Notice of Meeting:
I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:
Date: Wednesday 27 January 2021, Thursday 28 January 2021 and Friday 29 January 2021
Time: 9.00 am
Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin
Sandy Graham
Chief Executive Officer
Council
SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA 2
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 Wendy Collard
Wendy Collard
Governance Support Officer
Telephone: 03 477 4000
Wendy.Collard@dcc.govt.nz
Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.
Council 27 January 2021 |
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Reports
1 10 year plan 2021-31 Overview Report (previously circulated)
7 Financial Strategy (previously circulated)
8 Infrastructure Strategy 4
9 Significant forecasting assumptions and community outcome indicators (previously circulated)
10 10 Year Plan 2021-31 Proposed Levels of Service (previously circulated)
11 Residents' Opinion Survey 2019/20 results (previously circulated)
12 Climate 2030 Rapid Review, and DCC emissions reduction opportunities (previously circulated)
13 Capital Expenditure Report 2021-2031 (previously circulated)
14 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – 3 Waters (previously circulated)
15 Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme 91
16 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Roading and Footpaths (previously circulated)
17 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Reserves and Recreational Facilities (previously circulated)
18 Kerbside collection funding options 118
19 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Waste Management (previously circulated)
20 Community Housing - Strategy and Policy Review update (previously circulated)
21 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Property Services (previously circulated)
22 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Economic Development (previously circulated)
23 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Governance and Support Services (previously circulated)
24 New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame: Options for integration into the Ara Toi group 131
25 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Ara Toi (Arts and Culture) (previously circulated)
26 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Regulatory Services (previously circulated)
27 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Communtiy and Planning ((previously circulated)
28 10 year plan 2021-2031 Community Consultation (previously circulated)
29 Review of the Significance and Engagement Policy (previously circulated)
30 Revenue and Financing Policy (previously circulated)
31 2021-22 Rating Method (previously circulated)
32 Rates Remission and Postponement Policy (previously circulated)
33 DCC Submission on the University of Otago's Vision 2040 Discussion Paper (previously circulated)
34 Notification of 2GP Variation 2: Additional Housing Capacity (previously circulated)
|
Council 27 January 2021 |
Infrastructure Strategy
Department: Transport and 3 Waters
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 An Infrastructure Strategy identifies significant infrastructure issues over a period of at least 30 years, and identifies options for managing those issues, along with the implications of those options.
2 This report seeks Council approval of the draft Infrastructure Strategy for the purpose of public consultation for the 10 year plan 2021-31.
That the Council: a) Approves the draft Infrastructure Strategy, with any amendments, for consultation purposes for the 10 year plan 2021-31. |
BACKGROUND
3 Section 101B of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires all councils to prepare and adopt an Infrastructure Strategy. The purpose of an Infrastructure Strategy is to:
· Identify significant infrastructure issues for the local authority over a period of at least 30 years; and
· Identify the principal options for managing those issues and the implications of those options.
4 The infrastructure strategy must include water supply, wastewater, stormwater and roads and footpaths.
DISCUSSION
5 Council must, as part of its 10 year plan, prepare and adopt an Infrastructure Strategy. The Infrastructure Strategy outlines the most likely scenario for the management of the Council’s infrastructure assets over 50 years and shows indicative estimates of the capital and operating expenditure.
6 Section 101B of the LGA provides that an Infrastructure Strategy must outline how the local authority intends to manage its infrastructure assets, taking into account the need to:
· Renew or replace existing assets; and
· Respond to growth or decline in the demand for services reliant on those assets; and
· Allow for planned increases or decreases in the levels of service provided through those assets; and
· Maintain or improve public health and environmental outcomes or mitigate adverse effects on them; and
· Provide for the resilience of infrastructure assets by identifying and managing risks relating to natural hazards and by making appropriate financial provision for those risks.
7 The significant issues that have been identified and addressed in the draft Strategy include the following:
· Regulatory, legislative and 3 waters service delivery changes, including: 3 waters reform, the Governments Essential Freshwater Programme and National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, the Resource Management Act review, National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport;
· Replacing and renewing Dunedin’s ageing infrastructure;
· Responding to changes in demand for infrastructure because of growth;
· Improving public health and environmental outcomes;
· Improving infrastructure resilience to natural hazards; and
· Zero carbon 2030 target.
8 Renewing Dunedin’s ageing infrastructure is a key priority of the draft Strategy. Renewal investment will be prioritised in the most need and highest risk areas in years 1 – 3 of the 10 year plan while contractor and DCC delivery capacity is established. Renewals delivery is planned to be increased year on year.
