Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                                    Tuesday 8 December 2020

Time:                                                   10.00 am

Venue:                                                Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin

 

Sandy Graham

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                                               Sandy Graham, 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

8 December 2020

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE

 

1             Opening                                                                                                                                                                       4

2             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                              4

2.1       Public Forum - Strath Taieri Heritage Park                                                                                         4

3             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

4             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

5             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5

6             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                                    19

6.1       Ordinary Council meeting - 17 November 2020                                                                            19

6.2       Ordinary Council meeting - 24 November 2020                                                                            20   

Minutes of Community Boards

7             Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 12 August 2020                                                                                 21

8             Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 30 September 2020                                                                         22

9             Otago Peninsula Community Board - 24 September 2020                                                                     23

10           Saddle Hill Community Board - 24 September 2020                                                                                24

11           Strath Taieri Community Board - 24 September 2020                                                                             25

12           Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 30 September 2020                                                                    26

13           West Harbour Community Board - 30 September 2020                                                                         27

Reports

14           Kerbside Collections and Options                                                                                                                    28

15           10 Year Plan - Early engagement feedback                                                                                                  68

16           2020 Annual Reports for the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Group                                                           76

17           Waipori Fund - Quarter Ending September 2020                                                                                      78

18           Financial Result - Period Ended 31 October 2020                                                                                     84

19           Regulatory Subcommittee Recommendations on Submissions to the Proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and Proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020                                                                                                  98

20           Review of Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy                                                                            142

21           Review of Gambling and TAB Venue Policy                                                                                               160

22           Warrant Cards 2019/20                                                                                                                                    176               

Resolution to Exclude the Public                                                                                                                     183

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

1          Opening

Jambavati from the Hare Krishna community will open the meeting with a prayer.

2          Public Forum

2.1       Public Forum - Strath Taieri Heritage Park

Jacquie Lucas-Prattley, Concept Development Team, Strath Taieri Heritage Park wishes to address the meeting to provide an update on the Heritage Park/Project Steam venture and present a business case to ask for a potential lease of the Middlemarch Railway Station, Goods Shed and sections of track over time.

3          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

4          Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.


Council

8 December 2020

 

Declaration of Interest

 

  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

 

2.         Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.

 

3.         Staff members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and

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

c)     Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Councillor Register of Interest

7

b

ELT Register of Interest

17

  



Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council meeting - 17 November 2020

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 17 November 2020 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 17 November 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

Ordinary Council meeting - 24 November 2020

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 24 November 2020 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 24 November 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

   


Council

8 December 2020

 

Minutes of Community Boards

Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 12 August 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board meeting held on 12 August 2020

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board held on 12 August 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 30 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board meeting held on 30 September 2020

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board held on 30 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

Otago Peninsula Community Board - 24 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 24 September 2020.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Otago Peninsula Community Board held on 24 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

Saddle Hill Community Board - 24 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 24 September 2020

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Saddle Hill Community Board held on 24 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

Strath Taieri Community Board - 24 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Strath Taieri Community Board meeting held on 24 September 2020.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Strath Taieri Community Board held on 24 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 30 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 30 September 2020.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Waikouaiti Coast Community Board held on 30 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

West Harbour Community Board - 30 September 2020

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the West Harbour Community Board meeting held on 30 September 2020.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of West Harbour Community Board held on 30 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

   


Council

8 December 2020

 

Reports

 

Kerbside Collections and Options

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to update Council on the results of preliminary community engagement on alternative waste collection models for the Dunedin area, and to recommend a preferred option to be included for public consultation in the 10 year plan 2021–31.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Decides which kerbside collection options will be included in the 10 year plan 2021–31 consultation document as the preferred and alternative options.

b)     Notes that the options presented will not be suitable for all properties in the Central Activity Area.

c)     Notes that the options presented will not be suitable for all properties in the Rural collections area.

 

BACKGROUND

2          Council’s waste collection system includes kerbside refuse and recycling collections, the management of public household recycling drop-off points in rural and CBD locations and a rural skip day service.

3          Council currently provides user-pays plastic bags for refuse collection.  Collection contractors have noted health and safety risks created by the manual handling of these bags.

4          The number of residents using the Council black refuse bags has been in steady decline and currently sits at approximately 25% of households.  The decrease is the result of a shift towards private collections and a preference for wheelie bins over bags for refuse collections.

5          Council also provides user-pays green-waste drop off services at Council transfer stations but does not provide any kerbside organic collection services.

6          There is a range of infrastructure in place which supports the operation of Dunedin’s current waste collection system.  Council-owned facilities include the Green Island landfill facility, a range of recycling drop-off centres in rural and urban locations, the transfer station and rummage store at Green Island, two additional rural transfer stations at Waikouaiti and Middlemarch, and a compost operation at Green Island landfill for green-waste only.  The processing of household recyclables is carried out by a privately-owned Material Recovery Facility (MRF).

National Position

7          In August 2020 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) released a report titled ‘Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa’ (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/recommendations-standardisation-of-kerbside-collections-aotearoa). Representatives from Dunedin City Council were involved in the development of this report.

8          The MfE report provides recommendations on opportunities to standardise domestic kerbside collections of waste in New Zealand to increase consistency, reduce confusion for householders, improve material quality, and reduce residual waste to landfill.  The report recommends separate collections for recycling, glass, food waste, and residual waste. The report recommends that local authorities should collect food waste but does not recommend the collection of green waste (section 7.2.1, page 35).

9          The MfE report does not identify a preference between wheelie bins or plastic bags for the collection of residual waste; however, it does include reference to a report commissioned by the WasteMINZ Health and Safety Sector group in 2010 which determined that automated wheelie bin collection systems were the most common collection system in New Zealand (46%) and accounted for 5% of injuries to staff. Bag collections were the second most common system (32%) and accounted for 36% of injuries to staff. Although the data is inconclusive, collection contractors have expressed a clear preference for the increased efficiency and reduced manual handling of automated wheelie bin collection systems.

DISCUSSION

10        Council’s waste collection system is delivered via two separate contracts:

a)         Urban and Rural Collections; and

b)        Central Activity Area Collections (CAA).

11        Council’s kerbside collection contracts expire in June 2022, and any changes to levels of service are best implemented at the start of new contracts. 

12        The collection zones are the combined blue and yellow areas shown on the attached map (Attachment A).

Urban Area Collections

13        Council’s kerbside refuse collection service in urban areas is currently a weekly collection of pre-paid official refuse bags. Council’s market share for its bag service has declined considerably over the last decade and currently sits at approximately 25% of households.  Most other households have a private waste wheelie bin collection service.

14        In Dunedin, most private wheelie bin services provide 240 L bins collected on a weekly basis.  Combining this high volume and frequency does not encourage waste minimisation.

15        Council’s current kerbside recycling service is a fortnightly two bin recycling system with a 240L bin for mixed recycling collected one week and a 45L glass crate collected in the alternate week.  This is paid for by a targeted rate of $66.30 per household. This cost is not sustainable for any future service given the recent changes in the recycling commodity markets.

Rural Collection Areas

16        Rural residents can use the user-pays bags service for their refuse through kerbside services provided in rural townships and on main roads between these areas.  This means that the more remotely located residents have to bring the bags to a given point on a collection route in order for their bags to be collected, or alternatively take their bags to the nearest transfer station.  Given the distance between properties in rural areas, this type of approach is not uncommon in New Zealand. 

17        Supporting the user-pays refuse service are the kerbside recycling collection service in rural townships and rural recycling hubs which are in place in Middlemarch, Lee Stream, and Hoopers Inlet.  The use of these hubs has been increasing since they began in 2013.  A ‘Pop-up’ recycling hub has been trialled successfully at Pukehiki and is currently being trialled at Momona village.

18        There are also skip day events held in eight rural areas, at which skip bins are provided for disposal of large, bulky waste.  Three of these events are run at each site per year, and these events are subsidised by general rates.

19        Providing a multi-bin collections system to every rural property in the Dunedin area is likely to be uneconomical; however, there may be some scope to expand the current waste and recycling collections area. The final design of collection services for rural areas will need to balance the desired level of service against the associated costs.  For this reason, it is intended that rural services will be considered during the kerbside collection contract procurement process in consultation with service providers.

Central Activity Area Collections

20        User-pays refuse bags are collected in the CBD every night.  The CBD also has a number of city recycling hubs similar to the rural drop off points.  These hubs are for CBD residents and, like the rural service, only provide for domestic quantities of household recyclables.  The hubs have been popular with residents since their introduction in 2018 and more hubs are planned.

21        The Central Activity Area (CAA) collection area is generally not suited to a multi-bin collections system due to the lack of available off-street storage for bins, density of properties, narrow access, one-way streets, and busy pedestrian areas.  For these reasons it is intended that the CAA collections contract will remain separate from the kerbside collections contract.

22        Those CAA properties that can safely receive any future kerbside bin collection service will have the option to ‘opt-in’ to this service. Other properties may need to retain the existing user pays nightly refuse bag collection service.

23        Practical alternative options for CAA waste collection services, especially regarding the health and safety risks of bags collections, will be explored during the procurement process for the CAA collections contract. In early 2020 Christchurch City Council issued a Request for Proposals for inner city waste collection services, including a request for alternatives to bag collections. It is hoped that the details of any new service model for the Christchurch inner city will be available for consideration during procurement for Dunedin’s future CAA collections contract.

