Agenda of Council - 10 00 2019

Council

10 December 2019

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Opening 5

2 Public Forum 5

2.1 Public Forum - Immigration Office/Services 5

2.2 Public Forum - Commercial Rates 5

2.3 Public Forum - Sims Building 5

2.4 Public Forum - Reverse the Closure of the Carriageway 5

2.5 Public Forum - Octagon Closure 5

2.6 Public Forum - Octagon Closure 5

3 Apologies 5

4 Confirmation of Agenda 6

5 Declaration of Interest 7

6 Confirmation of Minutes 20

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 25 October 2019 20

6.2 Ordinary Council meeting - 30 October 2019 21

6.3 Ordinary Council meeting - 12 November 2019 22

Minutes of Community Boards

7 Otago Peninsula Community Board - 31 October 2019 23

8 Strath Taieri Community Board - 31 October 2019 24

9 Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 7 November 2019 25

10 Saddle Hill Community Board - 7 November 2019 26

11 Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 7 November 2019 27

12 West Harbour Community Board - 7 November 2019 28

Reports

13 Approval to Grant Electricity Easement to Aurora Energy - part Mosgiel Memorial Park 29

14 Approval to Grant two Drainage Easements over Part Fraser's Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve 39

15 Proposal to Rename Desert Road to Moepuku Road 56

16 Naming of a new road off Holyhead Street, Outram 71

17 Naming of a new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel 79

18 Naming of a private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel 85

19 Naming of a private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel 92

20 Review of Roading Bylaw 105

21 Meeting Schedule for 2020 116

22 Delegation for Dunedin Heritage Fund 121

23 Financial Result - Period Ended 31 October 2019 124

24 Dunedin City Holdings Limited Share Capital 144

25 Code of Conduct 152

Notice of Motion

26 Notice of Motion - Energy Efficiency Initiatives 165

27 Notice of Motion - St Clair Beach 167

28 Notice of Motion - Octagon Closure 169

Resolution to Exclude the Public 171

Council

10 December 2019

Reports

Approval to Grant Electricity Easement to Aurora Energy - part Mosgiel Memorial Park

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report discusses an application by Aurora Energy Limited for the grant of an electricity easement over part of Mosgiel Memorial Park.

2 The easement is to allow the connection of existing underground cabling across land boundaries to the site of a new transformer on adjacent Council owned land, which is part of the Reid Avenue transformer upgrade.

3 This report asks Council to make two decisions:

a) Firstly, a decision as the administering body of the Mosgiel Memorial Park to grant an easement; and

b) Secondly, a decision to exercise the Minister of Conservation's delegation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Grants, as administering body of the Mosgiel Memorial Park, pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for the installation of underground cables and ancillary equipment over part of the Mosgiel Memorial Park (Record of Title 296322).

b) Decides the criteria for exemption from public notification has been met.

c) Acting under its delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013 and pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, approves an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for the installation of underground cables and ancillary equipment over part of Mosgiel Memorial Park (Record of Title 296322).

BACKGROUND

4 Aurora has previously obtained approval from Council, under delegated authority, in March 2019 to granting an electricity easement for the installation of a transformer and ancillary cabling and equipment on adjacent land owned by Council. Aurora has since identified that a short section of underground cable, as a lateral to existing underground cabling, would pass through a part of Mosgiel Memorial Park, before entering the adjacent Council owned land, over which approval is already held.

5 An aerial photo showing the location of the proposed work is attached as Attachment A.

6 The Aurora plan of work is attached at Attachment B.

DISCUSSION

Land Status

7 Mosgiel Memorial Park is owned by Dunedin City Council and is contained in Record of Title 296322. It is a Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, as specified in the definition in that Act.

8 The land is described as being for the purposes of pleasure grounds and sports grounds and appropriately is held and managed as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Council as the owner and as the administering body

9 The Council, in its capacity as administering body of Mosgiel Memorial Park, has the responsibility for ensuring compliance in terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and for considering the merits of the proposal to grant easements.

10 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 ("Section 48") is the statutory authority for the grant of easements over reserves. Section 48(1) specifically allows for electricity easements on reserves.

The Reserves Act 1977

11 Section 48(2) requires public notification of the intention to grant an easement unless it can be demonstrated that:

(a) The Mosgiel Memorial Park is owned by the Council and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

(b) The rights of the public in respect of Mosgiel Memorial Park are not likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and lawful exercise of the easement.

12 Given that the easement is for underground cabling which will connect to existing cabling, Mosgiel Memorial Park is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged and the rights of the public in respect of Mosgiel Memorial Park are not likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and lawful exercise of the easement.

Reserves Management Plan

13 The Reserves Management Plan – General Policies document ("General Policies") covers all basic issues of the day-to-day administration of reserves in Dunedin.

14 Although the General Policies specify that easements should be for a limited term, in this instance Council Officers recommend that the easement be granted in perpetuity as its primary purpose is public benefit.

Merits of the proposed easement

15 As discussed above, the short section of underground cable is an extension from existing underground cabling and is required to complete the commissioning of the new electricity transformer, located on adjacent Council land, which will provide community benefits.

Standard Easement terms and conditions

16 The proposed key elements of this easement include:

Statute Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977

Grantee Aurora Energy Limited

Reserve Mosgiel Memorial Park (recreation reserve)

Purpose The right to install underground cables and ancillary equipment

Term In perpetuity

Rental Nil

17 The terms and conditions of the easement are to be finalised by the Council's solicitors.

Council as the Minister of Conservation's delegate

18 The Minister of Conservation, under a delegation dated 12 June 2013, has delegated to the Council the authority to approve easements over reserves where the activity is either contemplated in an approved management plan or the activity is an existing use and the effects of the use will be the same or similar in character, intensity and scale. Here, the activity is an existing use and the effects will be the same of similar in character, intensity and scale.

19 The Council, in its capacity as the Minister of Conservation's delegate, has the supervisory role in ensuring that the decision on whether or not to grant the easement over part of the Mosgiel Memorial Park has been arrived at in compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

20 In particular, the Council as the Minister's delegate, needs to be satisfied that:

· the status of the land has been correctly identified;

· there is statutory power to grant the easement;

· the necessary statutory processes have been followed;

· the easement has been appropriately considered; and

· the decision is a reasonable one.

21 The Mosgiel Memorial Park is owned by Council in fee simple and is held and managed as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. This is recorded on the Record of Title 296322. Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the statutory authority to grant an easement over this Reserve. The statutory processes have been followed with full consideration given to whether public notification is required.

22 The functions and purposes of Mosgiel Memorial Park as recreation reserve and adjacent public land will be enhanced by legalising the proposed electricity easement. The installation of a new transformer on adjacent land to which this cable connection is vital will improve the community values. The decision is a reasonable one considering the facts outlined in this report.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

23 That the Council:

a) Grants, as administering body of Mosgiel Memorial Park, pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for the installation of underground cables and ancillary equipment over part of Mosgiel Memorial Park (Record of Title 296322).

b) Decides the criteria for exemption from public notification has been met.

c) Acting under its delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013 and pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, approves an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for the installation of underground cables and ancillary equipment over part of Mosgiel Memorial Park (Record of Title 296322).

Advantages

· The new cabling is essential to ensure the completion of the transformer upgrade happening on adjacent Council owned land. This upgrade will benefit the wider Mosgiel community.

· The extent of work within the reserve is minimal and unlikely to affect existing sporting club users.

· Updates infrastructure that will need replacing in the foreseeable future.

· Confirms that the Council has fully considered the merits of the proposed easements and has complied with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Disadvantages

· The installation of underground cabling for a short section of Memorial Park will cause some short duration disruption to users. However, Aurora will be required to keep the disruption to a minimum.

Option Two – Status Quo

24 Do not consent to the grant of an electricity easement over part of the Mosgiel Memorial Park in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

Advantages

· No advantages have been identified.

Disadvantages

· Prevents the cable connection to supply the upgraded transformer located on adjacent Council owned land.

· There is increased risk the old transformer may fail in time, impacting the Mosgiel community.

NEXT STEPS

25 If the Council consents to the grant of an electricity easement and is satisfied the legislative requirements are met, an Agreement to Grant Electricity Easement can be executed and work can proceed.

Signatories

Author:	Owen Graham - Leasing and Land Advisor
Authoriser:	Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Aerial photo showing approx. location of UG cable connection	36
⇩b	Aurora plan of works for UG cable extn MMPrk	37

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure to ensure continuity of power supply and is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

This decision promotes the economic 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	☒	☐	☐

This connection will ensure completion of the transformer upgrade project.

Māori Impact Statement

No known impacts for Tangata Whenua

Sustainability

There is an existing underground electricity cable in Mosgiel Memorial Park which this easement will connect to. This contributes to Social Wellbeing and Economic sustainability

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The wider transformer upgrade project has been contemplated by the LTP and Annual Plan and the granting of this easement supports that. The proposal is consistent with 3 Waters infrastructure strategy in this location.

Financial considerations

Aurora Energy is meeting all the costs of installation, survey and preparing and execution of the easement documentation. On-going maintenance/repair responsibility rests with Aurora.