9 Through 3 waters reform, the Government intends to transfer 3 waters service delivery functions from councils to new, public multi-regional water entities. This would have a significant impact on Council operations. The proposed water services entities would commence operation in about 2023. Council agreed to ‘opt in’ to the first stage of this reform in August 2020. All councils will be asked to make a second decision on participation in late-2021. The decision for Council in late-2021 will be an ‘opt out’ decision.
10 The Strategy plans to invest in 3 waters and transport infrastructure for a medium-high growth scenario over 2021-28 and a medium growth scenario from 2029 onward. Providing infrastructure for this growth has been provided for in the 10 year plan draft operating and capital budgets.
11 Planned strategic increases in infrastructure levels of service are in the configuration of the transport network to support active and public transport modes. The transport sector is Dunedin’s most significant, and fastest growing, source of carbon emissions and increasing investment in these modes is required to support the zero carbon 2030 target.
12 The draft capital expenditure programme represents a significant uplift from the last 10 year plan. The ability to deliver this programme, acknowledging that the proposed spends are higher than previous achievements will require ongoing attention. Delivery risks will be managed through improved forward planning, early contractor engagement, innovative procurement strategies, and strong disciplines around project management and monitoring to ensure progress is on track.
OPTIONS
13 Council is required to have an Infrastructure Strategy for consultation as part of the 10 year plan. Options have not been presented but Council is able to modify the draft Infrastructure Strategy.
NEXT STEPS
14 The draft Infrastructure Strategy, with any amendments will be finalised for public consultation as part of the Supporting Documents for the 10 year plan.
15 Key elements of the Infrastructure Strategy will be incorporated into the Consultation Document.
Signatories
Author: |
Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters |
Authoriser: |
Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services |
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Draft Infrastructure Strategy |
9 |
⇩b |
Appendix 1 - Infrastructure Asset Lives |
82 |
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, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with strategic framework
The Infrastructure Strategy contributes specifically to the priorities of the 3 Waters Strategy and Integrated Transport Strategy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Māori Impact Statement Mana whenua will be engaged with on projects that are of cultural importance to them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustainability Major issues and implications for sustainability are discussed in the Infrastructure Strategy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy The Infrastructure Strategy provides for levels of service in 3 Waters and Transport. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial considerations Financial considerations are discussed in the Infrastructure Strategy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance The Infrastructure Strategy is considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and will be consulted on as part of the 10 year plan process. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement – external There has been no external engagement in the development of the draft Infrastructure Strategy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal Staff and managers from across Council have been involved in the development of the Infrastructure Strategy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. There are no identified risks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict of Interest There are no known conflicts of interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Boards The Infrastructure Strategy will be of interest to Community Boards, as many infrastructural matters are relevant to Community Boards. |
Council 27 January 2021 |
Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme
Department: Transport
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Council resolved to include six Shaping Future Dunedin Transport (SFDT) projects in the draft 10 Year Plan capital budgets. Additional information was requested and this report provides that information.
That the Council: a) Notes the budget timings of Shaping Future Dunedin Transport projects are in Transport Capital budgets. |
BACKGROUND
2 On 14th December 2020 Council considered a report on projects within the SFDT Programme to be included in the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 and resolved the following:
“Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr David Benson-Pope):
That the Council:
a) Supports the six DCC projects of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme be included in the Draft Ten Year Plan 2021-31.
i) Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements
ii) Central City Parking Management
iii) Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan
iv) Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements
v) Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside
vi) Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities.
3 At the meeting, staff also advised that additional detail would be provided on each of the projects as part of the January 2021 10 Year Plan meetings. This report provides that additional information. The 14th December report on the SFDT programme can be found in attachment A.
DISCUSSION
4 Scope documents for each of the projects are included as Attachments B - G and contain further detail including cost estimates and the proposed timing for each project.
i) Attachment B – Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements
ii) Attachment C – Central City Parking Management
iii) Attachment D – Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan
iv) Attachment E – Central Cycle and Pedestrian Safety
v) Attachment F – Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside
vi) Attachment G – Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities.
5 It is expected that Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency will co-invest in the projects via its normal Funding Assistance Rate subsidy. Five of the six projects will attract approximately 50% subsidy.
