Agenda of Council - 31 00 2020

Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:

Date: Friday 31 January 2020

Time: 10.00 am or at the conclusion of the previous meeting whichever is later

Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin

Sue Bidrose

Chief Executive Officer

Council

PUBLIC AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

Senior Officer Sue Bidrose, Chief Executive Officer

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

Lynne Adamson

Governance Support Officer

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

Council

31 January 2020

Reports

Review of the Camping Control Bylaw 2015

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council adopted the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw) on 1 November 2015 to manage freedom camping across the city. Since that time, the volume of freedom campers visiting the city has increased substantially, and the length of the freedom camping season has extended.

2 In the past 18 months Council has put into place several initiatives to improve the management of freedom camping. This has included increased security, the introduction of joint Council and Dept of Conservation Rangers, Thomas Burns city centre trial site, improved data collection, improved temporary infrastructure (toilets and rubbish collection), and increased administration support for infringement collection and complaint management.

3 Staff believe that a Bylaw is the most appropriate means for addressing existing freedom camping issues, and over the past 12 months have reviewed the Bylaw utilising improved and comparative data collected on freedom camping volumes, complaints, infringements, and feedback from the community.

4 The current Bylaw lacks flexibility and does not allow Council to quickly respond to the changing freedom camping volumes and issues, and does not allow for the creation of new freedom camping sites or prohibition of camping in areas with emerging issues. A more flexible Bylaw would ensure that Council can continue to proactively manage and respond to rapidly changing freedom camping volumes and issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Review of the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 report.

BACKGROUND

5 The Freedom Camping Act 2011 permits a local authority to a make a bylaw to protect an area, the health and safety of visitors to an area, and to protect access to an area from any adverse effects of freedom camping. The local authority must review the Bylaw within 5 years of its creation and within 10 years of the last bylaw review. 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.

6 The Camping Control Bylaw 2015 was adopted on 1 November 2015 and reviewed in June 2017. The 2017 review identified overcrowding at the Warrington Domain and Ocean View Reserve sites as Dunedin’s predominant freedom camping issues. Although a further review was not required until 2027, staff observed considerable year-on-year increases in camper numbers and exacerbation of overcrowding at the Ocean View Reserve and Warrington Domain sites. The 2019 review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the initiatives that were implemented to address the overcrowding issue and the increase in infringements and complaints. The review has identified aspects of the Bylaw that could be improved to ensure Council is adequately equipped to adapt to future increases or decreases in freedom camper numbers.

7 The Camping Control Bylaw 2015 stipulates:

a) Areas in which freedom camping is unrestricted, restricted or prohibited;

b) Conditions that apply to unrestricted and restricted freedom camping areas;

c) Penalties that may be incurred for infringement offences.

DISCUSSION

8 Staff believe that a Bylaw is the most appropriate means for addressing existing freedom camping issues, but that the bylaw should be more flexible to allow Council to proactively manage rapidly changing volumes and issues.

9 A comparison between 2017-18 and 2018-19 freedom camping season is attached, but key figures are as follows –

	2017-18	2018-19	% change	Estimated 2019-2020 volumes based on November and December data
Freedom camping volumes (unrestricted sites, January – April)	9,629	12,260	27%	14,620
Upheld Infringements (November– May)	434	521	20%	210
Complaints Received (November– November)	137	179	31%	96

10 In comparison with the 2017/2018 freedom camping season, the 2018/2019 season saw a 27% increase in the number of campers using Council sites. This was accompanied by a 24% increase in the number of Bylaw infringement notices issued and a 31% increase in the number of complaints received by Council staff.

11 During the 2018/2019 freedom camping season (November – May), approximately 30,000 people freedom camped in the city. Around 65% of these campers stayed overnight at one of three Council-managed unrestricted freedom camping sites. During the same period, 135 complaints of bylaw breaches were received, and 682 infringement notices were issued to campers by enforcement teams. 161 of these notices were waived after they were contested by recipients.