Significance

The decision has been assessed as being of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Discussions have been held with Aurora Energy.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation Sportsfield Officer advised of proposal and confirms location of works is away from Sportsfield areas. The Council’s Senior In-House Legal Counsel has provided advice in relation to the Reserves Act requirements.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no material risks associated with the decisions.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel Community Board Chair has previously been informed of the proposal during the consideration of the earlier delegated approval for the transformer site on adjacent Council owned land.

Council

10 December 2019

Approval to Grant two Drainage Easements over Part Fraser's Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report discusses an application by TPD and JPD Trustees Limited (the Applicant), owners of 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin, for the grant of two drainage easements over part of the Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve adjoining Fraser’s Creek adjacent to 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, and recommends the easements be granted. The easements are to enable the owners to connect into the existing Council foul sewer that is located within the Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve and to discharge collected rainwater directly into Fraser’s Creek. The easement requirements are a condition of the resource consent issued for the four-lot subdivision of 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin (SUB-2019-89).

2 The Council is making two decisions as follows:

a) First a decision in its capacity as the administering body of part of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve which is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977; and

b) Second, a decision to exercise the Minister of Conservation’s delegation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Acting in its capacity as the administering body of part of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977:

i) Grants easements to drain water and sewage over part of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve adjacent to 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin, being Lot 5 DP 521710, Record of Title 830080, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

ii) Approves waiving the annual rental for use of the reserve.

iii) Decides the criteria for exemption from public notification have been met.

b) Acting under delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013, and pursuant to section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, consents to the grant of easements to drain water and sewage over part of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve adjacent to 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin, being Lot 5 DP 521710, Record of Title 830080, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

BACKGROUND

3 Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve (the Reserve) was created during an earlier subdivision of adjoining land and vested in the Dunedin City Council on deposit of Deposited Plan 521710. A 300 mm underground Council foul sewer runs through the Reserve.

4 The Council foul sewer line lies approx. 3 - 5 metres from the western boundary of 152A Kaikorai Valley Road.

5 The Applicant, TPD and JPD Trustees Limited, received consent on 27 September 2019 to subdivide 152A Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin into four lots (SUB 2019-89). The consent contemplated that water and sewage drains would be laid across the Reserve with the sewage to connect into the Council’s existing 300mm foul sewer, located in the Reserve, and stormwater to be piped across the Reserve to drain into Fraser’s Creek. This was considered by the Council’s planning officers to be the most appropriate way of providing for the drainage of sewage and water. (see Attachment B).

6 The four-lot subdivision will require two easements with new Lots 1 and 2 pipelines draining sewage and water via one and new Lots 3 and 4 pipelines also draining sewage and water via the second. The proposed easements will run at right angles to the property boundary and will be a maximum of 4 metres wide to accommodate the pipes from each pair of Lots. These pipes will be privately owned (i.e. not Dunedin City Council pipes) but the Right to Drain Sewage will connect into an existing Council sewer line.

7 The development has not yet been undertaken so the new pipelines are not constructed. In recognising this, the decision in SUB 2019-89 at Condition 2 requires that prior to certification of the survey plan, pursuant to Section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the consent holder must ensure easements for services, including private drainage must be granted or reserved and included in a Memorandum of Easements on the cadastral dataset.

8 It is unclear whether the Applicant has sought and obtained all consents to discharge water into Fraser’s Creek. The Council will require the Applicant to produce evidence that it has met all statutory and regulatory requirements in relation to the discharge of water across the reserve to Fraser’s Creek, prior to installation of pipes.

9 The easement for the Right to Drain Water will only be granted subject to the Applicant providing the evidence referred to in paragraph 8 above and on confirmation the Applicant will indemnify Dunedin City Council should there be any unlawful discharge of water across the reserve to Fraser’s Creek. The easement document will record such undertaking.

10 Prior to Section 224(c) RMA certification being granted, TPD and JPD Trustees Limited will be required to register the easements in line with Council’s approval.

11 To provide certainty to TPD and JPD Trustees Limited, the Applicant is seeking approval of the Council, as the administering body of the reserve and as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, to the grant of easements to convey water and sewage pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977.

DISCUSSION

Council as the administering body

12 The Council, in its capacity as administering body of the reserve, has the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and to consider the merits of the request for a grant of easements.

Reserves Act 1977

13 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the statutory authority for the grant of easements to convey water and sewage over reserves.

14 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 requires public notification of the intention to grant an easement unless it can be demonstrated that:

a) the reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

b) the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and lawful exercise of the easement.

15 The two new drainage pipelines will be installed during development of the four Lots. The installation of the pipelines underground will not permanently damage the Reserve and the surface will be remediated. Public use of the Reserve is minimal and will be unaffected. The effects on the Reserve of any future maintenance or repairs to the pipelines will be temporary and the costs will not be borne by Council.

16 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 empowers the reserve's administering body (the Council), to grant easements over reserve lands subject to the Resource Management Act and the consent of the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has delegated powers of consent to the Council, without limitation under instrument of delegation dated 12 June 2013.

Reserve Management Plan General Policies

17 The Reserve Management Plan General Policies (General Policies) provides for easements to be granted over reserves as long as they do not prevent the use of the reserve for its primary purpose which in this instance is Local Purpose (Esplanade). They also require an assessment of alternative pipe locations and why these cannot be used.

a) The Council’s 300mm foul sewer line is located within the Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve and lies approx. 5m from the property boundary with 152A Kaikorai Valley Road. The most practical option available to the owners of 152A Kaikorai Valley Road is to discharge sewage to the Council foul sewer via a pipeline from the subdivision and to discharge water via a pipeline directly to Fraser’s Creek.

b) The addition of two new underground sewage pipes from 152A Kaikorai Valley Road will not create any additional impacts on the Reserve or affect the foul sewer’s ability to function. As the water and sewage pipelines are below ground, public use of the Reserve is unaffected.

18 The General Policies recommend a maximum term equivalent to the useful life of the asset and state that easements in perpetuity “will not be granted”. The Council could grant the easement for the life expectancy of the pipes (c.100 years); however, until the Council foul sewer is relocated the need for these private connections will remain.

19 The General Policies provide for the owners of privately-owned underground facilities to pay a fee as a yearly rental to recognise the private benefit gained from use of a public reserve. If the facilities are owned by Council, the General Policies provide for the yearly rental to be waived on the recommendation of Council. To date Council has not charged annual fees for other private connections to Council infrastructure.

Easement terms and conditions

20 The proposed key elements of the easement would include:

Statute Granted pursuant to section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 and Schedule Four of the Land Transfer Regulations 2002.

Subject Land Lot 5 DP 521170

Dominant Land Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 LT 542730

MEMORANDUM OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS

PURPOSE	SHOWN	SERVIENT TENEMENT (BURDENED LAND)	DOMINANT TENEMENT (BENEFITTED LAND)
Right to Drain Water	QB, XB, BK	Lot 5 DP 521710	Lots 1 & 2 LT 542730
Right to Drain Sewage	QB, XB	Lot 5 DP 521710	Lots 1 & 2 LT 542730
Right to Drain Water	QA, XA, BJ	Lot 5 DP 521710	Lots 3 & 4 LT 542730
Right to Drain Sewage	QA, XA	Lot 5 DP 521710	Lots 3 & 4 LT 542730

Shown on LT Plan 542730 (Attachment B)

Term In perpetuity

Rental Nil

21 The terms and conditions of the easement are to be finalised by the Council’s solicitors.

Merits of proposed easements

22 It is considered that the proposed drainage pipelines are unlikely to cause significant impact to the use of the Local Purpose (Esplanade) reserve but would legalise the services for the Lots being developed at 152A Kaikorai Valley Road as required by the resource consent for that subdivision.

Council as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate

23 The Council, as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, has a supervisory role in ensuring that the decision on whether or not to grant the easements has been arrived at in compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977. In particular, the Council as the Minister’s delegate, needs to be satisfied that the status of the land has been correctly identified, that there is statutory power to grant the easements, that the necessary statutory processes have been followed, that the classification has been appropriately considered, and the decision is a reasonable one.

OPTIONS (Acting as administering body of FRASER’S CREEK LOCAL PURPOSE (ESPLANADE) RESERVE)

Option One – Recommended option

24 Council, acting as the administering body for the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve, grants easements for the drainage of water and sewage across parts of the reserve on the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

Advantages

· The proposed easements are unlikely to significantly impact the use of the reserve.

· Satisfies the resource consent condition.

· Facilitates asset management processes.

Disadvantages

· There are no material disadvantages. Although the reserve will have additional in-ground infrastructure, potentially restricting future development of this area of the reserve, this is not seen as being material given the location of other existing Council infrastructure within the reserve, and the fact that the services will be underground.

Option Two – Status Quo

25 Do not grant easements to drain water and sewage across parts of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve.

Advantages

· No material advantages.

Disadvantages

· Does not satisfy the conditions contemplated in the approved resource consent.

· Does not facilitate asset management.

OPTIONS (ACTING UNDER DELEGATION FROM THE MINISTER OF CONSERVATION)

Option One – Recommended option

26 Council exercising its delegated legislative power, consents to the grant of easements to drain water and sewage across parts of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve upon the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

Advantages

· Confirms that the Council, as administering body of the reserve, has fully considered the merits of the proposed easements and has fully complied with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Disadvantages

· There are no material disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

27 Do not consent to the grant of easements to drain water and sewage across parts of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve.