OPTIONS
6 There are no options to be considered in this report.
NEXT STEPS
7 The six projects will form part of the 10 Year Plan Consultation Document.
Signatories
Author: |
Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport |
Authoriser: |
Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services |
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Council Report 14 Dec 2020 |
95 |
⇩b |
Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements Scope Document |
108 |
⇩c |
Central City Parking Management Scope Document |
109 |
⇩d |
Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan Scope Document |
111 |
⇩e |
Central Cycle and Pedestrian Safety Scope Document |
113 |
⇩f |
Park and Ride Facilities Scope Document |
115 |
⇩g |
Central City Bike Hubs Scope Document |
116 |
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, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with strategic framework
Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme delivers on multiple strategic objectives with a particular focus on safety, travel choice, improved freight connections and climate change. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Māori Impact Statement Mana whenua will be involved during project planning and design stages. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustainability Improving public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure contributes towards a sustainable city. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy The programme is not included within the current 10 year plan. It has been put forward for the Regional Land Transport Plan currently under development and will be considered for the National Land Transport Programme. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial considerations Financial considerations are discussed in the 14th December 2020 Council report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance This decision is considered medium to high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This will be consulted on as part of the 10 year plan special consultative process. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement – external There has been engagement throughout the programme development. This included three stakeholder workshops, a 5 week public engagement exercise and a public survey. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal The Transport Group have led this project. Input has been sought from City Planning, with representatives attending workshops. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. There are no known risks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict of Interest There are no known conflicts of interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Boards The majority of the proposed DCC projects are not within Community Board areas. Where a project is in a Community Board area, appropriate consultation will be undertaken. Boards also have the opportunity to participate in the consultation process for the 10 Year Plan. |
Council 27 January 2021 |
Kerbside collection funding options
Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The purpose of this report is to provide a range of funding options for kerbside collection services for Council consideration.
2 On 8 December 2020 Council approved as part of the draft 10 year plan 2021-2031, community consultation on two options for delivering changes to kerbside collection services.
3 The options approved for community consultation were prepared on the basis of retaining the current targeted rate kerbside collection funding system.
4 This report outlines alternative funding options for Council consideration, including using general rates and fees and charges.
5 Community consultation will take place from 24 March 2021 until 30 April 2021 and will include Council’s preferred option and an alternative option for kerbside collection services.
That the Council: a) Decides on a preferred funding source to be used for each kerbside collection bin in both options for delivering kerbside collection services to be consulted on within the draft 10 year plan 2021-31: i) Food scraps 23 litre bin ii) Glass 45 litre crate iii) Refuse 140 litre wheelie bin iv) Recycling 240 litre wheelie bin v) Garden waste 240 litre wheelie bin. |
BACKGROUND
6 On 8 December 2020 Council considered a report on kerbside collection services and options for consultation in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 and resolved the following:
“Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Marie Laufiso):
That the Council:
a) Approves the “Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection” option to be included in the Ten year plan 2021–31 consultation document as the preferred option.
b) Approves the three bins enhanced status quo option to be included in the Ten year plan 2021–31 consultation document as the alternative option.
c) Requests a report for the January council meeting on alternative funding options including by way of the general rate.
d) Notes that the options presented would not be suitable for all properties in the Central Activity Area.
e) Notes that the options presented would not be suitable for all properties in the Rural collections area.
Division
The Council voted by division:
For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (14).
Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).
Abstained: Nil
The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1
Motion carried (CNL/2020/105)”
DISCUSSION
Funding options
7 The funding sources are available to pay for Council’s activities include general rates, targeted rates, fees and charges, grants and subsidies.
8 In accordance with Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must adopt funding and financial policies (Refer separate Revenue and Financing Policy Council report). These policies determine who pays for what, and the funding source to be used. As part of these assessments, consideration is given to the community outcomes being supported by the activity as well as the distribution of benefits from the activity between the community as a whole, any identifiable part of the community, and individuals.
9 The benefit consideration is often referred to as the public/private good split or the user pays principle. An activity may generate public benefits, private benefits, or a mixture of both. Public benefits are those that benefit the whole community. Private benefits are those that benefit identifiable parts of a community and / or individuals. Examples of funding sources for the types of benefits are shown in the table below:
Types of benefit |
Examples of Funding Sources |
Public benefit |
General Rates Grants |
Private benefit |
Targeted rates Fees and Charges Development Contributions |
Targeted and general rates
10 General rates are used when it is not possible to clearly identify customers or users. The general rate is also used to fund activities where, for reasons of fairness and equity, consideration of the wider community good indicate that this is the most appropriate way to fund an activity.
11 Targeted rates are used where an activity benefits an easily identifiable group of ratepayers and where it is appropriate that only this group be targeted to pay for some or all of a particular service.