24        The network of city recycling hubs will also continue to be expanded in order give inner city residents greater access to recycling services.

Preliminary Public Engagement on Options

25        On 5 August 2019 Council’s Infrastructure and Networks Committee approved preliminary community engagement to seek feedback on the options being considered for improvements to the kerbside collection service.  The two kerbside collection options proposed were:

·        Idea 1: Provides for the replacement of pre-paid black bags with a red-lidded refuse bin which is collected weekly.  Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or a 140L red bin.  There is no change to the 240L yellow mixed recycling bin and the 45L blue crate for glass recycling which are collected on alternating weeks.

·        Idea 2: Provides for the replacement of pre-paid black bags with a red-lidded refuse bin which is collected fortnightly.  A green-lidded bin is added for food and garden waste which is collected weekly.  Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or a 140L red bin and an 80L, 140L or 240L green bin.  There is no change to the 240L yellow mixed recycling bin and the 45L blue crate for glass recycling which are collected on alternating weeks.

26        Engagement on the two options was undertaken from 12 March to 24 April 2020, in tandem with the formal consultation on the Annual Plan 2020/21.  An information pamphlet was sent to every Dunedin household and the engagement was also promoted on the Council website, via an online survey and through Facebook and Twitter.  A copy of the information pamphlet is attached as Attachment B. 

Results of Public Engagement on Options

27        A summary of the feedback from community engagement is attached to this report (Attachment C).  In total, 10,158 responses were received (including 3,849 written submissions) with 20 % of all responses in favour of Idea 1, and 80 % of responses in favour of Idea 2.  Overall, submitters comments demonstrated support for the phasing out of black plastic rubbish bags, the introduction of a red bin for refuse collection, and a separate bin for the collection of organic waste.  The key themes from the submissions included:

·        While there was strong support for the phasing out of the black refuse bags, the user-pays system provides a strong incentive for reducing waste.  Black refuse bags were a preferred option for rural households without kerbside collection.

·        Where submitters supported change, they also sought flexibility relating to the size of the bins.  Submitters also requested a wheeled bin for glass recycling and the option of a smaller capacity bin for mixed recycling.

·        The increased cost of kerbside collection was an issue for those Submitters who supported Idea 1.  Those Submitters who were currently paying for a red refuse bin through a private provider were generally supportive of Idea 2.

·        Submitters expressed concern that the fortnightly collection of the red bin would present issues with cleanliness and hygiene.  Idea 2, which proposes weekly collection of food and garden waste and fortnightly collection of general household waste, shouldn’t result in cleanliness and hygiene issues as food and garden waste would still be collected weekly (i.e. the same frequency as the current black bag service).

·        The storage of bins is an issue for Submitters who have small sections, and for those living in flats or blocks of flats.

·        Managing an increased number of bins was an issue for Submitters with a steep access to the street, and for Submitters with limited mobility.  The increased number of bins on the footpath was identified as a health and safety issue for users of the footpath.

·        Further information was also sought on the intended end-use of food and green waste.

MfE ‘standardisation of kerbside collections’ report – additional alternative option

28        The public engagement on kerbside collection options was carried out prior to the release of the ‘Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa’ report by MfE in August 2020. Additionally, in September 2020, central government stated its intention to work towards standardised kerbside collection services. In response to these recent developments a new alternative option has been included in this report for consideration by Council.

29        This option is similar to ‘Idea 2’ which was favoured by 80% of responses during public engagement; however, the 80 Litre wheelie bin for food and garden waste is replaced with a 23 Litre bin for food waste only, which is still collected weekly. Households could also choose to have an additional 240 Litre garden waste collection bin, at additional cost, which would be collected fortnightly.

30        This new option (Four Bins – separate food and green waste collection) may also address some of the issues raised during public engagement on ideas one and two; namely, it reduces the cost of the proposed kerbside collection service and provides more flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, and those living in flats or blocks of flats as it reduces the number of larger wheelie bins required for the new service.

Alignment with the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target

31        In 2018/19, waste to Green Island Landfill was assessed as being the source of:

·        5.1% of Dunedin’s reported emissions, and

·        80% of the DCC’s total reported emissions.

32        Based on 2018 Green Island Landfill waste composition data and MfE 2019 emissions factors, the most significant reductions in emissions from general waste to Green Island Landfill (excluding sludges and other waste disposed of directly to the tip face) would be achieved by diverting timber from landfill, followed by organics (split relatively evenly between garden waste, and other organics) and then paper.

33        DCC kerbside recycling collection services already include paper, but expansion of kerbside collection services to include organics would help divert organics from landfill and therefore reduce emissions from this waste stream.

34        In terms of kerbside collection services, the final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review supports an emphasis on segregating food residuals/kitchen waste to maximise the value of outputs from, and range of potential applications for, this resource stream (e.g. anaerobic digestion, compost). This is aligned with the approach to organics proposed in the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which the Rapid Review generally supports. However, the Rapid Review also suggests that from a transport emissions perspective, garden waste is best retained on-site or as locally as possible and recommends investigating options to electrify the kerbside collection model.

35        The DCC’s Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme was assessed as reducing emissions associated with general waste to landfill by 24% overall. The scope of this programme included residential kerbside bin collection for kitchen organics; commercial kitchen organics drop-off at Green Island; green organics drop-off at Green Island resource recovery park and new urban resource recovery parks; and separate kitchen and garden organics processing at Green Island.

Recent examples from other local authorities

36        On 31 August 2020 Hamilton City Council began a new kerbside collection service which is funded from general rates. This new service replaced plastic refuse bags with a red-lid bin, and includes:

i)          Food scraps 23 litre bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Refuse (red lid) 120 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

37        Hamilton City Council does not provide kerbside green waste collections, or any alternative bin sizes for residents.

38        In early October Tauranga City Council announced it will be implementing a new kerbside collection service from 1 July 2021. This service consists of:

i)          Food scraps 23 litre bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

v)        Households can also choose to have an additional 240 litre garden waste collection bin (collected monthly) for an additional $60.

39        Hutt City Council has announced a new rubbish and fortnightly recycling service which will be implemented from 1 July 2021. This service replaces the existing rubbish bag service and consists of:

i)          Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

ii)         Refuse (red lid) 120 litre wheelie bin – collected weekly

iii)        Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Households can also choose to have an additional 240 litre garden waste collection bin (collected every four weeks) for an additional $95

40        Hutt City Council will not provide food waste collection, but will offer alternative sizes for refuse bins, with reduced rates for smaller bins and increased rates for larger bins. Charges for recycling collections will remain the same irrespective of bin size.

41        On 14 May 2020 Christchurch City Council resolved to review its service delivery model for waste management. The scope of this review was agreed on 5 November 2020 and includes:

a)         Review of the current kerbside collection including opportunities for increased flexibility for bin sizes and separated glass collection

b)        Opportunities to increase the quantity and viable inputs for organics processing

42        On 4 November 2020 Auckland City Council issued a Request for Proposals for the provision of kerbside bins and/or kitchen caddies for a food scraps collection, including the initial rollout of kerbside bins and caddies, plus ongoing supply.

Supporting Infrastructure

43        The draft capital budget for the 10 year plan 2021–31 includes $21,052,000 of funding for the resource recovery and waste diversion facilities required to support the proposed kerbside collection options, as well as supporting the targets contained in Council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan. The capital expenditure for these facilities will be included as part of the 10 year plan 2021–31 capital budget report to Council in December.

OPTIONS

44        There are three options presented in relation to kerbside collections:

a)         The “Four Bins – separate food and green waste collection” option which is a weekly food waste bin collection, and a fortnightly collection of a red bin, yellow bin, and blue crate. An optional fortnightly green waste bin collection is also included;

b)        The “Four Bins - combined food and green waste collection” option which is a weekly green bin collection for combined food and green waste, and a fortnightly collection of a red bin, yellow bin and blue crate;

c)         The “Three Bins - enhanced status quo” option which is a weekly red bin collection and a fortnightly yellow bin and blue crate collection.

45        There will need to be variations on each of the options for the Central Activity Area and the Rural collections area.  It is proposed that these variations will be explored further as part of the procurement process for new refuse and recyclables collection contracts.

46        As Council is required to consult on options for the 10 year plan it needs to decide which of the three options will be included in the consultation document.

47        The current system is funded by way of a targeted rate and this report has been prepared on the same basis.  If Council wishes to consider funding kerbside collection via the general rate, the impact of this will be reported in the January 2021 meeting.

Cost of Options - Summary Table:

 

Estimated Initial Capital Expenditure

Estimated Annual Operational Expenditure

Estimated Annual Targeted Rate (incl GST)

Option One – Recommended Option – Four Bins – Separate food and green waste collection

$20,625,000

$10,600,000

$270 - $310

(optional garden waste collection service would require additional targeted rate of $140 - $180).