12 A Council-owned carpark on Thomas Burns Street was trialled as an inner-city unrestricted freedom camping site during the 2018/2019 season to relieve pressure on the unrestricted sites at the Ocean View Reserve and Warrington Domain. The Thomas Burns trial site accommodated 49% of the visitors to DCC unrestricted freedom camping sites and around 35% of the total freedom camper visitors to the city. The number of campers using the Ocean View Reserve and Warrington Domain decreased by 41% and 36% respectively.

13 Council staff have received feedback and requests from the community and some Community Boards to prohibit freedom camping at certain sites or areas, as well as requests to enable unrestricted freedom camping at other sites. The schedules governing the areas in which camping is prohibited, restricted or unrestricted are contained within the Bylaw and an amendment or new Bylaw is required to adjust these.

OPTIONS

14 As this is an administrative report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

15 Staff will draft an amended bylaw that will address the identified issues. This will be accompanied by a Statement of Proposal (SOP) and a submission form for public feedback. The draft bylaw, SOP and submission form will require Council approval before going out for public consultation.

Signatories

Author:

Stephen Hogg - Parks and Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Camping Control Bylaw Review Summary 2020	26
⇩b	Camping Control Bylaw 2015	31

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Freedom camping can have implications on the environment, economic development of the city and the Council’s open spaces and associated facilities. A new or amended bylaw may improve alignment with Council’s Environment Strategy, Economic Development Strategy and Parks and Recreation strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

The Otākou Runaka have expressed an interest in extending the prohibited camping zone to include Wellers Rock and Te Rauone Reserve.

Sustainability

Freedom campers and visitors to the city provide economic benefits which need to be considered alongside the potential effects of freedom camping on the environment and our communities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The decision to review the Camping Control 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 Bylaw review.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation Services have engaged with Corporate Policy, Regulatory Services and

Legal Department to discuss the processes associated with drafting and consulting on a new or amended bylaw.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest

Community Boards

Community Boards have provided feedback during the review process which will be considered when drafting a new or amended bylaw.

Council

31 January 2020

Submission on Resource Managment Issues and Options Paper

Department: City Development and Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry for the Environment on the options and issues paper “Transforming the resource management system: Opportunities for change”.

2 Closing dates for submissions is 3 February 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the submission on the consultation document “Transforming the resource management system: Opportunities for change.”

BACKGROUND

3 The Government has started the process of undertaking a substantive review of the Resource Management Act (RMA). A review panel was created with the overall aim to improve environmental outcomes and enable better and timely development in urban areas and elsewhere within environmental limits.

4 The panel has prepared an issues and options paper. A link to the 80 page document is provided here: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/RMA/comprehensive-review-of-the-resource-management-system-opportunities-for-change-issues-and-options-paper.pdf

5 Its purpose is to start a conversation about a range of environmental issues. The document provides the ability to apply blue skies thinking to issues that could fall within the ambit of resource management systems. After consultation and consideration of submissions the panel is required to prepare a final report by June 2020 to deliver to the Minister for the Environment (the Minister).

DISCUSSION

6 The discussion document notes that since 1991, when the RMA was introduced, serious challenges have emerged in responding to urban development pressures and how to house people in liveable communities. Climate change has become a significant threat. The natural environment has also been degraded and continues to be. There has also been better recognition of te ao Maori in wider law and society. The document also considers how cross sector outcomes may be addressed.

7 The aim of the Government review is to “improve environmental outcomes and enable better and timely urban developments within environmental limits”. The review aims to resolve debate on key issues, including the possibility of separating statutory provisions for land use planning from environmental protection of air, water, soil and biodiversity.

8 The review focuses primarily on the RMA, but also the interface with the Local Government Act, the Land Transport Management Act and the Climate Change Response Act. There is the potential to impact on other acts, such as the Building Act, the Fisheries Act and the Conservation Act.

