	Governance and Support Services Group Fees and Charges - 2019/20	212

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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 adoption of fees and charges contributes to the strategic priorities.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts that are specific to tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

The fees and charges schedules inform the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Financial considerations

Fees and charges contribute to the revenue budgets for the Council’s activities.

Significance

The fees and charges schedule is considered low in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Consultation on fees and charges was undertaken with the residents of the city via the Annual Plan community engagement process.

Engagement - internal

Activity Managers, Financial Analysts, the Senior Leadership Team and the Executive Leadership Team were involved in the development of fees and charges.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Fees and charges may be of interest to Community Boards.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Council Annual Plan meeting held on 6 May 2019	20

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Item	2019/20 $’000	2020/21 $’000
Climate resilient decision-making	30	180
Improve climate change disclosure and reporting	30	30
Establish programme of climate resilience projects - South Dunedin Future - Other projects	378 60	300 35
Build climate leadership through capacity building and funding	27	27
TOTAL	525	572