Option Two – Four Bins – Combined food and green waste collection

$20,625,000

$11,900,000

$300 - $340

Option Three – Three Bins – Enhanced Status Quo

$9,905,000

$11,000,000

$260 - $300

 

Option One – Recommended Option – Four Bins – Separate food and green waste collection

48        This option is essentially the same as ‘Idea 2’ which was favoured by 80% of responses during public engagement during the Annual Plan 2020/21; however, the 80 Litre wheelie bin for food and garden waste is replaced with a 23 Litre bin for food waste only, collected weekly. Households could also choose to have an additional 240 Litre garden waste collection bin, at an additional cost of $140 - $180 per year, which would be collected fortnightly:

i)          Food scraps 23 litre bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

v)        Households can also choose to have an additional 240 litre garden waste collection bin, collected fortnightly

49        Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or 140L red bin and an 80L or 240L yellow bin. This option provides flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or living in flats or blocks of flats, as smaller bins are easier to manage and store between collections.

Advantages

·        Strongest alignment with the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which estimated an overall 27% reduction in annual waste to landfill and a 24% reduction in associated annual carbon emissions, from all programme initiatives combined.

·        Council provides a kerbside service for organics (food and green waste), which has been assessed as the second most significant source of emissions to Green Island Landfill from general waste.

·        Organic waste can be processed into compost (or similar) for beneficial re-use.

·        Separation of the organic waste streams will provide for greater flexibility in processing options.

·        Separation of the organic waste streams will provide for greater flexibility in the markets for processed material.

·        The attached MfE report notes that collecting food waste only (compared with collecting a combination of food and green waste) can increase householder awareness of food waste thus helping to reduce the amount of edible food that is wasted.

·        This option would achieve similar outcomes as Option Two, but the additional flexibility would also make this a more suitable option for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or those living in flats and multi-unit dwellings.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces the potential Health and Safety risks created by manual handling in the collection of Council refuse bags.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces plastic waste disposed to landfill.

·        The existing system of separating glass from other recyclable materials is considered best practice and results in a higher value for the collected material.

Disadvantages

·        Increased complexity of contracts for Council staff to manage.

·        Increased contract management costs for Council.

·        Additional costs will be incurred for construction of resource recovery and waste diversion facilities.

·        There is uncertainty over the markets for processed material.

·        On collection days, there would be up to three bins out on the footpath for each property.

·        The storage of bins on small sections or sections with steep access, and mobility issues for some residents, are potential issues associated with an increased number of bins.

Impact assessment – Option One

Debt

·        Would require borrowing of $20,625,000 to fund this option, which has been included in the targeted rate calculation.

Estimated Capital Expenditure

 

Supply and delivery of refuse bins

$3,620,000

Supply and delivery of organic bins

$3,620,000

Organic collection processing facility

$7,100,000

Mixed recycling material sorting facility

$6,285,000

Total

$20,625,000

 

 

Rates

·        The final rates requirement cannot be established until the procurement process for new contracts has been completed. It is also not known how many residents would take up the option for an additional garden waste collection service. It is expected that a targeted rate of $270 - $310 (not including garden waste collection) would be required to fund this option. The optional garden waste collection service would require additional funding of $140 - $180 per year.

Estimated Operational Expenditure

 

Refuse bin collection and disposal service

$5,000,000

Organic bins collection service (food waste)

$1,300,000

Organic bins collection service (green waste)

Cost unknown - will depend on uptake of the optional green bin collection

Recycling (mixed bin and glass crate) collection service (Current collection service)

$4,300.000

Total

$10,600,000

 

Level of service

·        There would be an increase in the level of service provided to the community

Climate change

·        Adoption of a circular economy approach will reduce the amount of waste disposed to landfill and assist in reducing our impacts on the environment. When materials are reused rather than put into landfill the material is no longer waste, and the requirement for new raw materials is reduced.

Zero carbon

·        Preliminarily assessed as resulting in a reduction in both DCC and city-wide emissions. This option has the strongest alignment with the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which has estimated an overall 24% reduction in annual carbon emissions associated with general waste to landfill, from all initiatives combined. A kerbside service for organics would help address the second most significant source of emissions to Green Island Landfill from general waste. An ‘opt in’ garden waste collection may promote on-site management of garden waste where this is feasible, minimising transport emissions.

 

Option Two – Four Bins – Combined food and green waste collection

50        This option was included in preliminary public engagement during the Annual Plan 2020/21 and was favoured by 80% of responses. It is essentially the same as Option One; however, the collection of food and garden waste is combined:

i)          Food and Garden waste (green lid) 80 litre bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

51        Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or 140L red bin, an 80L or 240L yellow bin, and an 80L, 140L, or 240L green bin. This option provides some flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or living in flats or blocks of flats, as smaller bins are easier to manage and store between collections.

Advantages

·        Partial alignment with the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which estimated an overall 27% reduction in annual waste to landfill and a 24% reduction in associated annual carbon emissions, from all programme initiatives combined.

·        Council provides a kerbside service for organics, which has been assessed as the second most significant source of emissions to Green Island Landfill from general waste.

·        The addition of an organics (i.e. food waste and green waste) collection bin will encourage more recycling.

·        Food and green waste can be processed into compost (or similar) for beneficial re-use.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces the potential Health and Safety risks created by manual handling in the collection of Council refuse bags.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces plastic waste disposed to landfill.

·        The existing system of separating glass from other recyclable materials is considered best practice and results in a higher value for the collected material.

Disadvantages

·        Increased complexity of contracts for Council staff to manage.

·        Increased contract management costs for Council.

·        Additional costs will be incurred for construction of resource recovery and waste diversion facilities.

·        Combining the organic waste streams (i.e. food waste and green waste) will reduce the flexibility in processing options.

·        There is uncertainty over the markets for processed material.

·        On collection days, there would be up to three bins out on the footpaths for each property.

·        The storage of bins on small sections or sections with steep access, and mobility issues for some residents, are potential issues associated with an increased number of bins.

Impact assessment – Option Two

Debt

·        Would require borrowing of $20,625,000 to fund this option, which has been included in the targeted rate calculation.

Estimated Capital Expenditure

 

Supply and delivery of refuse bins

$3,620,000

Supply and delivery of organic bins

$3,620,000

Organic collection processing facility

$7,100,000

Mixed recycling material sorting facility

$6,285,000

Total

$20,625,000

Rates

·        The final rates requirement cannot be established until the procurement process for new contracts has been completed. It is expected that a targeted rate of between $300 - $340 would be required to fund this option.

Estimated Operational Expenditure

 

Refuse bin collection and disposal service

$5,000,000

Organic bin collection service

$2,600,000

Recycling (mixed bin and glass crate) collection service (Current collection service)

$4,300.000

Total

$11,900,000

 

Level of service

·        There would be an increase in the level of service provided to the community

Climate change

·        Adoption of a circular economy approach will reduce the amount of waste disposed to landfill and assist in reducing our impacts on the environment. When materials are reused rather than put into landfill the material is no longer waste, and the requirement for new raw materials is reduced.

Zero carbon

·        Preliminarily assessed as resulting in a reduction in both DCC and city-wide emissions. This option has partial alignment with the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which has estimated an overall 24% reduction in annual carbon emissions associated with general waste to landfill, from all initiatives combined. A kerbside service for organics would help address the second most significant source of emissions to Green Island Landfill from general waste. A ‘by default’ garden waste collection may disincentivise on-site management of garden waste where this is feasible, increasing transport emissions.

Option Three – Three Bins – Enhanced Status Quo

A close up of a device

Description generated with high confidence

52        This option replaces the current pre-paid plastic refuse bag collection with a wheelie bin refuse collection service:

i)          Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

53        Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or 140L red bin and an 80L or 240L yellow bin. This option provides flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or living in flats or blocks of flats, as smaller bins are easier to manage and store between collections.

Advantages

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces the potential Health and Safety risks created by manual handling in the collection of Council refuse bags.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces plastic waste disposed to landfill.

·        The existing system of separating glass from other recyclable materials is considered best practice and results in a higher value for the collected material.

Disadvantages

·        Increased complexity of contracts for Council staff to manage.

·        Increased contract management costs for Council.

·        Additional costs will be incurred for construction of resource recovery and waste diversion facilities.

·        The storage of bins on small sections or sections with steep access, and mobility issues for some residents, are potential issues associated with an increased number of bins.

·        Council does not reduce organic waste to landfill or the resulting carbon emissions from organic waste to landfill.

Impact assessment – Option Three

Debt

·        Would require borrowing of $9,905,000 to fund this option, which has been included in the targeted rate calculation.

Estimated Capital Expenditure

 

Supply and delivery of refuse bins

$3,620,000

Mixed recycling material sorting facility

$6,285,000

Total

$9,905,000

 

Rates

·        The final rates requirement cannot be established until the procurement process for new contracts has been completed. It is expected that a targeted rate of $260 - $300 would be required to fund this option.

Estimated Operational Expenditure

 

Refuse bin collection and disposal service

$6,700,000

Recycling (mixed bin and glass crate) collection service (Current collection service)

$4,300.000

Total

$11,000,000

 

Level of service

·        There would be an increase in the level of service provided to the community

Climate change

·        This option will have no impact on climate change resilience or adaptation

Zero carbon

·        Preliminarily assessed as resulting in no impact on DCC or city-wide emissions

NEXT STEPS

54        Council’s preferred and alternative options will be included in the consultation document for the 10 year plan 2021–31.