9 The issues and options paper lists a range of challenges to the resource management system. These are:

· New Zealand’s natural environment is under significant pressure

· Urban areas are struggling to keep pace with population growth, and

· Rapid changes in rural land use have increased pressure on ecosystems

10 The issues and options paper also lists reasons why the system has not responded effectively. These are:

· Lack of clear environmental protections

· Lack of recognition of the benefits of urban development

· A focus on managing the effects of resource use rather than planning to achieve outcomes

· A bias towards the status quo

· Lack of effective integration across the resource management system

· Excessive complexity, uncertainty and cost across the resource management system

· Lack of adequate national direction

· Insufficient recognition of the Treaty and lack of support for Maori participation

· Weak and slow policy and planning

· Weak compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· Capability and capacity challenges in central and local government, and

· Weak accountability for outcomes and lack of effective monitoring and oversight.

11 For each issue listed in the paper there are one or more questions to help stimulate discussion. The issues and questions provide the framework for the attached draft submission.

12 The DCC’s submission is wide ranging, but at its core stresses the need for the urban planning function to remain local.

13 The draft submission responds to all the issue topics outlined in the options and issues paper except for “issue 10: Allocation”.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

14 Approve the DCC submission (with or without amendments) on the issues and options paper “Transforming the resource management system: Opportunities for change.”

Advantages

· Enables the Council to give feedback on a reform that will impact the DCC’s day to day business.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Status Quo

15 Do not submit in the issues and options paper.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity for the Dunedin City Council to express its opinion on the reform of the resource management system.

NEXT STEPS

16 If the Council approves the draft submission, it will be submitted by the due date.

Signatories

Author:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Alan Worthington - Resource Consents Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft submission on RMA planning reform options	59

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the 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 submission has been made in line with the goals of the Spatial Plan, Environment Strategy, 3 Water Strategy, Integrated Transport Strategy and the Second Generation District Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

Sustainability

There is the potential for changes in the RMA system to improve sustainability. Its form is unknown at this very early stage.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications at this stage. As the review process evolves into legislative change there may be implications.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

No external engagement was considered necessary.

Engagement - internal

The following departments were asked to contribute towards the submission: Resource Consents, City Development, 3 Waters, Waste and Environment, Transport and Corporate Policy.

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 specific implications for community boards.

Council

31 January 2020

Submission - Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on proposed changes to the Waste Minimisation Act Part 3 Waste Disposal Levy (also called Waste Disposal Levy, Waste Levy, or Landfill Levy).

2 This MfE consultation, ‘Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’ (Attachment B) is seeking feedback on proposals to:

· increase the levy for municipal landfills (i.e. those that take household waste);

· apply the levy to all types of landfill except cleanfills (i.e. those accepting only virgin excavated natural materials), and farm dumps; and

· apply the levy at different rates for different landfill types to reflect different environmental and social costs of disposal, and different opportunities for recovery of different materials

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the consultation document ‘Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’.

BACKGROUND

3 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) was published in the Gazette on 25 September 2008. It has been the leading legislation on waste and resource recovery in New Zealand since this time and gives effect to the goals outlined in the ‘New Zealand Waste Strategy’:

· Goal 1: Reducing the harmful effects of waste

· Goal 2: Improving the efficiency of resource use

4 The waste levy was set at $10 per tonne (excluding GST) in 2009. This rate is low by international standards. The levy is currently placed on Class 1 Municipal landfills only.

5 A number of organisations have been requesting a review of the levy for some time. This includes the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Productivity Commission, the Tax Working Group, and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

6 A National Resource Recovery Taskforce was set up in mid-2018 by MfE, tasked with identifying the issues and opportunities for further development and investment in resource recovery. The Taskforce identified that there is an urgent need to grow a network of onshore material recovery facilities and reduce New Zealand’s reliance on off-shore markets.

7 WasteMINZ updated the Technical Guidelines for Disposal to Land in August 2018 in association with Territorial Authorities, Regional Councils, MfE, and the commercial sector. These guidelines denote the various fill activities by class of fill and provides the template for consistent compliance monitoring of fill activities.

8 The Hon Associate Minister for the Environment, Eugenie Sage, released the work programme to tackle waste on 27 November 2019 which included consultation on ‘Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’. Consultation closes on 4 February 2020.