Advantages

· No material advantages.

Disadvantages

· To pursue this option, the Council (as the Minister’s delegate) would need to determine the reasons that the Reserves Act 1977 has not been fully complied with and/or the decision to grant the easements is not a reasonable one.

NEXT STEPS

28 If Council consents to granting the easements to drain water and sewage across parts of the Fraser’s Creek Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve and is satisfied the legislative requirements are met, the installation of the private pipelines will be arranged, and the survey of these pipelines undertaken to enable the easement documents to be prepared for execution.

29 The Applicant, TPD and JPD Trustees Limited, will be requested to provide written confirmation that, prior to Section 224(c) RMA certification being granted, these easements will be registered in line with Council’s approval.

30 All costs associated with the installation, survey and legal costs associated with the formalisation of these easements will be met by the Applicants.

Signatories

Author:	Owen Graham - Leasing and Land Advisor
Authoriser:	Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Location aerial photo 152A Kaikorai Valley Road	47
⇩b	Aerial view showing Lots 1 - 4 and proposed drainage easements	48
⇩c	Draft LT Plan 542730 showing easements	49

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure that enables the subdivision of commercial land and is considered good quality and cost-effective economic promotion.

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	☐	☐	☒
Reserves and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The underground installation will ensure the ability for on-going access to the reserve and is good asset management practice

Māori Impact Statement

No known impacts for Tangata Whenua

Sustainability

An appropriately developed and maintained sewage system contributes to social, economic and environmental sustainability

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP or the Annual Plan. There are no implications for current levels of service or performance measures.

The proposal is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

The Applicant is meeting the costs of installation, survey and preparing and executing the easement documentation. On-going maintenance of the private water and sewage pipe will be the responsibility of the easement owners.

Significance

The decision has been assessed as being of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

The original resource consent was not publicly notified. No other external consultation has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

Water and Waste Services was consulted as part of the resource consent process. Parks and Recreation has provided input to guide the agreement to grant easements proposal. The Council’s Senior In-House Legal Counsel has provided advice in relation to the Reserves Act requirements.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no material risks associated with the decisions.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The site is within Dunedin City which is not covered by a Community Board.

Council

10 December 2019

Proposal to Rename Desert Road to Moepuku Road

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents a proposal for the renaming of ‘Desert Road’, which joins Harington Point Road on the Otago Peninsula to ‘Moepuku Road’.

2 The proposed road name of ‘Moepuku Road’ complies with the DCC Road Naming Policy and is supported by the Otago Peninsula Community Board.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves renaming ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’.

BACKGROUND

3 The DCC Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. For reference, the DCC Road Naming Policy and DCC Road Naming Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming.

4 Mr Edward Ellison, a landowner whose property is accessed directly from ‘Desert Road’ submitted a letter to Council (Attachment A) establishing that the road was mistakenly named.

5 Mr Ellison proposes that the road name be changed to ‘Moepuku Road’ in reference to a local geographical feature, and to better reflect the history of the area.

6 The Otago Peninsula Community Board considered the proposed name on 31 January 2019 and supports the renaming of ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’.

DISCUSSION

7 A land slip in 1968, and subsequent land movement, made the original Harington Point Road alignment unpassable. As a result, Harington Point Road was relocated to its current position north-west of the original road alignment.

8 When the new Harington Point Road formation was constructed after the landslip, it was left unsealed to enable it to be compacted by the passing of traffic over the carriageway. Because of its barren and sandy appearance at the time, it was given the local nickname ‘Desert Road’.

9 The section of the old Harington Point Road alignment to the south of the land slip site appears on DCC and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) maps with the name of ‘Desert Road’ (Attachments B and C). However, application of the name ‘Desert Road’ to this section of the old Harington Point Road alignment was a mistake, as this name was first used in reference to the construction of the new Harington Point Road alignment.

10 Mr Ellison proposes renaming ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’. ‘Moepuku’ is the name of an old wetland, the remains of which can still be seen to the west of the Harington Point Road/’Desert Road’ intersection. This wetland appears in name on early maps and documents relating to the area and is included in the text of the 1844 Deed of Sale for Ōtākou to the NZ Land Company (Attachments D and E).

11 The Road Naming Policy provides for altering the name of an existing road. The proposed renaming of ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’ would provide a benefit to the community by replacing a mistakenly named road with a name of a local geographical feature, and which better reflects the history of the area.

12 The name ‘Moepuku’ complies with the selection criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

OPTIONS

Option One – Council approves renaming ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’ (recommended option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Moepuku Road’ would replace a mistakenly named road name with a name of a local geographical feature that reflects the history of the area.

· The proposed name ‘Moepuku Road’ complies with the Road Naming Policy.

Disadvantages

· There will be costs associated with replacing the sign.

Option Two – Council does not approve renaming ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’ (status quo)

Advantages

· No changes to existing signage and associated costs required.

Disadvantages

· The mistakenly named ‘Desert Road’ would not be corrected.

NEXT STEPS

13 If Council approves the renaming of ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’, staff will process the required documentation and advise Mr Ellison and LINZ of the new road name.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Letter from Mr Ellison - Proposal to rename Desert Road	60
⇩b	DCC map - Desert Road alignment	67
⇩c	LINZ topographical/locality map	68
⇩d	Ngai Tahu Atlas name reference for 'Moepuku'	69
⇩e	Sale Deed - 1844	70

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou supports the proposed renaming of ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’ and are interested in the authenticity of cultural heritage matters including traditional place name and road signage.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

If approved, the costs for new signage can be met within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Mr Ellison has consulted with Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and other landowners adjoining ‘Desert Road’. The Otago Peninsula Community Board supports the proposed change of road name.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Otago Peninsula Community Board supports the proposed renaming of ‘Desert Road’ to ‘Moepuku Road’.

Council

10 December 2019

Naming of a new road off Holyhead Street, Outram

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a name for a new road off Holyhead Street, Outram, as part of the Balmoral development by Balmoral Developments (Outram) Ltd.

2 The new road name proposed by the developer is ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ as their preferred name, and ‘Franks Place’ as an alternative name. ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ does not comply with the length criteria of the Road Naming Policy. ‘Franks Place’ complies with the Road Naming Policy and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves naming of a new road off Holyhead Street, Outram, within the Balmoral development as ‘Franks Place’.

BACKGROUND

3 The DCC Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. The DCC Road Naming Procedure requires that that Community Boards consider proposed names for roads in their area. For reference, the Road Naming Policy and Road Naming Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming.

4 SUB-2017-32 and subsequent variations to that consent authorised a two-stage residential subdivision of 94 Holyhead Street, including a new cul-de-sac to vest in Council.

5 Naming of the road is considered to be urgent. Titles for Stage 1 of the development have been issued pursuant to section 224c of the Resource Management Act 1991, and a number have been pre-sold to new owners. Landowners are now faced with the uncertainty and inconvenience of having no street address.

6 The developer proposed ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ as their preferred name, and ‘Franks Place’ as an alternative name for the new cul-de-sac road within the Balmoral development.

DISCUSSION

7 The developer proposed ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ and ‘Franks Place’ after Frank Ferguson. Frank Ferguson grew up in Outram and attended the local primary school. After returning from duty in World War 2, he purchased a property on the boundary of Outram township named Balmoral and started a market garden, naming it ‘Balmoral Gardens’.

8 The market garden provided full-time work, as well as after school and holiday work for schoolchildren from the Outram area picking potatoes, vegetables and berries. Frank Ferguson acquired three other properties and worked in the market garden for 27 years, before handing over the management to his eldest son.

9 Frank Ferguson passed away in 1977 aged 59. His eldest son bought the ‘Balmoral Gardens’ property and continued the market garden until 2003.

10 The proposed names meet the appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy, as they recognise a noteworthy person with a strong connection to the Balmoral development.

11 The proposed name of ‘Franks Place’ is not a duplicate of any existing road name in Dunedin. ‘Franks Place’ does have some similarity to an existing Dunedin road name of ‘Franklin Street’. However, in this case the differences between the road name when spoken, including suffix, are considered to be sufficient to avoid confusion.

12 The similarity criterion requires that if the road name consists of more than one word (excluding the suffix), then the significant part of the word should not be the same as the significant part of any road name. The proposed name of ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ is similar to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Ferguson Street’, and ‘Franklin Street’. However, the suffix may be sufficient to avoid confusion.

13 The proposed name of ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ does not meet length criteria of the Road Naming Policy as short names should be proposed for short streets for mapping purposes. That is, on a map, it is difficult and unwieldy to have along name printed on a short street.

14 The proposed name of ‘Franks Place’ meets the spelling and length criteria of the Road Naming Policy. In most situations, a possessive apostrophe (eg. ‘Frank’s Place’) is not included. This is a standard guideline for geographical naming regulations to avoid showing the possession of a street or natural feature.

15 The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board considered the proposed road names at their meeting on 28 November 2019 and do not support ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ or ‘Franks Place’. Instead the Community Board suggested ‘Ferguson Place’ as an alternative name. As ‘Ferguson Place’ is the same as an existing road name in Dunedin of ‘Ferguson Street’, it has not been considered further in this report.