 

 

Signatories

Author:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Authoriser:

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Map of Collection Zones

46

b

Information pamphlet - initial kerbside engagement

47

c

Summary of Preliminary Engagement on Kerbside Collection Options

49

 

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

 

The Waste Futures Project contributes to the Environment Strategy by enabling a robust evaluation of potential options for Dunedin City Council to continue to ensure effective reduction and management of solid waste to achieve the goals set out in its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, with appropriate regard given to the goals of the Emissions Management and Reduction Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Iwi have been identified as a stakeholder and have been engaged during the Better Business Case options development phase, including the proposed changes to Council kerbside collections.

Sustainability

The Waste and Environmental Solutions activity contributes positively to the environmental interests of the community through refuse and recycling collection at the kerbside and public places, educating and promoting environmentally sustainable behaviour and managing landfill and transfer station facilities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The capital expenditure requirements for resource recovery and waste diversion facilities to support the Council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, and also the proposed kerbside collection options, have been included in the draft capital budgets for the 10 year plan 2021–31.

Financial considerations

This report details both estimated operational costs and the capital expenditure required for each kerbside collections option.

Significance

The decision is considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The decision will be part of the 10 year plan special consultative process. 

Engagement – external

External engagement has been undertaken with the community and with stakeholders including Ngai Tahu, Otago Regional Council, and the Ministry for the Environment for the development of potential future operating models. 

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement is ongoing for the development of potential future operating models with the Water Futures Steering Group.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal advice has been undertaken on the various components of the Waste Futures Project to ensure statutory compliance and minimisation of litigation risk.  A separate paper is included in the non-public part of the agenda that provides legal advice in relation to this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest. 

Community Boards

Kerbside collections are of interest to the whole community and are of particular interest to Community Boards in the rural collection areas. Community Boards will have an opportunity to provide feedback as part of the 10 year plan consultation process.

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 


 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

10 Year Plan - Early engagement feedback

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report summarises the feedback received through early engagement on the 10 Year Plan 2021–31.

2          Early engagement was undertaken between 20 September and 30 October 2020. It provided an opportunity for the community to give early feedback on the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 via an online survey, and targeted stakeholder group meetings.

3          This was the first time that early engagement has been formally undertaken for Dunedin’s 10 Year Plan.  The goals were to increase awareness of the 10 Year Plan process, to inform the community and encourage feedback, prior to the formal consultation that will take place in 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the feedback received from the community through early engagement on the Council’s 10 Year Plan 2021-31 and that feedback will inform reports on the 10 Year Plan.

 

BACKGROUND

4          At its meeting on 25 August 2020, Council considered a report that outlined options for early engagement with the community, in the context of the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 development.  At that meeting, Council resolved the following:

“Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Rachel Elder):

That the Council:

a)        Approves Option Three – Online and targeted stakeholder meetings.

b)        Notes that staff would implement the early engagement schedule.

Motion carried (CNL/2020/069) on a show of hands

5          It was considered that early engagement feedback could be used to help inform Council decision making at the December 2020 and January 2021 10 Year Plan Council meetings.

6          The process was intended to be a ‘check in’ with the community, raising awareness of the 10 Year Plan, and the current and future challenges facing Council.

Engagement approach and content

7          Early engagement on the draft 10 Year Plan was conducted through a DCC website survey and a series of targeted stakeholder meetings (Attachment A).  It also included providing engagement resources and collateral to Community Boards.

8          Two general questions were asked with an opportunity also provided to include additional comments.

a)         What should DCC’s priorities be?

b)        What’s important to you?

c)         Any other comments.

9          The online survey and targeted stakeholder meetings provided information on DCC activities, and financial information on income and spending.  It included specific mention of Dunedin’s net carbon zero 2030 target and the future kerbside rubbish and recycling system.

10        An update on the 10 year planning process was also provided, and full consultation on the 10 year plan was signalled as likely to take place in March 2021.

DISCUSSION

Online Survey Feedback

11        A total of 55 submissions were received through the online survey, covering a range of topics.  The most discussed topics are shown in the table below:

Topic

Number of comments

Transport

52

Facilities – recreational, outdoor

25

Housing

16

Climate change

13

Waste Management

13

Water services

10

Other

27

 

12        A link to detailed comments from online feedback is provided at: https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council/annual-and-long-term-plans/draft-10-year-plan-2021-2031/draft-10-year-plan-public-feedback-received-during-our-quick-check-in.

Transport

13        The majority of feedback received related to the need to increase Council investment on roading and footpath upgrades, make further improvements in road safety measures, and to provide more cycleways. 

14        Affordable parking was a priority area of concern. Specific parking issues raised included location and rules around mobility parks, and the need to consider mobility parking issues as part of future builds (e.g. hospital rebuild).

15        The need for affordability and accessible public transport was also raised.

Facilities

16        Feedback supported increased investment in Council’s recreational facilities. This primarily included play spaces, halls, and community and other outdoor facilities.

Housing

17        The need for ‘more affordable housing’ was the key feedback message, with some submitters suggesting Council increase housing supply through making more land available and relaxing subdivision requirements.

18        Other housing related comments noted the importance of coastal protection of homes, stopping the sale of historic houses in Dunedin and, where possible, reducing the number of Council’s community housing units and houses.

Climate change

19        Early community feedback on climate change supported the city’s net carbon zero 2030 goal and the South Dunedin Future programme.  Other comments supported sustainable initiatives, market gardens and improving biodiversity outcomes in the city. The effects of sea level rise were also raised, with some submissions calling for Council to play a greater role in providing certainty for homes in low lying and vulnerable areas.

Waste management

20        Comments relating to waste ranged from encouraging greater adherence to Council’s 2020 Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, support for a green waste pick up service, general waste minimisation and concerns over transporting waste to the new proposed landfill at Smooth Hill. The new kerbside and recycling model was flagged as a specific item that will be consulted on as part of formal engagement.

Water services

21        Feedback on the three waters network focused primarily on maintenance of the city’s stormwater and wastewater networks, with other comments noting the importance of ecological values as they relate to stormwater systems, and minimising disruptions to the city’s water supply.

Other feedback

22        Other feedback topics included planning issues, and arts and culture.  Council rates, and capital and operational expenditure feedback focused on redirecting Council funding toward renewals, and the need for rate reductions.

Targeted engagement meetings

23        Nine targeted stakeholder meetings were held during the early engagement period, attended by approximately 270 people. A list of the meetings is provided at Attachment A. 

24        While stakeholders raised a number of topics at the meetings, generally feedback tended to be ‘forum specific’. Feedback additional to that received from the online survey included the following:

·    Importance of economic growth and development in Dunedin, to drive opportunities and build economic confidence

·    Request to continue place-based funding

·    Need for youth employment through creative industries

·    Need for a performing arts venue

·    Pathways for Pasifika home ownership, more accessible funding pathways for Pasifika groups, and improved relationships with the DCC through the establishment of governance groups

·    Need for a multi-ethnic voice in Council

·    Need to address wellbeing issues, and in particular mental health, support for elderly and the challenges of bullying on school aged children.

Engagement with mana whenua

25        Staff sought feedback from mana whenua representatives at a hui on 29 October 2020, on Council’s strategic priorities and framework.  A range of feedback was received around potential improvements to the framework, considerations for governance arrangements (i.e. the Māori Participation Working Party) and other opportunities around capturing and using Māori data to inform decision making.

Evaluation

26        DCC staff consider the early engagement process was successful in terms of the objectives, which were to inform members of the community and increase awareness of the 10 Year Plan ahead of formal consultation next year. Staff also considered early engagement as a useful step as part of an ongoing conversation between Council and the community.

27        Specific feedback items will be used to inform relevant Council 10 Year Plan reports brought forward to Council as part of the 10 Year Plan process. The topics raised will also be used to inform the draft 10 Year Plan consultation document.

28        If an early engagement process is adopted for a future 10 Year Plan, there may be benefit in conducting this earlier in the 10 Year Plan development process. This would enable a clearer establishment or understanding of community priorities ahead of reporting to Council and the development of the draft 10 Year Plan.

OPTIONS

29        As this is an update report there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

30        Early engagement feedback will inform planning for the formal 10 Year Plan consultation, which is expected to take place in March 2021.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sean Jacobs - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Suzie Ballantyne - Policy Manager

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

10 Year Plan Early Engagement Targeted Stakeholder Meetings

75

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report summarises democratic input into local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities. As part of this process an opportunity has been provided for the community to express their view and aspirations, in the context of the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031 development.

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

 

Early engagement in the context of the 10 year plan 2021-2031 development is relevant to all strategies in the DCC’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua were included as part of early engagement, as referred to in the report.

Sustainability

Early engagement provided an opportunity for the community to express their views and aspirations relating to DCC’s work towards sustainability and wider climate change ambitions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Early engagement relates to the 10 Year Plan and related strategies and policies.

Financial considerations

Early engagement activity costs were met within existing budgets.

Significance

Early engagement was not driven by a specific decision/proposal/issue but was delivered in alignment with the principles outlined in the Significance and Engagement policy.