DISCUSSION

9 The DCC submission is generally supportive of the MfE consultation on ‘Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’.

10 New Zealand has a waste problem e.g. rates of disposal are increasing, there is a lack of infrastructure and services for resource recovery, and little incentive to minimise waste to landfill.

11 This situation has been compounded by the release of China Sword and Blue-Sky Policies which placed significant constraints on the exportation of mixed recycling.

12 Four options have been put forward in phasing in both an increase and expansion of the landfill levy.

13 It is proposed that Class 5 cleanfills and farmfill activities are exempt from the levy; however, this may promote poor waste disposal practices.

Funds generated by Landfill Levy

14 MfE holds a portion of waste levy fund, approximately 50% less administration costs, in a contestable fund. This can also be accessed by Territorial Authorities and others via a contestable fund application process for projects that support a reduction in waste and increased resource recovery.

15 The remaining 50% (adjusted by population) is distributed back to Territorial Authorities to spend in accordance with section 31 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

WMA s31: Territorial authorities to receive a share of the total levy money collected in respect of a financial year only-

a) on matters to promote or achieve waste minimisation; and

b) in accordance with its waste management and minimisation plan

16 MfE is proposing to develop a levy investment plan (Plan) which will become an update to the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010 and will guide investment decisions in regard to Waste Minimisation Funds. The proposal is also making available levy funds for monitoring and enforcement to combat littering, fly tipping, illegal dumping, supporting the collection of better waste data (quantities and composition), and providing behaviour or economic incentives.

17 The Ministry for Business Innovation and Enterprise is assisting MfE with the distribution of provincial growth funds to be invested in a network of resource recovery facilities.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Submit on ‘Reducing Waste: a more effective landfill levy’ consultation

18 Approve the DCC submission on the proposed ‘Reducing Waste: a more effective landfill levy’ consultation.

Advantages

· Enables the DCC to contribute at a national level towards an increased and expanded levy which will support future investment in a network of resource recovery and waste minimisation facilities.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Status Quo – Do not submit on ‘Reducing Waste: a more effective landfill levy’ consultation

19 Do not submit a DCC submission on the ‘Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy’ consultation.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to engage in the conversation with Government on the approach to increasing and expanding the landfill levy and future investment in waste minimisation and resource recovery.

NEXT STEPS

20 If the Council approves the draft submission it will be sent to MfE as an on-line submission for consideration by 4 February 2020.

Signatories

Author:

Catherine Irvine - Solid Waste Manager

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Reducing waste a more effective landfill levy consultation document	75
⇩b	DCC Submission Reducing Waste: a more effective landfill levy	156

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the 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	☒	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

Sustainability

If the levy increases, there may be a positive impact on sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications from this draft report.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications from this draft report.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on this report.

Engagement – internal

The Policy team assisted with this submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known legal or health and safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

31 January 2020

PDF Creator

Council

31 January 2020

Submission on Employment, Labour Markets and Income - Technological Change and the Future of Work, Draft Report

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft submission (Attachment A) to the Productivity Commission on the Employment, labour markets and income, Technological change and the future of work, Draft report. The closing date for submissions is 7 February 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the submission to the Productivity Commission on the Employment, labour markets and income, Technological change and the future of work, Draft report.

BACKGROUND

2 The Productivity Commission is conducting an inquiry exploring the impacts of new and changing technology on the quantity and nature of work. The inquiry will release five draft reports, of which Employment, labour markets and income is the second report, and is the report that the DCC wishes to submit on. The full report can be read through this link: https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/Documents/437c9e3982/Draft-report-2-Employment-labour-markets-and-income-v3.pdf.

3 The Employment, labour markets and income report examines:

· The conditions necessary for a dynamic labour market

· The gig economy and employment relationships

· Income support for displaced workers

· Labour-market programmes – government programmes designed and targeted to help people find or sustain employment; and

· Re-orienting labour-market policies for increased technology adoption.

4 The Commission will deliver a final report to the Government in March 2020 bringing together themes, findings, recommendations and participant feedback from all five draft reports.