OPTIONS

16 The developer proposed ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ as their preferred name, and ‘Franks Place’ as an alternative name for the new cul-de-sac road within the Balmoral development.

Option One – Council approves naming the new road off Holyhead Street, Outram, within the Balmoral development as ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ (Developer’s preferred option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ recognises a noteworthy person with a strong connection to the site.

· The road would be named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The proposed name ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ does not meet the length criteria, as it is a long name for a short street which provides challenges for mapping purposes.

· The significant part of the proposed name of ‘Frank Ferguson Place’ is similar to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Ferguson Street’ and ‘Franklin Street’.

· The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board does not support this option.

Option Two – Council approves naming the new road off Holyhead Street, Outram, within the Balmoral development as ‘Franks Place’ (recommended option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Franks Place’ recognises a noteworthy person with a strong connection to the site.

· The proposed name ‘Franks Place’ is a short name for a short street which is preferred for mapping purposes.

· The proposed name ‘Franks Place’ is sufficiently different from other road names, and overall complies with the Road Naming Policy.

· The road would be named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board does not support this option.

Option Three – Council does not approve the proposed road names (alternative option)

Advantages

· There are no significant advantages identified with this option.

Disadvantages

· The road would not have a name which will inconvenience new property owners within the subdivision.

NEXT STEPS

17 If the recommended name is approved, staff will process the required documentation and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road name.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Balmoral Development Residential Plan	76

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental 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	☒	☐	☒

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developer and their agent.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with BIS.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Naming of the road is considered to be urgent as titles for the new development have been issued without a road name.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board do not support the proposed road names.

Council

10 December 2019

Naming of a new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a name for a new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel, as part of the Highland Park Subdivision.

2 The new road name proposed by the developer is ‘Silverdale Place’, and it complies with the DCC Road Naming Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves naming of a new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel, within the Highland Park Subdivision as ‘Silverdale Place’.

BACKGROUND

3 The Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. The Road Naming Procedure requires that that Community Boards consider proposed names for roads in their area. For reference, the Road Naming Policy and Road Naming Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming.

4 Consent for Stage 14 of the Highland Park Subdivision has been granted by Council. Stage 14 will create 35 residential lots and involves constructing Dundee Road, resulting in it connecting at each end, and a new cul-de-sac. Both the Dundee Road connection and the new cul-de-sac will vest in Council. The approved subdivision plan for Stage 14 is provided as Attachment A.

5 The developer proposed ‘Silverdale Place’ as their preferred name for the new road within Stage 14 of the Highland Park Subdivision. No alternative road name has been proposed.

DISCUSSION

6 The developer proposed ‘Silverdale Place’ as the subdivision is on land previously known as Silverdale Farm. Silverdale Farm was the name of the family farm on the property and has been so named for 30 years. Two generations of the family still reside on the property.

7 The road names previously approved within the Highland Park Subdivision were sourced from locations within East Ayshire, Scotland. Silverdale Farm also has Scottish connections.

8 The name ‘Silverdale Place’ is not a duplicate of any existing road name in Dunedin. The proposed name does have some similarity to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Silverpeak Road’, ‘Silverstream Drive’, ‘Silverton Street’ and ‘Silverview Place’. However, in this case the differences between these road names when spoken, including suffixes, are considered to be sufficient to avoid confusion.

9 The name ‘Silverdale Place’ is considered to meet the appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy, as it relates to the historical features of the site. The name also meets the spelling, length and appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

10 The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board considered the proposed road name at their meeting on 28 November 2019 and supports ‘Silverdale Place’.

OPTIONS

11 The developer has not provided alternative names for the new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel, within Stage 14 of the Highland Park Subdivision.

Option One – Approves naming the new road off Dundee Road, Mosgiel, within the Highland Park Subdivision as ‘Silverdale Place’ (recommended option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Silverdale Place’ relates to historical features of the site and follows a road naming theme within the residential development.

· The proposed name ‘Silverdale Place’ is sufficiently different from other road names, and overall complies with the Road Naming Policy.

· The new road is named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· There are no significant disadvantages identified with this option.

Option Two – Council does not approve the proposed road name (alternative option)

Advantages

· There are no significant advantages identified with this option.

Disadvantages

· The road will not have a name which will inconvenience new property owners within the subdivision.

NEXT STEPS

12 If the recommended name is approved, staff will process the required documentation and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road name.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Highland Park Subdivision Stage 14 Consent Plan	83

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental 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	☒	☐	☒

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developer and their agent.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with BIS.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board supports the proposed road name.

Council

10 December 2019

Naming of a private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a name for a private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel, as part of the Stage 11 of the Silver Springs subdivision.

2 The road name proposed by the developer is ‘Neil Collins Lane’, or alternatively ‘Neil Collins Place’.

3 The proposed road name does not meet the requirements of the Road Naming Policy as the significant part of the name is similar to other road names in Dunedin. However, the suffix may be sufficient to avoid confusion. The proposed road name recognises a noteworthy person and complies with all other provisions of the Road Naming Policy and is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves naming the private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel, as ‘Neil Collins Lane’.

BACKGROUND

4 The DCC Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. The DCC Road Naming Procedure requires that that Community Boards consider proposed names for roads in their area. For reference, the Road Naming Policy and Road Naming Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming.

5 SUB-2018-113 authorised Stage 11 of the Silver Springs Subdivision, which created 14 residential allotments, an access lot and a road to vest in Council. The road to vest as part of this Stage will connect Caledonia Drive at each end. The new private way to be named is shown on the subdivision scheme plan as Access Lot 101 (Attachment A).

6 The developer proposed ‘Neil Collins Lane’ as their preferred name, and ‘Neil Collins Place’ as an alternative name for private way off Caledonia Drive.

7 Naming of the road is considered to be urgent. Titles in the development have been issued pursuant to section 224c of the Resource Management Act 1991, and a number have been pre-sold to new owners. Landowners are faced with the uncertainty and inconvenience of having no street address.

DISCUSSION

8 The developer proposed ‘Neil Collins Lane’ as their preferred name, and ‘Neil Collins Place’ as their alternative name, after Neil Collins. The family of Neil Collins support the naming of the private way (Attachment B).

9 Neil Collins (1941-2018) made a significant contribution to voluntary and commercial radio in Dunedin. Neil Collins served as a member of Council for 22 and a half years, during the period 1989 to 1998 and 2000 to 2013. Neil Collins was significantly involved with community groups and community events in Dunedin.

10 Neil Collins was awarded the Queens Service Medal for services to the community in 1990 and was appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to broadcasting, local-body affairs and the community in the 2009.

11 There is a link between the Silver Springs subdivision and Neil Collins through the Miss New Zealand pageant. Neil Collins hosted the national competition for several years, and Miss New Zealand Ltd is the sister company to the developer, Silver Springs Limited.

12 The proposed name meets the appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy, as it recognises a noteworthy person with a connection to the Silver Springs subdivision.

13 The similarity criterion requires that if the road name consists of more than one word (excluding the suffix), then the significant part of the word should not be the same as the significant part of any road name. The proposed name of ‘Neil Collins Place’ is similar to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Colin Street’, ‘Collins Street’ and ‘Neill Street’. However, the suffix may be sufficient to avoid confusion.

14 For completeness, it should be noted that the Road Naming Policy places less weight on the appropriateness criteria with respect to private ways.

15 Due to the timing of receiving the required information from the developer, the naming of the private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel has not been formally considered by the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board. However, there was verbal discussion at the Community Board meeting on 28 November 2019 and the Community Board informally supports naming the private way as ‘Neil Collins Lane’ or ‘Neil Collins Place’.

OPTIONS

16 The developer proposed ‘Neil Collins Lane’ as their preferred name, and ‘Neil Collins Place’ as an alternative name for private way off Caledonia Drive in the Silver Springs subdivision.

Option One – Council approves naming the private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel, within the Silver Springs subdivision as ‘Neil Collins Lane’ (recommended option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Neil Collins Lane’ recognises a noteworthy person with a connection to the site.

· The proposed name ‘Neil Collins Lane’ meets the spelling, length and appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

· The suffix of ‘lane’ is an appropriate name for the private way as lane is defined as “a narrow way, path, country road or street; a narrow passage between hedges or buildings”.

· The private way is named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The significant part of the proposed name of ‘Neil Collins Lane’ is similar to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Colin Street’, ‘Collins Street’ and ‘Neill Street’.

Option Two – Council approves naming the private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel, within the Silver Springs subdivision as ‘Neil Collins Place’ (alternative option)

Advantages

· The proposed name ‘Neil Collins Place’ recognises a noteworthy person with a connection to the site.

· The proposed name ‘Neil Collins Place’ meets the spelling, length and appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

· The suffix of ‘place’ is an appropriate name for the private way as place is defined as “a short sometimes narrow enclosed roadway; cul-de-sac”.

· The private way is named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The significant part of the proposed name of ‘Neil Collins Lane’ is similar to existing Dunedin road names of ‘Colin Street’, ‘Collins Street’ and ‘Neill Street’.