Engagement – external

External engagement was held through online feedback and a series of targeted stakeholder meetings, which were approved by Council.

Engagement - internal

The early engagement plan was prepared with input from staff, including community engagement practitioners, from across all DCC departments. These include Community and Planning, Corporate Policy, Community Development, Communications and Marketing, Enterprise Dunedin and Ara Toi.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

COVID-19 was identified as a potential risk that could have impacted face to face activities. Plans were in place to ensure any disruptions to planned stakeholder meetings were managed in alignment with central government guidance.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards were provided with early engagement collateral and directed to the online survey.

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

2020 Annual Reports for the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Group

Department: Executive Leadership Team

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides the 2020 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) Group companies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the 2020 Annual Reports of:

-      Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

-      Aurora Energy Ltd

-      City Forests Ltd

-      Delta Utility Services Ltd

-      Dunedin City Treasury Ltd

-      Dunedin Railways Ltd

-      Dunedin Stadium Property Trust Ltd

-      Dunedin Venues Management Ltd

-      Dunedin International Airport Ltd

 

BACKGROUND

2          The subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd are required to prepare and deliver an Annual Report to Council for noting.

DISCUSSION

3          The 2020 Annual Reports of the subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd are now presented for formal noting by Council.

4          The Annual Reports are attached to this report and will be available on the Dunedin City Council website.

5          As this report is for administrative and statutory reporting purposes, a summary of considerations and options is not required.

OPTIONS

6          Not applicable

 

Signatories

Author:

Gavin Logie - Acting General Manager Finance

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

DCHL Cover Report (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

b

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin City Holdings Limited (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

c

2020 Annual Report - Aurora Energy Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

d

2020 Annual Report - City Forests Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

e

2020 Annual Report - Delta Utility Services Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

f

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin City Treasury Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

g

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin Railways Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

h

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin Stadium Property Limited (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

i

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin Venues Management Limited (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

j

2020 Annual Report - Dunedin International Airport Ltd (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

k

Media Release DCHL Annual Report 2020 (Under Separate Cover 2)

 

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Waipori Fund - Quarter Ending September 2020

Department: Finance

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The attached report from Dunedin City Treasury Limited provides information on the results of the Waipori Fund for the quarter ended 30 September 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the report from Dunedin City Treasury Limited on the Waipori Fund for the quarter ended 30 September 2020.

 

OPTIONS

4          Not applicable.

Signatories

Author:

Richard Davey - Treasury Manager

Authoriser:

Gavin Logie - Acting General Manager Finance

Attachments

 

Title

Page


a

Waipori Report 30 September 2020

80

 

 SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions for 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.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no know implications for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report fulfils the financial reporting requirements for Council.

Financial considerations

Not applicable – reporting only.

Significance

Not applicable – reporting only.

Engagement – external

This report has been prepared for and approved by the Board of Dunedin City Treasury Limited.

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

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Financial Result - Period Ended 31 October 2020

Department: Finance

 

 

 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 October 2020 and the financial position as at that date.

2          As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a)     Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 31 October 2020 and the Financial Position as at that date.

 

BACKGROUND

3          This report provides the financial statements for the period ended 31 October 2020.  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

4          The year to date favourable revenue variance included increased activity at the Green Island Landfill, funding for economic development projects and higher building services activity. Aquatic services revenue was also higher due to increased gym memberships.  Some of the membership revenue represents renewals deferred from last year.

5          Overall expenditure was a favourable spend of $2.297 million. This was due to favourable interest costs, the timing of some grant and service level agreement payments and software licensing expenditure year to date being less than anticipated.  The timing of some maintenance costs in Parks and Transportation also contributed to the favourable variance.

These favourable variances were partially offset by higher ETS and variable contract costs at the Green Island landfill as a result of increased activity, and Transportation costs relating to the major projects programme and the Shaping Future Dunedin project. 

6          The Waipori Fund was favourable year to date with a strong performance from the New Zealand equity market. The current month movements were mixed with international equities being impacted by investor concern over the coronavirus resurgence in Europe. 

7          Capital expenditure across all areas was running behind budget, with the timing of some expenditure delayed while project briefs and procurement activities are completed.

NEXT STEPS

8          Financial Result Reports will regularly be presented to future meetings of either the Finance and Council Controlled Organisation Committee or Council.

Signatories

Author:

Lawrie Warwood - Financial Analyst

Authoriser:

Gavin Logie - Acting General Manager Finance

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Summary Financial Information

87

b

Statement of Financial Performance

88

c

Statement of Financial Position

89

d

Statement of Cashflows

90

e

Capital Expenditure Summary

91

f

Summary of Operating Variances

92

g

Financial Review

93

  



Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Financial Review

 

For the period ended 31 October 2020

This report provides a detailed commentary on the Council’s financial result for the period ended
31 October 2020 and the financial position at that date.

 

 

net surplus/(Deficit) (including waipori)

 

 

 

The net deficit (including Waipori) for the period ended 31 October 2020 was $3.526 million or
$5.276 million lower than budget.

 


 

REVENUE

The total revenue for the period was $104.159 million or $1.380 million greater than budget. 

 

The major variances were as follows:

 

Other Operating Revenue

Actual $24.027 million, Budget $22.404 million, Favourable variance $1.623 million

 

Waste and Environmental revenue was favourable $666k due to higher post lockdown tonnage entering the Green Island landfill than anticipated.  This was partially offset by an increase in landfill variable costs – see comments below.

 

Aquatic Services revenue was favourable $233k due to greater than budgeted revenue for the gym and the swim school. The various covid-19 alert levels have had an impact on the timing of the provision of some services at Moana Pool.  This included the renewal of gym memberships delayed from the lockdown period.

 

Regulatory Services revenue was favourable $344k primarily due to increased building services activity.

 

Economic Development revenue was favourable $244k due to unbudgeted funding received for the Centre of Digital Excellence and Otago Regional Economic Development projects.

 

 

Grants and Subsidies Revenue

Actual $13.182 million, Budget $14.118 million, Unfavourable variance $936k

 

Transportation revenue was unfavourable $1.246 million due to the lower level of subsidised capital expenditure – see comments below.

 

This unfavourable variance was partially offset by unbudgeted government funding of $72k allocated to the maintenance of community halls and funding of $120k for the Urban Link predator control project.

 

 

Expenditure

The total expenditure for the period was $110.990 million or $2.297 million less than budget.

 

The major variances were as follows:

 

Operations and Maintenance Costs

Actual $23.209 million, Budget $23.153 million, Unfavourable variance $56k

 

Waste and Environmental Services costs were higher than budgeted due to additional ETS costs and landfill variable costs associated with the higher tonnage entering the Green Island Landfill.

 

Corporate Policy costs were higher than budget due to costs associated with the climate change 2030 review.

 

These unfavourable variances were partially offset by the timing of some maintenance activities (Parks and Roading) being different than anticipated.

 

Consumable and General Costs

Actual $7.892 million, Budget $8.123 million, Favourable variance $231k

 

BIS costs were favourable $454k due to the timing of software licensing and IT consultant’s expenditure.

 

 

Grants and Subsidies Costs

Actual $7.767 million, Budget $8.320 million, Favourable variance $553k

 

Grant costs across the organisation were favourable due to the timing of payments including various community grants, and disbursements from the Covid19 support fund.

 

 

Interest

Actual $2.954 million, Budget $3.954 million, Favourable variance $1.000 million

 

Interest expenditure was less than budget due to a favourable floating interest rate applied to the non-fixed interest borrowing, along with a lower loan balance.

Note that as at 31 October, $20.0 million of the term loan balance was subject to historical fixed rates of interest, with the balance being charged at the floating rate as set by Dunedin City Treasury Limited.

 

 

WAIPORI FUND NET OPERATING RESULT

Actual $3.305 million, Budget $1.706 million, Favourable variance $1.599 million

 

The Waipori Fund was favourable year to date due mainly to the strong performance of New Zealand equity market.  International markets continue to be impacted by investor concern over a coronavirus resurgence in Europe.

 

 

Statement of Financial Position

A Statement of Financial Position is provided as Attachment C.

 

Short term investments of $11.174 million relate to the Waipori Fund.

 

Total Debt was below budget year to date reflecting the lower level of capital expenditure.

 

 


 

Capital Expenditure

 

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

 

Total capital expenditure for the period was $30.088 million or 71.3% of the year to date budget.

 

 

 

Corporate Services capital expenditure was $866k underspent

 

The underspend was primarily driven by lower than expected expenditure on a number of key IT projects including the Payroll System Replacement, Online Services, and Mobility Solutions, Infrastructure Program and Records Management System.

 

 

Property capital expenditure was $3.910 million underspent

 

The underspend was due the delayed timing of projects including the Civic Centre Roof Renewal, the School St housing renewal, and the Wall St Manuka Causeway project.  The Palmyra redevelopment project is progressing ahead of budget.

 

 

Transport capital expenditure was $3.540 million underspent

 

This underspend primarily relates to timing associated with new projects pending completion of design and procurement activities.  This includes Urban cycleways and intersection improvements.  Renewals expenditure is in line with budget.