Fees and charges
12 User charges are direct charges to identifiable users or groups of users who use certain Council services. In these instances, an identifiable benefit exists to clearly identifiable people and they are required to pay all or part of the cost of that service.
Current kerbside collection system funding
13 As defined in the Revenue and Financing Policy, refuse and recycling collections are currently provided to support the following community outcomes:
a) A sustainable city with healthy and treasured natural environments.
b) A supportive city with caring communities and a great quality of life.
14 The users who benefit from the activity have been defined as follows:
a) Domestic and commercial users of collections services.
b) The whole community receives public health benefits through the minimisation of waste going to Landfill, and ensuring streets are kept clean with the provision of public street litter bins and clean up days.
15 The current refuse and recycling collections are funded through a combination of rates as well as fees and charges. Kerbside recycling is currently funded through a targeted rate, as this service is available in defined collection areas and is therefore viewed as an activity that benefits an easily identifiable group of ratepayers. Similarly, there is a user charge to purchase DCC black bags for refuse collection, which is a service currently used by approximately 25% of households.
‘Pay As You Throw’
16 A DCC operated ‘Pay As You Throw’ (PAYT) system may be an alternative charging option that could be applied to the general waste or proposed green waste bin. This option would allow residents to only pay for bin collection when needed.
17 PAYT can be a method to incentivise reducing household waste in alignment with the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.
18 Automated PAYT technology has not been proven at scale in New Zealand and could be difficult to implement at this point in time. As such, a PAYT system is likely to involve a prepaid tag or similar prepaid system to cover the cost of collection and disposal. This could be transitioned to an automated PAYT in the future when technology makes this possible.
19 Until automated PAYT systems are more widely established, a PAYT funded system will be more expensive to operate per collection compared to a targeted or general rate funded system. The cost of the PAYT system would depend on the uptake of the service and the type of PAYT system implemented.
20 If a new PAYT system does not adequately balance waste minimisation efforts with affordability and practicality concerns, this may result in inequitable access to refuse collection causing recycling contamination and/or the private sector offering a simpler and lower cost alternative service.
21 Because of the uncertainty over the cost and practicality of a PAYT system, Council would need to consider underwriting the costs associated with these risks.
Funding options for kerbside collection
22 The preferred option to be included in the 10 year plan consultation is the “Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection” consisting 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 fortnightly
23 Staff have proposed four combinations of funding options for Council consideration, outlined in the table below:
|
Option One |
Option Two |
Option Three |
Option Four |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
Targeted Rate |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
General Rate |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Food scraps 23 litre (green bin) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Garden waste 240 litre (opt in bin) |
Fixed user charge |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
24 The alternative option to be included in the 10 year plan consultation is the “Three bins enhanced status quo” consisting of:
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
25 Under this option the four combinations of funding options proposed by staff for Council consideration is reduced to three combinations, outlined in the table below:
|
Option One |
Option Two |
Option Three |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
Targeted Rate |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
General Rate |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
General Rate |
Existing recycling collection
26 The existing recycling collection, 240 litre bin (yellow lid – fortnightly collection) and the glass 45 litre crate (blue crate – fortnightly collection) are currently funded via targeted rates.
27 The proposed four options include consideration of funding existing recycling collections via targeted rate or general rate.
28 Staff recommend that the existing recycling collection remains funded via targeted rates, however Council consideration should include the principles from the revenue and financing policy outlined in points 7-15 above.
Refuse 140 litre bin (red lid – weekly or fortnightly collection)
29 The proposed four options include consideration of funding a refuse bin collection via targeted rate, general rate, or via a ‘pay as you throw’ user charge.
Targeted rates
30 The advantages of targeted rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively simple system for both DCC staff and residents.
b) Ensures access to a waste collection service in an equitable manner across the group of residents who are eligible for the service, in order to help protect residents and the environment from the harmful effects of waste.
c) Alignment with the revenue and financing policy and kerbside recycling funding model, where the group of ratepayers who are eligible for the service are the group of ratepayers paying for the service.
31 The disadvantages of targeted rate funding for this bin include:
a) Does not incentivise waste minimisation.
General rates
32 The advantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively simple system for both DCC staff and residents.
33 The disadvantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Does not incentivise waste minimisation.
b) Ratepayers outside of the collection area would be paying for a service that they do not receive. This may not be considered fair or equitable.
User charge
34 The advantages of a user charge for this bin include:
a) It may promote waste minimisation.