Option Three – Council does not approve the proposed road names for the private way off Caledonia Drive, Mosgiel (alternative option)

Advantages

· Staff can be directed to request alternative road names from the developer that may better suit the Council’s preferences and meet all the requirements of the Road Naming Policy.

Disadvantages

· The private way will not have a name which will inconvenience new property owners within the subdivision accessing services.

NEXT STEPS

17 If the recommended name is approved, staff will process the required documentation and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road name.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Silver Springs Subdivision Stage 11 Concept Plan	90
⇩b	Neil Collins' family - letter of support	91

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developer and their agent. The family of Neil Collins support the proposed road names (Attachment B).

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with BIS.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Naming of the road is considered to be urgent as titles for the new development have been issued without a road name.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board informally supports the proposed road names.

Council

10 December 2019

Naming of a private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a name for a private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel.

2 At the time of drafting this report, the developer has not proposed any road names for the private way. Staff identified ‘Pomerania Lane’ from the Council’s list of pre-approved road names, and it complies with the DCC Road Naming Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves naming the private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel, as ‘Pomerania Lane’.

BACKGROUND

4 SUB-2017-81 authorised the staged subdivision of the land at 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel, into nine residential allotments and an access lot (Attachment A).

5 At the time of drafting this report, the developer has not proposed any road names for the private way. Staff have made several requests to the developer's representative at Patterson Pitts Partners for proposed road names, however no names have been forthcoming. If the developer provides proposed road names for the private way, staff will assess the names against the Road Naming Policy and circulate to the Council prior to the meeting.

6 Naming of the road is considered to be urgent. Titles in the development have been issued pursuant to section 224c of the Resource Management Act 1991, and a number have been pre-sold to new owners. Landowners are faced with the uncertainty and inconvenience of having no street address.

DISCUSSION

7 The Road Names Register provides a list of road names that have been pre-approved by the Council or Infrastructure Services Committee (Attachment B). The only pre-approved road name that staff identified as being more appropriate than any other pre-approved road name is ‘Pomerania’.

8 Pomerania is the geographic region of Poland where many of the early Polish Settlers emigrated from. Many of these settlers were involved with agricultural and infrastructural work in the Taieri Plain area and settling other parts of the city. ‘Pomerania’ could be an appropriate name for the private way as it has an historical connection to the Mosgiel-Taieri area.

9 For completeness, it should be noted that the Road Naming Policy places less weight on the appropriateness criteria with respect to private ways.

10 The naming of the private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel has not been formally considered by the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board. However, there was verbal discussion at the Community Board meeting on 28 November 2019 and the Community Board supports naming the private way as ‘Pomerania Lane’.

OPTIONS

11 The developer has not proposed a road name for the private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel. The Council has authority to name the road pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

12 If the developer proposes a road name for the private way, staff will assess the name against the Road Naming Policy and circulate to the Council prior to the meeting.

Option One – Council approves naming the private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel, as ‘Pomerania Lane’ (recommended option)

Advantages

· ‘Pomerania’ has been selected from the list of pre-approved road names and complies with the Road Naming Policy.

· ‘Pomerania’ has an historical connection to the Mosgiel-Taieri area.

· The private way would be named, and landowners would have a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The private way would not be named in accordance with the Road Naming Procedure as the name was not proposed by the developer.

Option Two – Council selects and approves a name from the Road Name Register for naming the private way off 212 Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel (alternative option)

Advantages

· Names chosen from the list of approved road names comply with the Road Naming Policy.

· The private way would be named, and landowners would have a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· The private way would not be named in accordance with the Road Naming Procedure as the name was not proposed by the developer.

Option Three – Council does not approve a road name (alternative option)

Advantages

· Staff can be directed to request a road name from the developer.

Disadvantages

· The private way would not have a name which will inconvenience new property owners within the subdivision accessing services.

NEXT STEPS

13 If Council approves a road name for the private way, staff will process the required documentation and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road name.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	212 Gladstone Road North Subdivision Plan	96
⇩b	DCC Road Name Register	97

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The developer has not proposed a road name for the private way. The Polish Heritage of Otago and Southland Charitable Trust originally nominated ‘Pomerania’ for the Road Name Register and support the naming of the private way.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with BIS.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Naming of the road is considered to be urgent as titles for the new development have been issued without a road name.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board informally supports the proposed road name.

Council

10 December 2019

Review of Roading Bylaw

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends a review of the Roading Bylaw 2008 as the most appropriate way to address roading related issues in Dunedin, including regulating the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset.

2 The Roading Bylaw will be automatically revoked on 30 June 2020 if it is not reviewed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset in Dunedin.

b) Notes that a draft Statement of Proposal and draft Roading Bylaw 2020 will be developed and presented to the Council in January 2020.

c) Notes that a draft proposed Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 amendment will be developed and presented to the Council in January 2020.

BACKGROUND

3 The Roading Bylaw 2008 (Attachment A) was made under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998. The underlying purpose of the Roading Bylaw is to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset.

4 Bylaws are made under the LGA. An initial review is required after five years, then every ten years. Following a review, a bylaw may be amended, revoked, replaced or retained. If a bylaw is not reviewed, it is automatically revoked two years from the date the review was due. The Roading Bylaw will be automatically revoked on 30 June 2020 unless it is amended, revoked and replaced, or retained without change.

5 The Roading Bylaw is generally working well for the areas of operation, but it would benefit from simplification and clarification.

6 Staff are preparing an amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. The proposed amendment will be considered by the Council in January 2020.

DISCUSSION

Roading issues

7 Sections 155 and 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 require a territorial authority to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem when making or reviewing a bylaw

8 The Roading Bylaw currently addresses the following roading-related issues and associated problems:

a) Protecting and maintaining public safety and the health and safety of the Council staff;

b) Protecting the environment and enabling the Council to meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 and ensuring Council compliance with consent conditions for various occupations of road reserve;

c) Protecting the current and future roading network infrastructure and associated investment into this infrastructure; and

d) Ensuring fair and equitable treatment of parties occupying or affecting the roading network.

9 A bylaw is considered necessary because non-regulatory methods (e.g. voluntary compliance and education) cannot be relied on entirely to address the roading-related issues. Some activities can affect a variety of aspects such as the safety of the general public and property or the environment. In such situations, it is important for the Council to have a greater ability to regulate and enforce policies and practices.

10 Other regulations also apply to the use of the roading network. These include the Building Act 2004, Crimes Act 1961, Electricity Act 1992, Gas Act 1992, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, Impounding Act 1955, Land Transport Act 1998, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Litter Act 1979, Local Government Act 1974 and 2002 (the roading provisions of the 1974 Act are still in force), Public Works Act 1981, Resource Management Act 1991, Summary Offences Act 1981, Telecommunications Act 2001, and Transport Act 1962 (bylaw making powers still in force). However, these regulations do not cover all of the matters and situations dealt with in the Roading Bylaw. It is therefore considered appropriate to make the new Roading Bylaw in order to address these.

11 A bylaw is still considered the most appropriate way to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset in Dunedin.

Bylaw review

12 Formally reviewing the Roading Bylaw 2008 provides an opportunity to identify parts that may be no longer required and to clarify and align Roading Bylaw processes such as applications, licenses and fees.

13 The overall objectives of the review include:

a) Ensuring that appropriate rules exist for the management and protection of the public roading network;

b) Improving understanding of the respective responsibilities for road users and the Council; and

c) Ensuring Council bylaws are effective, efficient and relevant.

14 The review will also need to ensure the Roading Bylaw aligns with Council policies and bylaws such as the Second Generation District Plan, Mobile Trading Bylaw and roading-related policies (eg. road encroachment policy, road stopping policy and stock underpasses policy, commercial use of footpaths policy).

15 Consultation on a reviewed Roading Bylaw could be undertaken concurrently with the consultation on the Speed Limits Bylaw amendment.

OPTIONS

16 The Council should consider whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of regulating and addressing roading related issues in Dunedin.

Option One – Review the Roading Bylaw 2008 as the most appropriate way of addressing roading related issues in Dunedin (recommended)

Advantages

· The Roading Bylaw will not automatically lapse on 30 June 2020.

· Opportunity to ensure appropriate rules exist for managing and protecting the public roading network.

· Opportunity to ensure alignment with Council policies and bylaws such as the Second Generation District Plan, Mobile Trading Bylaw and roading-related policies.

Disadvantages

· Staff resources are required to undertake this work.

Option Two – Do not continue with the review of the Roading Bylaw 2008 as it is not the most appropriate way of addressing roading related issues in Dunedin.

Advantages

· No staff resources are required.

Disadvantages

· The Roading Bylaw 2008 will automatically lapse on 30 June 2020.

· The Council will have limited control over activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset.

NEXT STEPS

17 If a review of the Roading Bylaw 2008 is approved, a draft Statement of Proposal presenting feasible options to address roading related issues, along with a proposed Roading Bylaw 2020 will be prepared for Council approval in January 2020.

18 Consultation on the proposed draft Roading Bylaw 2020 and proposed Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 amendment would then be undertaken concurrently using the special consultative procedure in February/March 2020.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Michael Tannock - Transport Network Team Leader

Authoriser:

Merrin Dougherty - Asset and Commercial Manager, Transport

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC Roading Bylaw 2008	110

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This Roading Bylaw promotes the social, economic and environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

The Roading Bylaw support the above strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

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

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

A full special consultative procedure will be undertaken as part of the Roading Bylaw review.