DISCUSSION

5 The DCC submission recognises the changes that are occurring in the labour market as a result of technological change. The draft report explores options for providing security and support for people who are negatively impacted by technological change. The submission sets out responses to these options.

6 The submission highlights that Dunedin has a high student population, the unemployment rate sits above the national average and its mean annual earnings sit below the national average.

7 The submission requests that as well as providing support for people adversely affected by technological change, the Government also monitors outcomes for different groups to ensure the costs of greater technology adoption are not disproportionately felt.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

8 Approve the DCC submission to the Productivity Commission on the Employment, labour markets and income, Technological change and the future of work, Draft report.

Advantages

· Enables the Council to give feedback to the Productivity Commission on an issue that will have implications for residents of Dunedin.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Status Quo

9 Do not submit

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity for the Dunedin City Council to express its opinion on an issue that will have implications for residents and workers of Dunedin.

NEXT STEPS

10 If the Council approves the draft submission it will be sent to the Productivity Commission for consideration by 7 February 2020.

Signatories

Author:	Paul Coffey - Community Advisor
Authoriser:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dunedin City Council Submission: Draft Report on Technological Change and Future of Work	163

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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	☒	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

There is no known impact for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no known sustainability impacts.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications from this draft report.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications from this draft report.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on this report.

Engagement – internal

Enterprise Dunedin, Events and Community Development, and Corporate Policy provided input into this draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known legal or health and safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

31 January 2020

Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2019

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Committee Structure and Delegations Manual is presented for formal adoption by Council.

2 Minor changes have been made to the 2016 Committee Structure and Delegations Manual to primarily provide clarity and correct any issues of ambiguity or conflict between provisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2019 with any editorial changes or amendments as considered necessary.

BACKGROUND

3 To ensure that decisions are made in an efficient manner and to facilitate community participation in democratic processes, the Council makes delegations to Committees, Subcommittees and the Chief Executive Officer. These delegations are recorded in the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual (the manual).

4 At the end of each triennium the committee structures are automatically revoked along with their delegated powers. The Mayor has detailed the committee structure, and Council needs to adopt new delegations to provide the committees and subcommittees the powers to conduct business.

5 The Manual also provides delegations to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and these remain unchanged.

DISCUSSION

6 A new manual recording the updated committee structure, and delegations for the 2019-2022 triennium is proposed for adoption. The manual is Attachment A to this report.

7 The main changes to the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual include:

a) Community and Culture Committee – this committee now has the delegation to consider playgrounds and walking tracks, previously considered by the Infrastructure Services Committee.

b) Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee – this committee previously had the delegation to determine grant applications for the Dunedin Heritage Trust Fund, rates relief for heritage buildings and rates relief for comprehensive re-use of heritage buildings. As heritage is a function of the Planning and Environment Committee, and the Dunedin Heritage Trust Fund reports to that committee, these delegations have been transferred to the Planning and Environment Committee.

c) Infrastructure Services Committee – the areas of responsibility have been expanded to include freedom camping, public toilets, and the Mosgiel Aquatic Facility. Prior delegations have provided that this committee could approve property sales and purchases from $500,000 up to $5,000,000 for any park or reserve. This delegation has been removed and now any property sales or purchases from $500,000 will be reported to Council.

d) Bylaws Subcommittee – is renamed the Regulatory Subcommittee, as it has delegations to consider non bylaw regulatory matters such as objections to classification of dogs as menacing or dangerous under the Dog Control Act 1996.

e) Chief Executive Appraisal Committee – has been revoked as there will be a CEO recruitment process as required by the Local Government Act. A separate report will be considered by Council on this at a future meeting.

8 As this is an administrative report only, a summary of considerations is not required.

OPTIONS

9 While Council has the option to not give delegations to Committees, this would be administratively difficult as all decisions would need to be made by Council.

NEXT STEPS

10 Once approved, the Manual will be reviewed by legal counsel as a quality review, before publishing it electronically and in paper form.

11 Councillors will be provided with a copy of the Manual.

Signatories