35 The disadvantages of a user charge for this bin include:
a) It may not meet the convenience/other needs of residents who already utilise an existing private waste collection service.
b) It is likely to be more expensive per collection and require underwriting costs, which are difficult to estimate until service uptake is known.
Proposed 23 litre food scraps bin (green bin – weekly collection)
36 The proposed four options include consideration of funding a food scraps bin collection via targeted rate or general rate.
37 On average, the current black plastic refuse collection service contains 40% food and green waste; therefore, staff have not considered ‘pay as you throw’ for this collection as it would disincentivise beneficial reuse via composting (or similar process), reducing waste to landfill, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from waste.
Targeted rates
38 The advantages of targeted rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively simple system for both DCC staff and residents.
b) Ensures access to a collection service in an equitable manner across the group of residents who are eligible for the service, in order to help protect residents and the environment from the harmful effects of waste.
c) Alignment with the revenue and financing policy and kerbside recycling funding model, where the group of ratepayers who are eligible for the service are the group of ratepayers paying for the service.
39 The disadvantages of targeted rate funding for this bin include:
a) Does not allow eligible residents or businesses who may prefer to compost at their own premises to opt out.
General rates
40 The advantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively simple system for both DCC staff and residents.
41 The disadvantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Ratepayers outside of the collection area would be paying for a service that they do not receive. This may not be considered fair or equitable.
b) Does not allow rate ratepayers who may prefer to compost at their own premises to opt out.
Proposed 240 litre garden waste bin (opt in bin – fortnightly collection)
42 The proposed four options include consideration of funding an opt in garden waste bin collection via targeted rate, general rate, fixed user charge, or via a ‘pay as you throw’ user charge.
Targeted rates
43 No advantages have been identified for using targeted rate funding for this bin.
44 The disadvantages of targeted rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively is not simple, as the targeted rate could only to be charged those who have opted into the service.
General rates
45 The advantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Administratively simple system for both DCC staff and residents.
46 The disadvantages of general rate funding for this bin include:
a) Ratepayers outside of the collection area, and those who have not opted in for this bin would be paying for a service that they do not receive. This may not be considered fair or equitable.
User charge
47 The advantages of a user charge (fixed user charge or ‘pay as you throw’) for this bin include:
a) Alignment with the revenue and financing policy and kerbside recycling funding model, where the group of ratepayers who are eligible and opt in for the service are the group of ratepayers paying for the service.
48 The disadvantages of a user charge (fixed user charge or ‘pay as you throw’) for this bin include:
a) It may not meet the convenience/other needs of residents who already utilise an existing private waste collection service.
b) It is likely to be more expensive per collection and require underwriting costs, which are difficult to estimate until service uptake is known.
OPTIONS
Option One – Targeted rates funding for kerbside collection bins plus opt-in garden waste bin funded via fees and charges (Recommended Option).49 Advantages and disadvantages in relation to funding options for each bin have been outlined in points 26 - 48 above.
|
10YP consultation preferred option: Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection |
10YP consultation alternative option: Three bins enhanced status quo |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Food scraps 23 litre (green bin) |
Targeted Rate |
N/A |
Garden waste 240 litre (opt in bin) |
Fixed user charge |
N/A |
Option Two – Targeted rates funding for recycling, glass, and food bins plus PAYT for general waste and opt-in garden waste funded via targeted rate.50 Advantages and disadvantages in relation to funding options for each bin have been outlined in points 26 - 48 above.
|
10YP consultation preferred option: Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection |
10YP consultation alternative option: Three bins enhanced status quo |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Food scraps 23 litre (green bin) |
Targeted Rate |
N/A |
Garden waste 240 litre (opt in bin) |
Targeted Rate |
N/A |
Option Three – General rates funding for all kerbside collection services.
51 Advantages and disadvantages in relation to funding options for each bin have been outlined in points 26 - 48 above.
|
10YP consultation preferred option: Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection |
10YP consultation alternative option: Three bins enhanced status quo |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
General Rate |
General Rate |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
General Rate |
General Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
General Rate |
General Rate |
Food scraps 23 litre (green bin) |
General Rate |
N/A |
Garden waste 240 litre (opt in bin) |
General Rate |
N/A |
Option Four – PAYT for general waste bin and opt-in garden waste bin, targeted rates funding for all other bins.