Engagement - internal

Initial internal engagement has occurred with Transport, Property and in-house legal services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

If the Roading Bylaw is not reviewed, the Council will have limited control over activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards may be interested in the review of the Roading Bylaw.

Council

10 December 2019

Financial Result - Period Ended 31 October 2019

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 October 2019 and the financial position as at that date.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 31 October 2019 and the Financial Position as at that date.

BACKGROUND

2 This report provides the financial statements for the period ended 31 October 2019. It includes reports on: financial performance, financial position, cashflows and capital expenditure. The operating result is also shown by group, including analysis by revenue and expenditure type.

DISCUSSION

3 Operating revenue includes reduced activity at the Green Island Landfill and lower parking revenue due to delays in implementing the new pricing structure. These unfavourable variances are offset by an unbudgeted dividend from Civic Assurance, higher than expected building consent activity, and unbudgeted revenue from the Provincial Growth Fund for economic development initiatives.

4 Grants revenue was ahead of budget primarily due to additional NZTA income generated from higher than expected capital expenditure on roading projects.

5 Overall expenditure was favourable to budget primarily due to delays associated with the greenspace contracts and pre-reseal road maintenance costs. Interest expenditure was also below budget due to the lower level of debt and a favourable floating interest rate.

6 The variance in Personnel Costs for the month of October was caused by a back pay journal that related to the period from July to October.

7 The year to date Waipori result was ahead of budget, with fair values gains across most investment portfolios. It should however be noted that there has been a subsequent tightening in market conditions with negative adjustments in all categories other than Australian equities.

8 Capital expenditure was running under budget, primarily driven by project delays in a number of areas. This underspend has been partially offset by greater than expected spend on roading projects ($3.562 million) including the Peninsula Connection, minor safety improvements and continued flood reinstatement work.

9 A large payment from NZTA, budgeted to be received in July was received in June. This timing difference has caused 2019/20 budget variances in the Statement of Cashflows (mainly Opening Cash & Deposits and Other Revenue) and the Borrowing and Investment Policy Statement (Operating Funds Flow/Interest Expense ratio).

10 The Financial Review (Attachment H) provides a more detailed ‘variance analysis’ of each of the other attachments.

OPTIONS

11 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

12 Not applicable.

Signatories

Author:

Gavin Logie - Financial Controller

Lawrie Warwood - Financial Analyst

Authoriser:

Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Summary Financial Information	129
⇩b	Statement of Financial Performance	130
⇩c	Statement of Financial Position	131
⇩d	Statement of Cashflows	132
⇩e	Capital Expenditure Summary	133
⇩f	Borrowing and Investment Policy	134
⇩g	Operating Variances by Group	135
⇩h	Financial Review	137

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The financial expenditure reported in this report relates to providing local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions which contribute to the well-being of the community.

Fit with strategic framework

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

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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report fulfils the internal financial reporting requirements for Council.

Financial considerations

Not applicable – reporting only.

Significance

Not applicable – reporting only.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Council

10 December 2019

Financial Review

For the period ended 31 October 2019

This report provides a detailed commentary on the Council’s financial results for the period ended 31 October 2019 and the financial position at that date.

net surplus/(Deficit) (including waipori)

The net deficit (including Waipori) for the period ended 31 October 2019 was $2.004 million or $5.605 million better than budget.

REVENUE

The total revenue for the period was $104.497 million or $2.063 million greater than budget.

The major variances were as follows:

Other Operating Revenue

Actual $26.279 million, Budget $26.548 million, Unfavourable variance $269k

Waste and Environmental revenue was unfavourable $1.201 million primarily due to lower volumes through the Green Island landfill.

Parking Operations revenue was unfavourable $290k due to less than budgeted parking meter revenue as a result of delays in implementing the new pricing structure.

These unfavourable variances were partially offset by:

Economic Development revenue was $669k mainly due to revenue from the Provincial Growth Fund for a number of initiatives, namely Otago Regional Economic Development, Construction Labour Forecast and the Code of Digital Excellence.

Investment account revenue was favourable $372k due to an unbudgeted dividend received from Civic Assurance following the sale of their Wellington building.

Regulatory Services revenue was favourable $316k reflecting greater than expected income for building consents and inspections, alcohol licencing and dog registrations.

Grants

Actual $13.367 million, Budget $11.507 million, Favourable variance $1.860 million

Transport grants and subsidy revenue was favourable $1.794 million primarily due to the higher level of capital project delivery.

Expenditure

The total expenditure for the period was $110.127 million or $1.597 million less than budget.

The major variances were as follows:

Operations and Maintenance Costs

Actual $22.945 million, Budget $24.359 million, Favourable variance $1.414 million

Transportation expenditure was favourable $423k due mainly to the progress of pre-reseal repairs.

Parks costs were favourable $725k mainly due to the timing of work carried out under the North and South Greenspace contracts, living asset maintenance and paving work.

BIS costs were favourable $399k due to budgeted costs associated with the payroll system replacement now being capitalised.

Depreciation

Actual $23.355 million, Budget $22.995 million, Unfavourable variance $360k

Depreciation was unfavourable mainly due to revaluation of Transportation assets effective from

1 July 2019.

Interest

Actual $3.525 million, Budget $4.211 million, Favourable variance $686k

Interest expenditure was less than budget primarily due to a favourable floating interest rate applied to the non-fixed interest borrowing.

WAIPORI FUND NET OPERATING RESULT

Actual $3.626 million, Budget $1.681 million, Favourable variance $1.945 million

The Waipori result was reflective of market conditions which has seen positive movements across most portfolios since the start of the financial year. It should however be noted that some of this growth was eroded in the current month with negative movements across most equity markets (except Australia).

Statement of Financial Position

A Statement of Financial Position is provided as Attachment C.

Short term investments of $7.194 million relate to the Waipori Fund.

Total debt is slightly below budget following the year to date underspend on capital projects.

Statement of Cashflows

A Statement of Cashflows is provided as Attachment D.

Net cash inflow from operating activities was unfavourable to budget due to the early receipt of grants funding for May/June as reflected in the opening bank balance for the year ($11.905 million vs budgeted $6.664 million).

Capital Expenditure

A summary of the capital expenditure programme by Activity is provided as Attachment E.

Total capital expenditure for the year was $30.282 million or 24.2% of the full year budget of
$124.958 million.

Corporate Services capital expenditure was $1.052 million underspent

The underspend was primarily driven by lower than expected expenditure related to a number of projects including the new Electronic Document and Records Management system, the Payroll Replacement, Online Services, total Infrastructure and the Performance Management system project.

Property capital expenditure was $3.873 million underspent

The underspend was due the delayed timing of some projects including the South Dunedin Community Complex, School St Housing Upgrade and the Central Library Refurbishment project.

Work on the Mosgiel Library re-roof and the 54 Moray Place compliance upgrade projects was well underway. The Edgar Centre structural strengthening work was well progressed and work on the Central Library roof was near completion.

Work on the School St project has begun, with asbestos removal nearing completion and demolition work now underway. Construction is expected to be complete by June 2020.

Transport capital expenditure was $3.562 million overspent

The variance primarily related to the continued delivery of the peninsula connection safety improvement project, continued reinstatement work ex flooding in recent years, carriageway resurfacing and school safety work.

The LED streetlight project was underway with expenditure ahead of budget $771k.

Three Waters capital expenditure was $1.670 million underspent

The underspend was primarily driven by delays in stormwater renewals projects – Mosgiel and Private networks.

Debt

Refer to Attachments F and G.

Attachment F provides a summary of the debt servicing ratios.

All three targets were within policy.

Comments from group activities

Attachment G, the Summary of Operating Variances, shows by Group Activity the overall net surplus or deficit variance for the year. It also shows the variances by revenue and expenditure type.

Corporate Services - $1.161 million Favourable

BIS operating costs were $733k less than budgeted primarily due to the timing of licence fees and IT consultant spend.

Parks and Recreation - $1.233 million Favourable

Operating costs were favourable $1.235 million due to timing of the expenditure on the two Greenspace contracts, paving maintenance and living asset maintenance.

Transport - $1.576 million Favourable

Transport operating revenue was greater than budget ($1.643 million) due to higher than budgeted NZTA funding for capital projects including the Green Island, urban cycleways, peninsula road widening and flood response work.

Transport operating expenditure was $486k due to the timing of pre-seal repairs and minimal gritting and CMA application due to mild winter conditions.

Waste and Environmental - $1.346 million Unfavourable

External revenue was unfavourable $1.201 million primarily due to a reduction in commercial landfill tonnage over the last few months.

Operating costs were unfavourable $228k due to phase two of the Waste Futures project currently running ahead of budget.

Council

10 December 2019

Dunedin City Holdings Limited Share Capital

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The current DCC Group borrowing arrangements require the level of Dunedin City Holdings Limited (“DCHL”) uncalled share capital to be greater than DCC Group debt.