 

Three Waters capital expenditure was $2.846 million underspent

 

The underspend was driven in part by some project budgets being phased within the first quarter of the year, whereas project delivery is going to occur later in the year.  The timing of projects is dependent on a number of activities including finalisation of the planning work and completing a successful procurement process.

 

 

Comments from group activities

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

 

 

Corporate Services - $912k Favourable

Operating expenses were favourable due to the timing of software licence fees, IT consultants and IT managed services.  Grants expenditure was also favourable due to the timing of the Aukaha grant.

 

 

Parks and Recreation - $921k Favourable

Overall revenue was favourable with the various Covid-19 alert levels having an impact on the timing of the provision of some services at Moana Pool.  Gym memberships in particular were higher than budget with renewals deferred from the last quarter in 2019/20 now being completed.

 

Parks operating costs were favourable $461k with contract maintenance expenditure to date   slightly below budget.

 

 

Transportation - $1.438 million Unfavourable

Capital subsidies revenue was unfavourable due to the lower than budgeted level of subsidised capital expenditure year to date.

 

 

Waste and Environmental - $258k Favourable

This variance reflected the net impact of higher than expected post lockdown tonnage entering the Green Island landfill.

 

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Regulatory Subcommittee Recommendations on Submissions to the Proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and Proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020

Department: Civic

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1          This report presents the findings of the Regulatory Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) on submissions to the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and the proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020 (the bylaws).

2          After considering submissions received, the Subcommittee recommends some amendments to the bylaws as notified.  The Subcommittee is satisfied that the bylaws, including recommended amendments, are the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems, are the most appropriate form of bylaw, and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes that the Regulatory Subcommittee has heard and considered submissions on the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and the proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020 as notified.

b)     Approves the recommended amendments to specific provisions of the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and the proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020.

c)     Adopts the Trade Waste Bylaw in Attachment A as recommended by the Regulatory Subcommittee.

d)     Adopts the Stormwater Quality Bylaw in Attachment B as recommended by the Regulatory Subcommittee.

e)     Approves a date of effect for the Trade Waste Bylaw and the Stormwater Quality Bylaw of 1 February 2021.

f)     Revokes the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 from 1 February 2021.

 

BACKGROUND

3          The Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 (the 2008 Bylaw) includes provisions regulating the discharge of trade waste to the wastewater system and some provisions to regulate the quality of stormwater discharge to the stormwater system.

4          The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires established bylaws to be reviewed after no more than ten years.  The review of the 2008 Bylaw commenced in February 2018. On 28 May 2019 the Council determined a bylaw was the most appropriate way of regulating discharges of trade waste to the wastewater system and the quality of discharges to the stormwater system and approved development of a separate stormwater quality bylaw in parallel with the development of an updated trade waste bylaw.

5          For trade waste, the review resulted in proposals to clarify, simplify and update the provisions of the bylaw; increase requirements for some discharges; and removal of registration and application forms from the bylaw.

6          For stormwater, the review resulted in proposals to clarify the types of contaminants that would not meet stormwater performance standards and therefore should not be discharged to the stormwater system; inclusion of examples of pre-treatment that may be appropriate for some discharges; and strengthened provisions on monitoring, enforcement and offences.

7          The proposed bylaws seek to manage discharges with the highest potential risk to the wastewater and stormwater systems, minimise impacts on the environment, protect people, and ensure effective and efficient management of wastewater and stormwater systems.

8          On 4 May 2020, the Council determined the bylaws were the most appropriate form of bylaws, and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Council approved the Statement of Proposal and the proposed bylaws for public consultation.

Public consultation

9          A two-month opportunity was provided for the public to consider the Statement of Proposal and proposed bylaws and give feedback, in accordance with the special consultative procedure prescribed by the LGA. 

10        The proposed bylaws were notified in the Otago Daily Times and on the DCC website. Letters and emails were sent to approximately 1000 existing trade waste customers and other business or organisations who may be affected by, or interested in, the proposed bylaws. This included the Otago Regional Council (ORC), mana whenua, the Stormwater Stakeholder Group (associated with the DCC’s resource consents to discharge stormwater to the coastal marine area), and businesses such as vehicle sales yards, tankered waste operators, auto-dismantlers, construction companies, roading engineering or construction companies, metal merchants and plumbers.

11        Copies of the Statement of Proposal, proposed bylaws, and supporting material were available on the DCC website and at DCC libraries and service centres.  The bylaws were also sent to the Minister of Health for comment (LGA s148).

12        The submission period extended from 17 June to 17 Aug 2020, and the hearing was held on 15 October 2020, with deliberations reconvening on 27 October 2020.

DISCUSSION

Results of consultation

13        Hon Julie Anne Genter, the then Associate Minister of Health (the Minister) was supportive of the bylaws and recommended minor amendments to the Trade Waste Bylaw.

14        Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki were consulted with in preparation of the bylaws.  They advised they did not have any issues with the proposed bylaws.

15        Four submissions were received.  Three were from organisations and one from an individual. The organisations were the Southern District Health Board, University of Otago, and the ‘Oil Companies’ (a shared submission representing the views of BP Oil New Zealand Limited, Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited and Z Energy Limited).

16        Three of the four submitters agreed with the overall direction of the bylaws and suggested only minor amendments. The Oil Companies objected to aspects of both bylaws and requested the bylaws be deferred to enable substantial redrafting to address their concerns.

17        The Subcommittee considered all the feedback submitted to them and heard the views of one submitter during the hearing.

Subcommittee findings

18        The Subcommittee met on 15 October to hear submitters and to deliberate on all submissions received.  The hearing was then reconvened on 27 October. 

19        The Subcommittee has considered the matters raised by submitters and recommended amendments.  The recommended amendments can be summarized as follows:

a)         Updates for pharmaceutical waste disposal (recommended by the Associate Minister of Health for all Trade Waste Bylaw reviews to reflect advice of the Pharmacy Guild of NZ and changes they will be seeking to NZ standards).

b)        Changes to support improved drafting clarity.

20        Other matters raised by submitters were considered but resulted in no recommended changes to the proposed bylaws.  Of note, was the Oil Companies concern that the stormwater provisions are onerous, particularly in that they will be required to discharge service station forecourt runoff to the wastewater system rather than the stormwater system and that discharge of contaminants to the stormwater system is not permitted. The Oil Companies consider that a decision on the proposed bylaws should be deferred to enable substantial redrafting to address their concerns.

21        Minor editorial amendments, such as updating the dates in the bylaws and the status of the 2008 Bylaw, have also been made.

22        The Subcommittee findings are:

“Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Committee:

 

a)     Notes the Ministerial feedback and submissions amendments to the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020.

b)     Recommends that Council adopts the proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw with the following changes:

             i)          Amend clause 1.1 as follows:

A person must not, without the prior approval of Council, discharge or allow to be discharged any contaminant to the stormwater system.

No person may, without the prior approval of the Council, discharge, directly or indirectly, a contaminant into the stormwater system that is likely (individually or cumulatively) to cause nuisance, or adversely affect the environment or operation of the stormwater system. The Council may specify conditions with any approval given.

ii)         Amended Explanatory note 1.1 by including ‘Hydrocarbons’ on the list of discharges that should not be discharged to the stormwater system.

Iii)       Amended Explanatory note 1.3, by adding a sentence to the end of the explanatory note as follows:

The pre-treatment suggested for vehicle washing is not in relation to discharges from commercial vehicle wash facilities which are manged under the Trade Waste Bylaw.

c)         Recommends that Council adopts the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw with the following changes:

i)          Amend clause 2.8 (d) as follows:

2.8(d)             activities resulting in the creation discharge of trench water

ii)         Amend Explanatory note 13 as follows:

Explanatory note 13: Typically, trench water will be required treatment to pass through dewatering facilities to reduce contaminants (including sediment) prior to discharge.

 

Iii)       Amend Schedule A - Permitted Trade Waste by adding the following new clauses:

A.1 (c)            And pharmaceutical waste (except those containing cytotoxic compounds or material, which are prohibited by C.2(g)(iv)) discharged does not exceed the following volumes and concentrations of active ingredients per calendar month:

Volume limit

Active concentration

10 Litres

125mg/5ml

5 Litres

250mg/5ml

3 Litres

Above 250mg/5ml

A.1(d)             If any limits in A.1(a) or A.1(b) are different to the active concentration limits in A.1(c), the lower limit becomes the permitted discharge.

iv)       Amend Schedule A – Permitted Trade Waste, explanatory note 22 as follows:

…Businesses that only generate domestic waste (i.e. no trade waste) such as officers offices, some retailers or wholesalers are not captured as domestic waste is not managed under the bylaw. 

v)        Amend Schedule C - Prohibited Trade Waste by adding the following new clause:

C.2 (g)(iv)      Any waste containing or contaminated by cytotoxic compounds or material

vi)       Amend Schedule C – Prohibited Trade Waste, clause C.2(h) as follows:

Any material with radioactivity levels more than that stated in CSP1 Code of safe practice for the use of unsealed radioactive materials (2010), Ministry of Health Office of Radiation Safety Waste with radioactive levels in excess of the Office of Radiation Safety guidelines (ORS C11: Code of Practice for Unsealed Radioactive Materials (2020), Ministry of Health).

d)        Recommends that Council approves the date of effect for the Trade Waste Bylaw and the Stormwater Quality Bylaw of 1 February 2021.

e)        Recommends that Council revokes the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 from 1 February 2021.