52 Advantages and disadvantages in relation to funding options for each bin have been outlined in points 26 - 48 above.
|
10YP consultation preferred option: Four Bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection |
10YP consultation alternative option: Three bins enhanced status quo |
Refuse 140 litre (red lid) |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
Recycling 240 litre (yellow lid) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Glass 45 litre (blue crate) |
Targeted Rate |
Targeted Rate |
Food scraps 23 litre (green bin) |
Targeted Rate |
N/A |
Garden waste 240 litre (opt in bin) |
‘Pay as you throw’ |
N/A |
Option Five – Council to choose an alternative combination of funding options for components of the kerbside collection service
NEXT STEPS
53 Staff will investigate direct supplier billing arrangements if fees and charges are indicated as the preferred option for funding any component of the proposed new kerbside collection services.
54 Staff will incorporate funding information into the options for community consultation as part of the draft 10 year plan 2021-2031.
Signatories
Author: |
Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions |
Authoriser: |
Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services |
There are no attachments for this report.
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
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 Staff will incorporate funding information into the options for community consultation as part of the draft 10 year plan 2021-2031. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 No external engagement has been carried out in regards to the contents of this report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal No internal engagement has been carried out in regards to the contents of this report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 27 January 2021 |
New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame: Options for integration into the Ara Toi group
Department: Ara Toi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This report provides options and costs to integrate the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame (NZSHF) into the Ara Toi group of cultural facilities.
2 NZSHF has occupied the Dunedin Railway Station building since 1999, providing an exhibition of its collection of sporting memorabilia and artefacts. By 2019 NZSHF was operating a financial deficit. It has significant needs for reinvestment in its exhibition and additional marketing spend to increase its annual visitor figures (currently approximately 8,700 per annum).
3 Sports New Zealand commissioned an options report on future development for the NZSHF. It is provided as an attachment (Attachment A). The options provided in this report to Council derive from the NZSHF options appraisal.
4 In addition to the status quo, the options that have been developed are integrating NZSHF into the Ara Toi group as a new visitor facility; providing operational funding support for NZSHF as an independent institution; or delaying a decision until further options are explored.
That the Council: a) Considers the options for future support for the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame. |
BACKGROUND
5 NZSHF was established in 1990, with the twin purposes of providing induction ceremonies and of collecting and presenting artefacts related to the sporting history of New Zealand. The induction ceremonies take place at venues throughout New Zealand. Since 1999 the NZSHF and artefact collection has been located at Dunedin Railway Station.
6 Council has supported this tenancy since 1999 through the provision of grants. The Property Arrangement Grant is currently $46,800 per annum. In addition, the Hall of Fame’s rental is set at $30,590 per annum, which is 50% of market rates. The total Council support comprises the Property Arrangement Grant and the subsidised rental equating to $77,390 per annum.
7 The other recurrent funder is Sports New Zealand who provided an annual grant of $100,000. However, this funding ceased on 30 December 2020.
8 The NZSHF’s lease expired in January 2019 and is now holding over on a month to month basis.
9 In November 2019, Sports New Zealand commissioned an options analysis for the NZSHF, undertaken by Manuireva Consulting (Attachment A). The report was finalised in January 2020.
10 The report identified a number of issues that need to be addressed including governance, financial viability, the care of its collections, the need for capital investment in its venue and operational investment in its marketing and public engagement activities and development of a paid workforce. These issues are compounded by declining visitor figures (8,741 in 2019).
11 In February 2020 representatives of the NZSHF board approached Council requesting that Council consider whether it would take over the management of NZSHF. Since then there have been ongoing discussions and a submission from NZSHF to the 20/21 Annual Plan. There has been no change to the existing funding.
12 On 14 December 2020, Council passed a resolution requesting staff report on options and costs to integrate the NZSHF into the Ara Toi Group:
Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Marie Laufiso):
That the Council:
a) Request a staff report on options and costs to integrate the NZ Sports Hall of Fame into the Dunedin City Council’s Museum, Art Galleries and Attractions department for the 10 Year Plan Council meeting of 27 January 2021.
Division
That the Council voted by division:
For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Aaron Hawkins (15).
Against: Nil
Abstained: Nil
The division was declared CARRIED by 15 votes to 0
Motion carried (CNL/2020/125)
Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Marie Laufiso):
That the Council:
b) Authorise $50,000 over expenditure from the Ara Toi budget subject to staff confirming that the money would be used to keep the facility open until June 2021.
Division
The Council voted by division:
For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (14).
Against: Cr Christine Garey (1).
Abstained: Nil
The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1
Motion carried (CNL/2020/126)
Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Marie Laufiso):
That the Council:
c) Request a staff report on the potential of a single integrated museums and visitor attraction structure for Council by December 2021.