2 Uncalled share capital is the difference between issued share capital and called share capital. The amounts of issued share capital and called share capital within DCHL are currently $973m and $123m respectively (rounded).

3 The uncalled share capital of DCHL is therefore currently $850m.

4 Group debt at 30 June 2019 was $691m.

5 As highlighted by the DCHL 2019/20 Statement of Intent, and as reported by the media in October 2019, DCC Group debt is forecast to increase to $927m by June 2022.

6 This increase in DCC Group debt to $927m is mainly driven by DCC’s and Aurora’s respective capital programmes which are forecast to increase debt over this period by around $65m and $175m respectively.

7 As debt increases so too does the security that needs to be provided, resulting in either increasing the current level of DCHL share capital or developing new borrowing arrangements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that using the existing DCC Treasury framework, the share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited needs to be increased to enable future DCC Group debt to exceed $850m.

b) Recommends the share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited be increased to provide $975m of uncalled share capital.

c) Instructs DCHL that DCC Group debt cannot exceed the level included in the current DCHL Statement of Intent ($927m) without a specific resolution of council authorising such an increase.

BACKGROUND

8 Under existing borrowing arrangements the uncalled share capital of DCHL provides the security for DCC Group debt.

9 The share capital of DCHL was increased in 2010/2011 so that the level of uncalled share capital of DCHL increased from $600m to $850m.

10 The indexed value of $850m in 2010/11 would be $986m at June 2019.

11 The DCHL 2019/20 Statement of Intent noted by Council in June 2019 includes DCC Group debt of $927m at June 2022. This debt level was the subject of a detailed media article in September 2019.

12 As expected, this future debt level, being greater than $850m, requires either an increase to the existing borrowing arrangements (ie increase DCHL uncalled share capital), the introduction of new borrowing arrangements and/or debt reduction measures.

13 In January 2019 an independent review concluded that the existing DCC Group Treasury framework represented market ‘best practice’.

DISCUSSION

14 The existing DCC Group borrowing arrangements allow DCC Group debt to be accessed up to $850m.

15 In the absence of debt reduction measures, the future capital expenditure programmes for DCC and Aurora will result in the level of DCC Group debt exceeding $850m in late 2020. This will require either an increase to DCHL share capital or new borrowing arrangements to be developed.

16 It is important to note that:

· the increase to DCHL share capital and/or the introduction of new borrowing facilities do not commit DCC or Aurora to future debt levels – they simply enable the future debt to be available for the capital expenditure programmes of DCC and Aurora; and

· an increase to DCHL share capital does not incur any significant cost; and

· the recommendation seeks to increase the level of DCHL uncalled share capital to $975m which is in excess of the forecast debt of $927m. The excess of uncalled share capital over forecast debt is known as liquidity headroom; and

· Liquidity headroom provides capacity, for example in the event of natural disaster, and is highly regarded by lending agencies. It is standard practice to plan for a level of liquidity headroom (the DCC Treasury Risk Management Policy specifically refers to a liquidity buffer); and

· In the absence of explicit DCC approval, DCC Group debt is limited to $927m at June 2022 regardless of liquidity headroom.

DCHL Share Capital

17 At 30 June 2019 DCHL had issued share capital of 973,489,000 shares of which 123,589,000 shares were ‘called’ and 849,900,000 shares were ‘uncalled’.

18 Shares have been issued at $1 each.

19 Increasing the issued share capital of DCHL to 1,098,589,000 shares would result in uncalled share capital of $975m.

20 This would enable the future expected DCC Group debt of $927m to be accessed through existing borrowing arrangements and provide some liquidity headroom.

Establishing New External Borrowing Arrangements

21 The DCC Group could potentially increase its current borrowing limit by avoiding the existing DCC Group Treasury framework and establishing new borrowing arrangements - for example Aurora and DCC could borrow direct from the market/LGFA.

22 However there would be no actual benefit from entering into such new external borrowing arrangements apart from avoiding the administrative burden of increasing the share capital of DCHL - the level of debt would be the same but would be sourced from two different, and possibly competing, models.

23 Further;

· it is not known whether DCC or Aurora could actually borrow direct from an alternative source. The assets of Aurora, Dunedin City Treasury Limited (“DCTL”) and DCHL – including its uncalled share capital – are included in the DCC Group’s existing debenture agreement (which underpins all DCC Group debt). This will likely make any alternative new external borrowing arrangements impractical and/or unnecessarily expensive - especially in the timeframes covered by this recommendation; and

· the DCC Group is in the process of joining LGFA so any ‘alternative funding arrangements’ entered into by, say Aurora, will have the additional disadvantage of being denied access to the benefits that will result from the DCC Group joining, and borrowing from, LGFA.

24 Accordingly the recommendations in this paper do not include further discussion regarding entering into new external borrowing arrangements as a ‘stand alone’ option.

Sale of Capital Assets

25 The DCC Group could potentially sell some of its capital assets to reduce the need for additional debt.

26 DCC has an Investment Property portfolio that had a value at 30 June 2019 of $93.5m:

· Wall Street Mall $29.2m

· Bunnings, Wellington $13.5m (note 1)

· Great King St retail & parking $11.9m

· Café & Industrial Factory, Auckland $7.8m

· 54 Moray Place carpark/gym/residential $6.8m

· 414 Lower Moray Place office/car park $6.5m

· 10 Other Properties, each < $5m $17.8m

· Total $93.5m

Note 1 : Council resolved at its meeting of 26 March 2019 to start marketing this property for sale.

27 The sale of these capital assets could theoretically keep DCC Group debt below $850m but would leave minimal liquidity headroom. It is unlikely however that all of these properties could become ‘sale ready’ within the required timeframes.

28 The decisions to retain or sell these properties are complex and best considered independently to this issue. The same principle applies to assets owned by DCHL.

29 There would be no real adverse consequences of increasing DCHL share capital now to a level that is subsequently not required because, for example, future assets sales reduce the level of future ‘planned’ debt increases.

30 Council also owns other assets that have a marketable value (eg carparks, 49% share in a company that owns the former Penroses building) which could potentially be sold. Such sales would defer (but not avoid) the need to increase the share capital of DCHL.

31 Accordingly the recommendations in this paper do not include further discussion regarding the sale of capital assets or other DCC Group property as a ‘stand alone’ option.

Waipori Fund

32 As at 30 June 2019 DCC had $92.7m in its investment account known as the Waipori Fund.

33 The Waipori Fund is proactively managed by DCTL and generated $8.6m in investment returns in the 2018/19 financial year (return equivalent to over 9%).

34 Subject to legal review and associated reorgansation costs, it might be possible for DCC to use the Waipori Fund to finance its future capital programme, thereby avoiding the direct need to increase debt.

35 This would have adverse commercial ramifications as the Waipori Fund currently generates investment return in excess of current borrowing rates (DCTL currently borrows at around 3.5% to 4.0%).

36 Further, using the Waipori Fund in this way would still require the DCHL share capital to be increased (albeit to a lower level) as DCC Group debt would increase to $837m which provides insufficient liquidity headroom from the current DCHL uncalled share capital figure of $850m.

37 Accordingly the Recommendations in this paper do not include further discussion regarding the Waipori Fund as a ‘stand alone’ option.

Defer/Cease the future capital programme

38 The results of the recent Council elections show strong community support and endorsement for the DCC planned, future capital programme.

39 Even if DCC did ignore the ‘recent community endorsement’ and slow down/cease its planned, future capital programme, the future capital expansion programme of Aurora would still require the DCHL share capital to be increased (albeit to a lower level).

40 The abandonment/deferral of the future capital expansion programme of Aurora is not considered a viable option.

41 Accordingly the Recommendations in this paper do not include further discussion regarding the deferral/cessation of future capital programmes as a ‘stand alone’ option.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

42 Council approves an increase to the issued share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited to provide a level of uncalled share capital of $975m, whilst noting that DCC Group debt cannot exceed $927m without explicit specific approval from DCC.

(Note - this Recommendation is not introducing new levels of debt - it is simply enabling the level of debt that is currently recognised to be effectively accessed)

Advantages

· DCC and Aurora can continue their planned capital expenditure programmes

· The DCC Group’s current borrowing arrangements are not adversely impacted

Disadvantages

· Relatively minor legal and compliance costs will be incurred

Option Two

43 Council either identifies a mix of alternative strategies to enable DCC and Aurora to continue their planned capital expenditure programmes within existing borrowing arrangements and/or amends the planned capital expenditure programmes.

Advantages

· Possible minor savings of legal and compliance costs (although, see below, these savings may disappear and actually become costs, depending upon the mix of strategies selected)

Disadvantages

Depending on the mix of alternative strategies selected, the Disadvantages could include:

· Likely significant increase in costs (both establishment costs and ongoing financial costs)

· Unnecessary and avoidable delays in DCC and Aurora being able to deliver their respective planned capital programmes

· Increased health and safety risk to Aurora, its customers, the environment and residents/visitors to the region if the mix of strategies includes a deferral of Aurora’s planned capital programme

· Dissatisfied residents of Dunedin if the mix of strategies includes a deferral of DCC’s planned capital programme

NEXT STEPS

44 If the Recommended Option is approved officers will begin the process of increasing DCHL’s share capital and continue the progress being made with the delivery of DCC’s and Aurora’s capital programmes.