Motion carried (RSCCC/2020/010001)”

 

23        See Attachment A for the amended Trade Waste Bylaw.

24        See Attachment B for the amended Stormwater Quality Bylaw.

25        See Attachment C for the minutes of the hearing and deliberations.

26        See Attachment D for key differences between the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 and the amended Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020 and Trade Waste Bylaw 2020.

Reasons for recommendations

27        Consideration has been given to the potential cumulative impacts of all discharges to the stormwater system and changing community expectations regarding urban water quality.  Managing the quality of discharges to the stormwater system is necessary to minimise contaminates being discharged into the environment and helps to meet the current and future needs of the community.

28        The Subcommittee also acknowledge the changing regulatory environment regarding environmental management and expectations, particularly the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM). The NPSFM requires all freshwater be managed in a way that gives effect to Te Mana o Te Wai and is not limited to the specific aspects of freshwater management referred to in the NPSFM.

29        The NPSFM will lead to future changes in Regional Planning documents, including stormwater management rules.  While development of those rules considering NPSFM requirements is pending, the DCC has adopted a precautionary approach with its bylaws in anticipation that these rules are likely to become more stringent.  The Subcommittee considers that the proposed bylaws and the recommended amendments generally align with the objectives of the NPSFM.  It is also noted that any bylaw may be reviewed in response to any new regional rules that are developed.

30        The Subcommittee is satisfied that the bylaws, including recommended amendments, remain the most appropriate way of regulating discharges of trade waste to the wastewater system and the quality of discharges to the stormwater system, are the most appropriate form of bylaw, and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The Subcommittee consider there is no need to defer making of the bylaws to enable substantial redrafting to address the concerns of one submitter.

Date of effect

31        It is recommended that the bylaws come into effect on the 1 February 2021. Until that time, compliance, educational and enforcement activities related to trade waste and stormwater quality will continue under the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008. Once the new bylaws come into effect education will be one of the main approaches to implementing the bylaws.

OPTIONS

Option One - accept the recommendations of Subcommittee (Recommended Option)

32        Approve the Subcommittee recommendations to:

a)         Make amendments to specific provisions of the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020; and

b)        Adopt the Trade Waste Bylaw and Stormwater Quality Bylaw, operative from 1 February 2021, and revoke the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008.

Advantages

·    Addresses matters raised by submitters appropriately.

·    Discharges of trade waste to the wastewater system and the quality of discharges to the stormwater system are appropriately regulated.

Disadvantages

·    Does not address all submitters concerns.

Option Two – return the bylaws back to the Subcommittee for further consideration

Advantages

·    The subcommittee has further opportunity to consider changes to the bylaw in response to submissions.

Disadvantages

·    There is a 1 February 2021 implementation date, this may be delayed if the bylaws are returned to the Subcommittee.

Option three - do not accept recommendations of Subcommittee

33        This option is to not accept the recommendations of the Subcommittee to amend the proposed bylaws as notified.  However, as the Council has already resolved that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem, and that the bylaws are the most appropriate form of bylaws, the Council therefore adopt the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2020 and proposed Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020 as notified without amendment.

Advantages

·    There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

·    Does not appropriately address matters raised by submitters.

NEXT STEPS

34        If the Council approves the Subcommittee recommendations and adopts the amended bylaws, it must give public notice of the bylaws, and state the date on which the bylaws will come into effect.  Copies of the bylaws must also be made available.

 

Signatories

Author:

Andrew Whiley - Chairperson, Regulatory Subcommittee

Authoriser:

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Tradewaste Bylaw 2020

107

b

Stormwater Quality Bylaw 2020

130

c

Minutes

136

d

Key changes from Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 and new bylaws

141

 

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

 

Recommended amendments to the bylaws as notified, making of Trade Waste and Stormwater Quality Bylaws and revocation of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 contributes to the DCC’s Environment Strategy and 3 Waters Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Aukaha advised that Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki did not have any issues with the bylaws.

Sustainability

The making of the Trade Waste and Stormwater Quality Bylaws will have positive impacts on environmental sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Recommended amendments to the bylaws as notified, making of new bylaws and revocation of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 have some impacts on annual and long-term plan requirements as resourcing is necessary to implement the bylaws.

Financial considerations

Recommended amendments to the bylaws as notified, making of new bylaws and revocation of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2008 have some implications on budget as resourcing is necessary to implement the bylaws. This can be met within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement with key stakeholders informed the statement of proposal for this bylaw. Key stakeholders included existing trade waste customers, tangata whenua, ORC, Stormwater Liaison Group, Southern District Health Board and potentially impacted or interested businesses. The Minister of Health was also provided with a copy for comments. The Special Consultative Procedure was used to consult on proposals and there were four submissions with one submitter heard by the Regulatory Subcommittee.

Engagement – internal

There has been internal engagement with staff from 3 Waters, Transport, City Development, Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste, and In-House Legal Services during the drafting of bylaws and at the time of notification.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The Trade Waste and Stormwater Quality Bylaws have been discussed with the In-house Legal Team. There are no identified risks to this summary report for consideration or the recommended amendments. The recommended amendments are within scope of the submissions received.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Review of Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (the Policy) with a view to including ‘affected’ buildings (see Attachment A for the Policy). An affected building is one that is adjacent, adjoining or nearby a dangerous building or dangerous dam.

2          The Building Amendment Act 2013 requires that policies on dangerous and insanitary buildings take into account affected buildings. The Policy was last reviewed in 2018 and, inadvertently, affected buildings were not included as part of that review.

3          The report also asks the Council to approve the statement of proposal for consultation and appoint members to the Regulatory Subcommittee to hear and consider submissions and make recommendations to the Council.

4          The special consultative procedure is required for the review of this policy.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

b)     Approves the statement of proposal at Attachment B and the proposed Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy at Attachment C for consultation

c)     Appoints the following members to the Regulatory Subcommittee to hear and consider submissions and make recommendations to the Council: Cr Andrew Whiley (Chair), Cr Lee Vandervis and Cr Carmen Houlahan.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Legislative requirements

5          The Council is required, under section 131 of the Building Act 2004 (the Act) to adopt a policy on dangerous and insanitary buildings within its district.  The policy must state:

·        The approach that Dunedin City Council will take in performing its functions under the Act

·        Its priorities in performing these functions and

·        How the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

6          Policies must be reviewed within five years of the policy being adopted and then at intervals of not more than five years. A policy does not cease to have effect because it is due for review or being reviewed.

7          The special consultative procedure must be used if the policy is amended or replaced.

8          The Building Amendment Act 2013 also requires that policies on dangerous and insanitary buildings take into account affected buildings.

Policy history

9          The Council adopted its first Policy in 2007.

10        It was reviewed in 2011 in light of lessons learned from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes.

11        It was reviewed again in 2017/2018 following the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 which introduced major changes to the way earthquake-prone buildings were identified and managed by territorial authorities. The Amendment Act 2016 removed the requirement for territorial authorities to have earthquake-prone building policies and instead created a national policy framework.

12        From 1 July 2017 the earthquake-prone buildings section of the Policy became redundant and earthquake-prone requirements were removed from the Policy, as legislated by the Building Amendment Act 2016.

13        Inadvertently, affected buildings were not included as part of the last review.

DISCUSSION

Current Policy

14        The Policy (Attachment A) was developed in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act which seek to ensure that:

·        People who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health

·        Buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and wellbeing of people who use them and

·        Buildings are designed, constructed and able to be used in ways that promote sustainable development.

15        The Council is committed to ensuring that Dunedin is a safe and healthy place to live. The Act provides the means to ensure that buildings that become dangerous or insanitary are managed in a timely manner to remove the danger and fix the insanitary conditions. The Policy aims to administer the Act in a fair and reasonable way.

16        The Policy is working well to address dangerous and insanitary buildings in Dunedin. Policy provisions are implemented when a complaint or advice is received, and an investigation takes place. If a building is dangerous or insanitary then staff aim to work with building owners to address the problem without delay.

Policy review

17        The proposal is to include affected buildings within the Policy, as required by legislation. An affected building is one that is adjacent, adjoining or nearby a dangerous building or dangerous dam. Minor clarification of wording is also proposed in relation to Council responsibilities for dangerous, insanitary and affected buildings.

18        The special consultative procedure must be used to amend or replace the Policy. Consultation will be open for at least one month via the DCC website and it will also be advertised in the Otago Daily Times. There will be the opportunity for people to make submissions and present their view at a hearing should they wish.

19        See Attachment B for the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy statement of proposal.

20        See Attachment C for proposed changes to the Policy.

OPTIONS

21        As this review is required by legislation, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

22        Next steps are to carry out consultation on the proposed Policy during February using the special consultative procedure before the Regulatory Subcommittee considers and hears any submissions in March/April. Following that, the Subcommittee will report back to the Council with a recommendation to adopt a reviewed Policy.

 

Signatories

Author:

Neil McLeod - Principal Advisor – Building Solutions

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Paul Henderson - Acting Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018

147

b

Statement of proposal for Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy review

151

c

Proposed Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy (tracked changes)

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 social 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 Policy review contributes to the priorities of healthy and safe people within the Social Wellbeing Strategy; compelling destination within the Economic Development Strategy; and liveable city within the Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement to date. However, the special consultative procedure will be used to review the Policy.

Engagement - internal

In-house legal counsel has contributed to the advice in this report and the Communications and Web teams are aware of the upcoming consultation with no issues identified.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Review of Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report updates the Council on the review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (the Policy). It seeks approval for the statement of proposal for consultation and asks Council to appoint members to the Regulatory Subcommittee to hear and consider submissions.

2          Local authorities must have the policy which states whether class 4 (non-casino gambling or ‘pokie’ machine) venues may be established within its district and, if so, where they may be situated. The policy may also limit the number of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) at those locations.

3          The Dunedin City Council (DCC) has a ‘sinking lid’ approach whereby no new class 4 gambling venues or increase in the number of EGMs at a venue are permitted. The Policy also incorporates a ‘relocation policy’ which sets out if and when consent will be granted for a gambling venue to relocate within its district. See Attachment A for the Policy.

4          The Policy was last reviewed in March 2018 and must be reviewed at least every three years using the special consultative procedure. It is now due for review.

5          No changes are proposed to the current Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the update on the review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

b)     Approves the statement of proposal at Attachment B and Gambling and TAB Venue Policy at Attachment A for consultation purposes

c)     Appoints the following members to the Regulatory Subcommittee: Cr Christine Garey (Chair), Cr Marie Laufiso and Cr Jules Radich.

 


 

BACKGROUND

Legislative requirements

Gambling Act 2003

6          The Gambling Act 2003 (the Act) legislates on gambling including gambling venues and EGMs. The purpose of the Act is to:

·        Control the growth of gambling

·        Prevent and minimise harm from gambling, including problem gambling

·        Authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest

·        Facilitate responsible gambling

·        Ensure the integrity and fairness of games

·        Limit opportunities for crime or dishonesty associated with gambling and the conduct of gambling

·        Ensure that money from gambling benefits the community and to

·        Facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

7          The Act requires all territorial authorities to have a policy stating whether it would allow new non-casino gambling (‘pokie’ machine) venues to be established within its district and, if so, where they may be situated.  A policy can also limit the number of electronic gambling machines (EGM) at those locations.  There is a statutory requirement to review such a policy at least every three years.

8          The Act requires the following matters to be considered in its policy development:

·        The characteristics of the district and parts of the district

·        Locations of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship and other community facilities

·        The number of gambling machines that should be permitted to operate at any venue or class of venue

·        The cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district

·        How close any venue should be permitted to be to any other venue

·        What the primary activity of any venue should be.

9          The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act 2013 introduced an additional requirement into the Act, of including a ‘relocation policy’ which sets out if and when it will grant consent for a gambling venue to relocate within its district. The 2018 Policy review introduced a relocation policy within the main Policy.

Racing Industry Act 2020

10        The Racing Industry Act 2020 also requires territorial authorities to adopt a policy on New Zealand Racing Board venues (TABs) within its district. 

11        The Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020 (which replaced the Racing Act 2003 on 1 August 2020) were introduced so territorial authorities, in consultation with their communities, had some control over the location and number of gambling venues in its area. The current Policy meets requirements of both the Gambling Act and the Racing Industry Act.

Licensing authority - Department of Internal Affairs

12        While the DCC must have a Gambling Venue Policy, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is the gambling licensing authority and is responsible for the granting or refusing of gambling licences. A gambling venue licence must be renewed within three years after it is issued or at an earlier date if specified by the DIA.

Gambling harm and gambling benefits

13        Gambling harm is defined in the Act as “harm—

(a) means harm or distress of any kind arising from, or caused or exacerbated by, a person’s gambling; and

(b) includes personal, social, or economic harm suffered—

(i)   by the person; or

(ii) the person’s spouse, civil union partner, de facto partner, family, whanau, or wider community; or

(iii) in the workplace; or

(iv) by society at large.”

14        The gambling system in New Zealand is set up to ensure some of the harms caused by gambling are mitigated by ‘pokie’ proceeds being returned to the community and being used for good causes. Other positive effects associated with safe levels of gambling have been cited as community connection, entertainment, employment opportunities, social interaction and support for sporting events and other activities that would otherwise be under-funded within the community.

Policy development and history

15        The DCC first developed a Policy in 2004, as required by the Act. The initial Policy did not restrict the number of gambling venues or EGMs but did control where gambling venues could operate. The first two reviews resulted in no changes because the numbers of venues and EGMs were trending down without restrictions being applied.

16        In 2013, the Council resolved to introduce a sinking lid approach to the number of venues and machines in South Dunedin and to cap the numbers in the rest of the Dunedin area. South Dunedin was an area with a very high number of EGMs per 1,000 people compared to the rest of Dunedin and New Zealand.

17        The 2018 review extended the sinking lid approach to all of Dunedin and introduced a relocation policy.

DISCUSSION

Gambling venue and EGM numbers

18        Currently there are 29 gambling and TAB venues in the Dunedin area and there are 396 EGMs. The numbers of venues and EGMs has stabilised in recent years after trending downwards.

19        See Table 1 for the number of class 4 gambling venues in Dunedin.

Table 1: Number of class 4 gambling venues in Dunedin by year

20        See Table 2 for the number of EGMs in Dunedin

Table 2: Number of EGMs in Dunedin by year

Current Policy

21        The current Policy does not permit new class 4 gambling venues or any increase in the number of EGMs at a venue. The Policy includes a ‘relocation policy’ which sets out if and when consent will be granted for a gambling venue to relocate within its district.

Policy review

22        The Policy seems to be working well and no changes are proposed. Options to be consulted on are:

·        Retain the existing policy which has a sinking lid approach to the number of venues and gambling machines in Dunedin. The existing policy does not allow relocation of venues unless in exceptional circumstances (status quo and preferred option)

·        Do not limit the number of venues or gambling machines anywhere in Dunedin and grant consent for relocating gambling venues. Limit where new gambling venues may be established.

23        An analysis of options is presented in the statement of proposal.

Community engagement

24        The Act requires that the special consultative procedure is used for the review of this policy. This will include targeted emails to stakeholders such as class 4 venue licence holders and organisations representing Māori, as required by the Act. It will also include relevant social service and support agencies, and will be advertised in the Otago Daily Times and on the DCC website.

25        Community Boards and the general public will also be consulted.

OPTIONS

26        As this Policy and its review are required by legislation, there are no options to this report. If the Policy were allowed to lapse, this would be in breach of the Act and there would be no control over the location and number of gambling and TAB venues or the number of EGMs in Dunedin.

NEXT STEPS

27        Next steps are to consult on the review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy in February 2021, using the special consultative procedure, before the Regulatory Subcommittee hears and considers submissions in March 2021. The Regulatory Subcommittee will then make recommendations to the Council on the Policy around March/April 2021.

 

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Kevin Mechen - Secretary, District Licensing Committee

Authoriser:

Paul Henderson - Acting Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

 

a

Gambling and TAB Venue Policy 2018

167

 

b

Statement of proposal for Gambling and TAB Venue Policy review

170

 

 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.

 

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 policy review contributes to the Social Wellbeing Strategy priorities of vibrant and cohesive communities, connected people, and safe and healthy people. It also contributes to the Spatial Plan priority of a liveable city – a safe and healthy environment.

Māori Impact Statement

It is a legal requirement to provide notice of the proposed policy to organisations representing Mäori in the area and this is included in the community engagement plan.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The policy review requires the special consultative procedure including consultation with class 4 gambling licence holders as well as Māori organisations. Engagement will also include relevant social service and support agencies, and will be advertised in the Otago Daily Times and on the DCC website.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with In-House Legal Counsel as well as with Communications, Web and Governance teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

If the Policy were allowed to lapse, this would be in breach of the Act and there would be no control over the location and number of gambling and TAB venues or the number of EGMs in Dunedin.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards will be advised of the policy review and invited to provide feedback.

 

 


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

8 December 2020

 

 

Warrant Cards 2019/20

Department: Community Services

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          At its meeting on 1 November 2004 the Council resolved to delegate the power to issue warrants to the Chief Executive Officer.

2          The Council subsequently requested that an annual report of warrants issued be provided to the Council for its information.  This report advises the Council of warrants that have been issued by the Chief Executive Officer in the 12-month period ending 31 October 2020.

3          As this report is for administrative and statutory reporting purposes, a summary of considerations and options is not required.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the Warrant Cards 2019/20 report for the 12 month period ending 31 October 2020.

 

 

Signatories

Authoriser:

Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Warrant Cards issued for the period ending 31 October 2020

177

  


Council

8 December 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

              


Council

8 December 2020

 

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 - 17 November 2020 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(b)(ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

 

S7(2)(c)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

 

.

 

C2  Kerbside Collection - Legal Issues

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

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  Representation Review - Appointment of Independent Review Panel and Confirmation of Terms of Reference

S7(2)(a)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

 

C4  Foulden Maar

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

 

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  Centre of Digital Excellence

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

 

S7(2)(h)

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

 

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.

 

C6  New Zealand Masters Games Appointment of Trustee

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.