Division
The Council voted by division:
For: Crs Sophie Barker, Rachel Elder, Doug Hall, Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (6).
Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (9).
Abstained: Nil
The division was declared LOST by 9 votes to 6.
13 This report is the response to parts (a) and (b) of that resolution.
14 It is noted that Sports New Zealand has commissioned a further report to validate the Manuireva Consulting report and review options for the location of NZSHF. This report is being undertaken by Recreation, Sport and Leisure Consultancy (RSL) and is due for completion by the end of March 2021.
15 Council is making up to $50,000 available to support the continued operation of NZSHF until 30 June 2021.
DISCUSSION
16 Sports New Zealand has indicated it supports the findings of the Manuireva Consulting report options analysis report. Four options for the visitor attraction were outlined by Manuireva:
a) Remaining as a standalone facility (not necessarily in Dunedin).
b) Co-located or integrated within another organisation.
c) Primarily digital provision.
d) Develop a touring exhibition.
17 The Manuireva Consulting report recognised the commitment and effort of those involved in creating and maintaining the NZSHF over 30 years, especially Dr Ron Palenski and the board members. However, the Manuireva report identified that the status quo of remaining as a standalone facility provides the greatest risk to the organisation. This because the NZSHF has neither the capacity, nor the levels of funding required to assure a sustainable future. A professional staff would be required to undertake the operation of the facility, manage its collection effectively, develop the attraction to the level expected by contemporary audiences and invest in effective marketing.
18 This report presents options on how DCC could support the NZSHF including integrating the facility as part of the Ara Toi group or by providing an increased operating grant.
19 Co-location within an existing DCC cultural facility was also considered. The only available space identified for a potential new permanent exhibition was the ‘Bullnose’ in Toitū Otago Settlers Museum (TOSM) (the space in the museum building closest to Lan Yuan). This has a floor area of 130 m2 and is currently used for small events and temporary displays.
20 However, the current footprint occupied by the NZSHF is 523 m2, which would mean reducing the exhibition by over 75%. In addition, the national objectives of NSZHF are not aligned with the current collection policies or objectives of TOSM. Therefore, this option was not considered further.
21 An informal discussion with Dunedin Venue Management Limited (DVML) identified that sufficient space is available to accommodate NZSHF at the Stadium, and the management team would be willing to consider co-location as long as sufficient funding were made available to support continued operation and to manage any commercial risk. If Council considers this as an option to be developed further, staff will enter into more specific discussion with DVML.
Integrate NZSHF as a new visitor facility within the Ara Toi Group
22 Estimated capital and operational budgets have been developed based on the needs identified in the Manuireva Consulting report to ensure the NZSHF becomes a sustainable visitor attraction. These have been benchmarked against other Ara Toi cultural facilities.
Capital costs
23 The Manuireva Consulting report identified the need for a complete refresh of NZSHF’s permanent exhibition. The NZSHF currently occupies 523 m2; exhibition development costs are currently in the range of $1,000 – $1,500 per square metre. A rough order of costs for the redevelopment of the exhibition would be in the order of $650,000 for a basic refresh.
Operational costs
24 An estimated operational budget is included below:
Expenditure |
Budget |
Notes |
Manager (1 FTE) Administrator (0.5 FTE) Curator (1 FTE) Visitor Hosts (2 FTE) |
$90,000 $30,000 $80,000 $110,000 |
|
Marketing |
$60,000 |
The Manuireva Consulting report proposed a marketing budget of $15,000. However, this was considered unrealistic and has been increased to $60,000. This is in line with other Ara Toi facilities. |
Property costs |
$80,000 |
Estimate based on rental |
Other expenses |
$100,000 |
IT, insurance, security, cleaning etc |
Annual investment in fixed asset |
$50,000 |
Ongoing exhibition content development |
Collection care |
$65,000 |
Conservation treatments, object cleaning, storage, materials, transportation. |
Public programming |
$12,000 |
Fortnightly programming |
Induction Ceremony |
$5,000 |
|
TOTAL |
$682,000 |
|
|
|
|
Income |
|
|
Admission |
$45,000 |
Based on 50% visitation increase |
Membership |
$4,500 |
Based on 50% increase |
Retail |
$4,500 |
Based on 50% increase |
TOTAL |
$54,000 |
|
|
|
|
Subsidy |
$628,000 |
Rates subsidy required |
25 The Manuireva Consulting report identified additional income sources totalling $175,000 per annum from project and charitable grants (page 48 of Attachment A). It is unlikely these would be available to NZSHF if it became a local government-run facility. Until the end of 2020 Sports New Zealand provided $100,000 per annum grant funding; it has no plans to make further financial commitments to NZSHF until the RSL report is completed.
Provide funding for a stand-alone facility
26 The estimated cost for this option is based on the Manuireva Consulting report ‘revised proposed budget’ (page 48 of Attachment A) i.e. DCC would provide an annual operating grant of $427,000 but not manage the facility directly. NZSHF would need to apply for additional grants and develop a fundraising strategy to refresh its permanent exhibit.
Other options
27 A status quo option is also presented i.e. continue to provide a property arrangement grant $46,800 per annum and rent subsidy of $30,590 per annum.
28 Sports New Zealand has commissioned a further report to validate the Manuireva Consulting report and review options for the future location of NZSHF. This report is being undertaken by RSL and is due for completion by March 2021. Therefore, a further option would be to delay a decision until this report is complete.
OPTIONS
29 Due to limited timeframes climate change implications have not been explored.
30 For all options, DCC and city-wide emissions have been preliminarily assessed as resulting in no impact in emissions.
Option One – Integrate NZSHF as a new visitor facility within the Ara Toi Group
31 This option involves developing NZSHF as a new visitor facility similar in structure to other DCC cultural facilities. The NZSHF would benefit from the full range of support services including IT, Human Resources, Finance, Marketing and Communications.
Advantages
· NZSHF would remain in Dunedin as a visitor attraction.
· NZSHF would remain as a tenant in the Railway Station building.
Disadvantages
· Annual operational subsidy of $628,000.
· An initial capital cost of $650,000 to refresh the permanent exhibition.
· Council would need to employ an additional 5.5 FTE.
· Council would assume long term responsibility for collection care and management.
· Considerable uncertainty about the viability of NZSHF as an ongoing visitor attraction.
Option Two – Provide funding for a stand-alone facility
32 This option would involve DCC providing core grant funding to NZSHF, enabling it to continue to operate independently of Council. NZSHF would need to apply for additional grants and develop a fundraising strategy to refresh its permanent exhibit.
Advantages
· NZSHF will remain in Dunedin as a visitor attraction.
· NZSHF remains as a tenant in the Railway Station building.
· No requirement for DCC to borrow to fund the refresh of the exhibitions.
Disadvantages
· Annual operational budget (grant) of approximately $427,000.
· NZSHF will be required to find additional revenue for operating and capital projects in a challenging financial environment.
· Considerable uncertainty about the viability of NZSHF as an ongoing visitor attraction.
Option Three – Status Quo
33 This option involves continuing to provide the current level of support to NZSHF, a 50% rent rebate and a Property Arrangement Grant of $46,800 per annum.
Advantages
· No additional budget required.
· Sports New Zealand will support NZSHF to implement one of the alternative options in the Manuireva Consulting and RSL reports.
Disadvantages
· The report by Manuireva Consulting has indicated the current arrangements generate a high level of risk for the organisation.
· NZSHF is not sustainable in its current location without a major level of public investment.
· Recent developments in the post-COVID tourist economy will make a recovery strategy for NZSHF more challenging.
Option Four – Delay a decision until the RSL report has been completed
34 Sports New Zealand has commissioned a further to validate the Manuireva Consulting report and review options for the location of the NZSHF. This report is being undertaken by RSL and is due for completion by March 2021. This report may provide further options for Council to consider during 10 Year Plan deliberations.
Advantages
· More viable options may be identified.
Disadvantages
· No identified disadvantages.
NEXT STEPS
35 Officers will enter discussions with NZSHF regarding implementation of Council’s decision.
Signatories
Author: |
Nick Dixon - Group Manager Ara Toi |
Authoriser: |
Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services |
|
Title |
Page |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
⇩a |
New Zealand Hall of Fame Options Analysis Report |
139 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with strategic framework
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Māori Impact Statement There are no known impacts for tangata whenua |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustainability The report discussed the economic sustainability for the NZSHF. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy At present there is a provisional budget for the NZSHF Property Arrangement Grant of $46,800. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial considerations The capital and operational costs are covered in the report. Options 1 and 2 are currently unbudgeted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance This decision is considered to be low in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement – external Discussions have been held with the NZSHF and Sports New Zealand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal Discussions have been held with members of the Ara Toi Group, Enterprise Dunedin and Property Services Group |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. The Manuireva report highlights the greatest risk to NZSHF is remaining as a standalone attraction. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict of Interest There is no conflict of interest identified. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Boards There are no implications for Community Boards |