45 The DCC Annual Plan 2019/20 was released after the DCHL 2019/20 Statement of Intent and includes a large volume of capital expenditure being brought forward from future years and around $27m of additional capital expenditure (Peninsula Connection and Flood Reinstatement works that was approved during the Annual Plan Deliberations in May 2019 – see Page 38 of the DCC Annual Plan 2019/20). These changes are expected to increase the level of DCC Group debt required as at June 2021 and 2022 as reported in the DCHL 2019/20 Statement of Intent, which will result in a further review of the level of DCHL uncalled share capital.

Signatories

Author:	Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision, by enabling the continuation of DCC’s and Aurora’s respective capital programmes promotes the:

· social well-being of communities in the present and for the future; and

· economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future; and

· environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

This recommendation enables DCC to pursue its approved strategic projects and plans. This recommendation does not change approved strategic projects or plans.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

This recommendation essentially centres around the timing of delivering planned future capital projects and the funding thereof. This recommendation does not introduce any new significant sustainability considerations.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This recommendation is consistent with the Ten Year Plan (as amended for the bringing forward of certain capital projects).

Financial considerations

The recommended option will incur relatively small legal costs. The cost of not proceeding with the Recommended option could have significant alternative costs and/or non delivery of planned capital programs of DCC and Aurora.

Significance

This recommended option, being one to ‘enable’ already planned and publicised work, is considered Low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

The options considered in this recommendation have been discussed with the Chair of DCHL, General Manager of DCHL, the Group Treasurer, legal representatives and Standard & Poor’s.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The recommendation will enable Aurora to continue its planned capital program. Any disruption to the Aurora planned capital program could have significant risks for the company and possibly its holding company and DCC. Potential risk areas include health/safety, environmental, reputational and legal.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

No direct implications for Community Boards have been identified.

Council

10 December 2019

Code of Conduct

Department: Executive Leadership Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 A Code of Conduct complaint was laid by the Chief Executive, on receipt of a complaint by a Dunedin City Council (DCC) Customer Service Centre staff member, as per the process set out in the Code of Conduct. This report presents the Code of Conduct investigation to the Council.

2 The DCC Code of Conduct, approved in 2016 but remaining in force until replaced by this new Council, sets out the process to be followed in such an investigation. This process has been followed, and the Council must now decide on its response.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the findings of the investigation of David Benham in his Full Investigation into Dunedin City Council Code of Conduct complaint made by the Chief Executive following a complaint by a Customer Service Centre staff member.

b) Provides Councillor Vandervis the opportunity to address Council if he wishes to.

c) Suspends standing order 20.2(c) to enable Councillor Vandervis more than the usual five minutes to address Council.

d) Decides whether a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, and if so, which, if any, of the sanctions outlined in the Code of Conduct that it wishes to impose.

BACKGROUND

3 An interaction occurred between Councillor Vandervis and a Customer Service Centre staff member on Friday 13 September 2019 when the Councillor was discussing a parking ticket he had received. On Tuesday 17 September, the Councillor wrote to the CEO complaining about parking meter signage, but also about two staff: the parking warden who issued the ticket (making false claims and not cancelling the ticket) and the Customer Service Centre staff member (being unpleasant, refusing to take the verbal complaint or acknowledge the parking officer’s wrongdoing). No-one but the CEO and her PA knew of this complaint, but a meeting was scheduled with HR later in the week to discuss looking into it.

4 On 18 September a complaint was lodged in the Council’s Health and Safety system by the front-line staff member, about an interaction between herself and the Councillor, with a request it be dealt with as a formal complaint. The complaint said that the Councillor had come to the front desk in the Customer Services Agency and behaved in a manner that was aggressive, and interacted with a raised voice while leaning over the counter trying to intimidate her and waiving his finger at her. The staff member said she had been trying to explain that the formal process required that all requests to waive a parking ticket need to be done in writing, but explanations did not calm the situation and the interchange ended with the Councillor stating that he would see the staff member in court.

5 Section 12 and Appendix B of the DCC Code of Conduct, adopted 25 October 2016, sets out the process to be followed when such a complaint is laid.

· A complaint was laid with the CEO in writing 18 September 2019 (the staff member specifically indicated she would like to lay a Code of Conduct complaint), and more details were included in the DCC “Vault” system which records Health and Safety incidents

· An investigator was appointed by the Chief Executive from the approved List of Independent Investigators

· The Chief Executive laid the complaint with the investigator, which included her forwarding the staff member’s complaint and the Vault entry

· The Councillor was advised of the complaint 23 September 2019

· The investigator carried out a preliminary investigation and advised the CEO that the complaint was material and a full investigation was required, on 24 September 2019

· The complainant and Councillor were advised of this on 24 September 2019

· A full investigation was carried out and the report, attached (Attachment A), was sent to the CEO 6 October 2019.

DISCUSSION

6 The Code of Conduct outlines in section 5.2 expectations of Councillor interactions with staff. The Code of Conduct also outlines a process for dealing with potential breaches in Sections 12 and 13, and the process is detailed in Appendix B. This report fulfils the requirements of the Code and in particular Appendix B section 4.

7 The Chief Executive received the investigation report from the investigator on 6 October 2019. There was a brief follow up on her receipt of the report. There had been suggestions made by the Councillor, referred to in the report, that this complaint was politically motivated or influenced. The CEO requested the investigator specifically ask the complainant whether she had experienced any approach from staff or politicians on this issue, and she informed the investigator that she had had received no political pressures from any source to lodge a Code of Conduct complaint. In addition, the CEO checked with senior staff that none had made contact of any sort with the complainant apart from her own General Manager, once he heard she was laying a Code of Conduct complaint, who checked on her wellbeing and outlined the Code of Conduct complaint process for her. The complainant confirmed that to be the case.

8 A number of legal challenges to the process of this investigation were made following the investigation’s completion. Each challenge, and the Chief Executive's response to it following advice from DCC’s external legal team, is attached in Attachment B, so that Councillors are informed should any of these issues be raised at the meeting.

9 The Code of Conduct Appendix B step 5 sets out the process for the Council to consider the investigator’s report. The code of Conduct allows Councillor Vandervis to attend the meeting, to appear and speak in his own defence but not to participate in any debate or vote at the meeting, and he may remain and observe in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4 or step 5 on p15 of the Code of Conduct, and clauses 12.1 and 19.8 of Standing Orders. Council may chose to suspend standing order 20.2(c) so that Council Vandervis could talk for more than five minutes should he wish to do so.

OPTIONS

10 The Council must now decide what it wishes to do about the complaint. Councillors must read the report, attached, and must also give Councillor Vandervis an opportunity to appear and speak in his own defence. If the Council accepts the findings in the investigator’s report, and wishes to apply sanctions, the Council can decide, based on the investigation, to impose sanctions on the Councillor, as set out in section 13.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct says the level of the sanction “will depend on the seriousness of the breach”. Section 13.1 also outlines actions a respondent may agree to that could enable a Council to not impose any penalty.

Option One – Recommended Option

11 The investigator found that the Councillor materially breached the Code of Conduct on three grounds (paragraph 12 of the report attached). As per section 13.1 of the Code of Conduct, Council should consider the report, hear from Councillor Vandervis and decide if it agrees with this report. Council if it does consider a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred, could decide to impose appropriate sanction/s or ask the Councillor to undertake actions that meant a penalty would not be imposed.

Advantages

· The Code of Conduct process is followed.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

12 The Council could decide to receive the report (or in fact not to receive the report) and to take no further action.

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· Section 5.2 of the Code of Conduct covers expectations about how Councillors should treat staff, such as treating them with courtesy and respect. That section concludes with a note to Councillors that failing to observe this section of the code may compromise Council’s obligations to be a good employer and expose Council to risk. Council being seen to not enforce this section of the code if a breach of the code is found to have occurred could potentially be seen as failing in its duty as a good employer.

NEXT STEPS

13 The next steps are for the Council to discuss the investigation, hear the Councillor, and decide whether the findings of the independent investigation are accepted and, if so, how to respond.

Signatories

Author:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Investigation report into complaint	158
⇩b	Summary of Legal Issues raised	161

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

N/A

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	☐	☐	☒

N/A

Māori Impact Statement

N/A

Sustainability

N/A

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

N/A

Financial considerations

N/A

Significance

N/A

Engagement – external

An external independent investigator was hired to conduct the investigation.

External legal advice was sought on a number of legal challenges raised about the process of the investigation.

Engagement - internal

None

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

N/A

Conflict of Interest

N/A

Community Boards

N/A

Council

10 December 2019

Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 12 November 2019 - Public Excluded

And the Councillor Only Council meeting – Public Excluded

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

C2 Potential Land Transaction

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C3 Property Arrangement Grant Sport Otago

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C4 Sims Building Update

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C5 Council Appointments of External Representatives

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

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

Mayor	Mayor Aaron Hawkins
Deputy Mayor	Cr Christine Garey
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Rachel Elder	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Jules Radich	Cr Chris Staynes
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Andrew Whiley

	Title	Page
⇨a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 October 2019 (Under Separate Cover 1)

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning