The full council meeting was held on 10 September 2015. All councillors were in attendance.
The agenda included: (1) treasury policy change, (2) capital carry-overs, navigation safety by-law, (3) public transport regional plan, (4) speed limits review, (5) unmanned aircraft policy, (6) Nelson regional sewerage business unit, (7) economic development funding agreement, (8) mayor’s report, (9) Waimea community dam, and (10) CEOs report.
Two additional late items were also considered in confidence: (1) audit subcommittee independent member appointment, and (2) Waimea water augmentation project. I’m unable to talk to these items at present, as they were discussed in committee and have yet to have their confidential status lifted.
Finally, two items were raised in public forum – with one raising a very interesting legal issue.
Michael Croxford raised (and tabled) an interesting question regarding the treatment of development contribution levies by the council. By way of background, a developer (being the “consent holder” at the time the development is approved) will normally pay the council a development contribution. This financial contribution helps fund downstream infrastructural impacts from the development or proposed infrastructure that the development would benefit from.
In some instances council might decide not to proceed with implementing proposed infrastructural improvements. In those instances, council refunds the financial contribution to the consent holder (the original payor). In this instance, the Motueka coastal pipeline was removed from the long term plan requiring council to refund the development contribution. In some instances the original developer (the “consent holder” at the time) is no longer operating or has been liquidated. If it is a company it is normally removed from the companies register. However, removal from the companies office does not prevent a company re-registering.
Michael argued that the refund of development contributions, should go to the holder of the consent at the time it is deemed no longer required. Accordingly, where the developer no longer exists, the refund should go to the land owner as the subsequent holder of the consent. Essentially, his argument turned on whether the term “consent holder”, could import a wider meaning from examining other provisions of the Local Government Act (LGA) or Resource Management Act (RMA).
This matter was subsequently discussed during the Mayor’s report. The outcome of that discussion was that the council felt it had discharged its duty to determine (to the best of its ability) the legal position. That advice suggested that the “consent holder” was the payor (the original developer) and did not include the subsequent owner of the developed land. As Michael had not received a copy of the council’s legal opinion, it was felt that he should be provided a copy, so that he (and other residents) could decide whether they wanted to challenge the council’s legal advice.
Kit Maling spoke to the Waimea community dam update report (discussed below) and tabled a document outlining a resolution from the Waimea East Irrigation Company.
Waimea community dam
This item was a second (regular) project update for councillors. At this stage the project has been in slow mode (to avoid unnecessary expenditure) as discussions with WCDL progressed. The confidential briefing to councillors, updated much of what was stated in this part of the report. Once discussions with WCDL have been completed, planned work streams should move forward a little faster. The proposed work streams were outlined in my earlier post (see www.greeningtasman.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/full-council-meeting-30-july/).
Work that can be expected to re-gather momentum once discussions with WCDL have concluded are:
- formation of a biodiversity technical advisory group (BTAG) to prepare a biodiversity management plan (a resource consent condition).
- construction procurement process planning. It is being suggested that a two stage process (that comprises construction and design planning, followed by price negotiation and construction).
- business structure planning. WCDL has been considering a variety of options (prepared by Northington partners). Staff will present a report to full council in October that considers the various issues.
- preparation and review of pre-purchase agreements with landowners. These are agreements that hold open the ability to purchase the relevant land (at agreed prices), without actually entering into land sales. Effectively, the council avoids having to purchase land until there is agreement to proceed with a dam.
By way of background, WCDL acknowledged council’s recent offer to share the resource consent as joint resource consent holders (a 50:50 ownership arrangement). This is a change from councils original arrangement, where WCDL were contracted to secure the resource consent on behalf of the council and handing over the resource consent by a specified date or the formation of a CCO (which ever was earlier). WCDL has attached several conditions to this offer which council representatives have since brought back to council. Hence the confidential session.
I would hope that once all discussions with WCDL are completed, that relevant reports withheld under confidentiality are made public. I will certainly be advocating for this to happen.
So where to from here?
In my opinion, the process is at a critical fulcrum (or tipping point). I believe council needs to re-evaluate its relationship with WCDL. It has become very confusing and the lines between council and WCDL are very blurred. This has resulted in a great deal of uncertainty (and confusion) about who should be doing what, and who should be funding what.
At present council is both (sole) funder and service provider. Council is carrying all the risk (hence the growing concerns of council about the escalating write-off cost). Those roles need to be formally separated. Council should no longer be the sole funder and certainly not the main funder of a water solution that is being developed for the primary benefit of irrigators (who will receive over 2/3rds of the augmented water supply).
In my opinion, (as I have said repeatedly on this blog), WCDL needs to capitalise (as an investment holding entity for interested irrigators), so that it can take over this project as majority shareholder and funder of the dam. Like all investment vehicles, it needs start up capital to come from those investors who truly believe in this venture.
Once initially capitalised, WCDL can invest in developing a prospectus to secure more funding from potential investors to eventually invest into a Dam holding entity. The dam holding entity can then fund the services (and work streams) it needs to bring about the construction of a dam. Council can then evaluate whether it wants to invest in the venture or not. And can also compete against others, to provide project management services and technical expertise.
The parallel issue of water allocation and restrictions
Unfortunately, one of the most frustrating elements of the dam debate for me, is the confusion surrounding the water management (allocation and restriction) rules – which are set to change. Hardly anyone I speak to understands how these rules operate or how they impact on the way water is currently managed.
In my opinion council has done a very poor job in communicating the changing landscape of water management. This should have been communicated by council well before it began its conversation about water augmentation. Because this is “the” reason why council is having a debate about water augmentation solutions. Ironically, council were the ones who brought about these change in the rules, by way of a plan change a number of years ago.
However, the good news is that council has got its act together and is beginning to have this conversation. As part of the consultation process for proposed changes to the district plan rules, council will be hosting 2 open days for residents to meet and discuss the proposed plan changes. These are:
- Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at Richmond Council Chambers (focusing on urban water supply), and
- Thursday, 8 October 2015 at Seifried’s Estate, Redwood Rd (focusing on rural water permit holders).
Changes to water management rules
There are three changes to the water management rules.
First, water allocation is about to change. Basically, the amount of water people receive is likely to reduce. For example, people might have received a water allocation right of 10 litres, but only actually consumed 5 litres. This resulted in an over allocation of water. To correct this over-allocation, council will be reviewing peoples actual water usage. The review will re-calibrate water allocations so that they equal actual usage.
This re-calibration will also have an immediate affect on the impact of water restrictions on some water right holders. This is because water restrictions step down from the allocation right volume. If the allocation right volume was higher than real water consumption volume, the restrictions had no impact on water right holders. However, if the allocation right volume is the same as consumption, then restrictions will immediately affect the amount of water available for the water right holder.
For urban water users the allocation right volume is virtually identical to consumption. Effectively council has not purchased more water than it needs. Whereas, some rural water consumers have. This means any re-calibration of urban water will not result in any change.
The second change is the threshold for imposing water restrictions. The thresholds have changed (by way of an earlier plan change) so that they bite earlier (ie, at lower thresholds). These changes are even more severe for water users who will have their water allocation levels reduced to historical consumption levels (or use).
The third change (currently being consulted on) is the introduction of a dual water restriction system – one for those who are allocated water and are funding an increase in water supply (a dam funder), and one for those who are not. Those who choose not to fund an increase in water supply, will operate under the above rules (ie, the revised allocations that are equivalent to historical use, and lowered thresholds for water restrictions).
Those that fund a water supply increase, will effectively have a system that imposes water restrictions that take into consideration the additional water being added to the natural water supply. Effectively, using a different water restriction threshold, so that they can extract the water they have added to the river, before restrictions apply.
If council purchases water from the dam for urban users (estimated investment of $9 million) then they are less likely to see water restrictions. It should be noted that council has voted to provide $25 million towards the dam. With $13 million (of that $25 million) considered to be the environmental benefit contribution that will be rated across the whole district, against water club members (those people connected to a council provided water supply).
As I have said in earlier posts, I consider that the $13 million should be apportioned between the extractors (urban consumers and irrigators), rather than imposed across the district. Adopting an extractor pays approach would have resulted in council only contributing roughly $14 million towards water augmentation, rather than the $25 million that council has undertaken to provide in the LTP (see www.greeningtasman.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/long-term-plan-meeting-full-council-28-may/). In my opinion, the community should continue to put pressure on the councils (majority) decision to fund $25 million of the dam cost.
The council unanimously agreed to release for public consultation the draft consolidated bylaws on road speed limits for the district (see the “attachments” document at www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2015/2015-09-10).
A number of changes to road speed limits across the district are proposed. For example, Ranzau Road will have its speed limits reduced. Consultation is expected to begin from 14 September 2015 to 16 October 2015.
My advice for people wanting to a submission is to read the attachments document. This is because the attachment document highlights the proposed changes (via track changes), so that you can quickly identify any proposed changes. While the public consultation document will highlight if a speed has gone up or down, it won’t indicate the speed it has changed from.
The attachment document also includes very detailed assessments and reasons for why speed limits were proposed for changed (or not). Those assessments include a recommended speed (based on model), additional staff assessments (that consider aspects not included in the speed modeling), and the working party recommendations (being Crs Norris, Dowler, Higgins, Bryant, and Sangster).
In relation to school zones, the draft bylaw proposes a managed roll out of advisory signs. The only exception is for Brightwater, where the Brightwater school zone will have the benefit of a reduced speed limit. This was achieved by the mayor proposing a separate resolution that proposed a speed limit reduction for the main road in Brightwater. A number of councillors were upset with this move, as it appeared to give special treatment to one particular street (and school).
While, I could agree with those councillors, that this treatment was not fair, I nonetheless supported the separate resolution, as at least one school would benefit from the proposed speed reduction. However, I agree with those councillors who opposed the mayor’s maneuvering, that all other schools zones should have had similar treatment. No doubt those schools will be making a submission to council highlighting the difference in treatment and inviting council to lower speed limits on their roads.
Council’s current treasury policy requires any interest rate swap arrangements that are longer than 10 years to be approved by full council (which meets every 6 weeks). The proposed change sought to extend the delegated authority from 10 years to 12 years, to enable staff to take advantage of the swap market (which is very fluid at present), without having to wait 6 weeks for approval. Both the full council and corporate services meeting unanimously supported the proposed change.
This item was brought to full council from the corporate services meeting (held on 3 September) as the corporate services committee did not have authority to amend the treasury policy. This item was explained in detail at para 9.4 of the corporate services agenda (see www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/corporate-services-committee-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CorporateServicesCommittee/2015/2015-09-03) and discussed in an earlier post (see www.greeningtasman.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/corporate-services-committee-3-september/).
Due to the nature of capital works, some projects planned to be undertaken in earlier financial years are either not started, or are not completed in the financial year they were planned. Often delays are due to weather or the cascading effect of other projects being delayed. This means funds that were allocated in an earlier financial year have to be brought forward into this financial year to enable the work to be completed or started.
Council unanimously supported the carry forward of $14.853 million from the 2014-15 year into the 2015-16 year. This does not have a financial impact in the 2015-16 year, as the funds for these projects has already been raised in the earlier years that these projects were planned to be completed. In the previous financial year, council carried forward around $20 million of capital projects. The reduction in carry forwards this year would suggest that council has made some progress in catching up on the delivery of these delayed projects.
A list of the projects being carried forward is listed in the agenda at page 15 to 23.
Council unanimously adopted the proposed “Navigation Safety Bylaw 2015” which comes into effect on 14 September 2015. The new 2015 bylaw replaces the old 2006 bylaw. All bylaws are located on the council website at www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/policies/bylaws/.
The new 2015 bylaw is the result of a review of the old 2006 bylaw that began in December 2013 and involved public consultation during early 2014. During that consultation period council received over 212 submissions.
Since the consultation period the government has further simplified the law. This has meant that the new 2015 bylaw does not have to reproduce all the rules contained in the parent Act. Therefore, anyone referring to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2015 should also consult the parent Act (the Maritime Transport Act 1994, see www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0104/latest/whole.html), associated regulations, and rules.
The regional public transport plan for 2015-18 was received and adopted by council.
I took the opportunity to reinforce the communities concerns that the regional plan is not used to drive (forgive the pun) further road widening projects (Wensley Road comes to mind). In my opinion, any expansion of the public transport network needs to utilise existing infrastructure not place additional financial costs on the community.
For example, a loop around Richmond that uses Hill Street, Hart’s Road, and Bateup Road (which is already earmarked for widening due to the proposed supermarket development) would be more appropriate roads to use as they have the capacity to take buses.
This topic was discussed in an earlier meeting (see www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/corporate-services-committee-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CorporateServicesCommittee/2015/2015-09-03).
Full council received and approved the interim policy on unmanned aircraft (also referred to as drones, model aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft systems, or UAVs). The policy should be read in conjunction with the civil aviation authority (CAA) rules (which came into force on 1 August 2015) and are located at www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/.
The council policy document is is located at www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/policies/flying-drones-and-other-unmanned-aircraft-over-council-land/. Essentially, the policy prohibits use of unmanned aircraft within 4 km of identified aerodromes (controlled airspace), unless permission is granted by the council.
In contrast, council has provided general consent to use unmanned aircraft on all other council land, unless prohibited. Prohibited land areas include: council offices, libraries, forestry plantations, Mapua commercial precinct and wharf area, various public and memorial gardens (such as, Washbourn, Pethybridge, etc), cemeteries, Motueka sandspit, leased land to other parties (such as, bowling greens, tennis courts, etc). If on doubt contact the council.
This policy does not cover privately owned land. However, the CAA requires unmanned aircraft operators to obtain permission from a private landowner or occupier before flying over private land.
Nelson regional sewerage business unit
Council agreed to renew the Nelson regional sewerage business unit (NSRBU) memorandum of understanding and reappoint the joint committee that administers the NSRBU.
This item came before full council because both councils failed to enter into a renewed memorandum of understanding before August 2015, resulting in the deemed discharging of NRSBU joint committee. The council’s resolutions effectively corrected this administrative oversight.
Economic development funding
Council received and approved the EDA funding agreement with Nelson council. The agreement looks to fund destination tourism and economic development initiatives for the Tasman region at a total cost of $400,000 per annum. These funds come from general rates. Nelson council will use the EDA and NTT (or other appropriate vehicle) to provide these services (and outcomes).
I note that the Nelson council has begun a review of both organisations and is not proposing to merge both entities (see www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/71888656/Nelson-economic-development-and-tourism-merger-could-save-100-000-a-year). I certainly support a merger as I have stated in earlier posts (see my discussion about tourism at www.greeningtasman.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/full-council-meeting-5-december/).
The council also established a liason group (comprising the mayor, Cr King, Bryant and Edgar) to improve accountability arrangements for service delivery for the Tasman district. In my opinion, this is an important element of the new process. Unfortunately the council in the past has not provided clear targets or outcomes for the Tasman district and therefore has struggled to receive anything meaningful in terms of measuring its return on investment.
While attempts had been made to target the cost of destination tourism to the commercial community (being those who directly benefit), rather than general ratepayers, the tools available to council were rather blunt (ie rating commercial land), and in the end the council opted in the interim to continue to use the general rating system.
Highlights of the CEO’s report include:
- strategy and planning. Council’s LTP consultative document was judged to one of the top 8 documents in the country. Council staff are reviewing the winning entry (and the other 6 documents) to make improvements for future consultation documents. Planning for the next financial year (including how we will consult with the public) has begun. A workshop was held on 3 September that discussed several issues including enabling the finance team to focus on forecasting (for the future), rather than just reporting on the past.
- annual report. The annual audit process went more smoothly this year, with the annual report expected to be adopted at the next full council meeting on 24 September 2015. Appointment of an independent member to the audit subcommittee was addressed in a confidential session with the appointment being made by majority vote. The person appointed was Graham Naylor.
- rules reduction taskforce. The government task force concluded that there were few loopy laws with many grievances stemming from service delivery and process problems. My experience has been that the interpretation of legislative rules by central government agencies is also an area of concern, especially in relation to health and safety standards (and there over zealous application).
- people. Council are currently seeking 3 staff replacements. Collective employment agreement bargaining concluded with the union in August. This resulted in a wage increase of 1.2% for most staff – which was “just” within budget. A high level review of councils existing health and safety systems and processes has begun, with a view to implementing an improvement plan. Under the new Health and Safety Act councillors and officers have a duty of due diligence (ie taking reasonable steps to ensure compliance), but cannot be prosecuted for non-compliance.
Agenda and minutes
The agenda, attachments, and minutes are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2015/2015-09-10.
The Corporate services committee meeting was held on 3 September 2015. Apologies were received from Crs King and Bryant. Crs Boullir, Sangster, Ensor, Canton and the mayor arrived later during the meeting. There were no public forum presentations.
The agenda included a number of information updates (or decisions to receive reports). The agenda included the following topics: (1) koha policy, (2) Motueka clock tower trust, (3) IS staff restructure, (4) property services, (5) Motueka aerodrome and UAVs, (6) Richmond unlimited, (7) commercial activities (Mapua shed 4 development, forestry, campgrounds, Port Tarakohe), (8) Nelson airport, (9) treasury update and swap rate policy change, and (10) information services strategy and work programme.
A financial report for the corporate services team was absent in this report due to activity pressures on the team.
This meeting was fairly straight forward and all the agenda resolutions were approved without amendment by council.
The council’s koha policy document (enclosed in the agenda at page 17) was reviewed by staff and no changes were recommended. The policy was adopted by council in June 2013 and was developed to clarify the circumstances in which donations and gifting of koha by council to third parties is appropriate.
Paragraph 7 of the policy document makes it clear that council will only give cash donations under “rare and exceptional circumstances”, which must receive the prior written approval of the chief executive. Payments are not koha if they have tax implications (for example, a payment for personal services).
Cr Dowler noted that the koha policy document (and all other policy documents) should have the name of the authorising officer who signed the policy (as the policy document only had a signature).
Motueka clock tower
The Motueka Clock Tower trust has provided a copy of its financial statements as required by the loan arrangement. The trust is required to make annual repayments of $12,000. This comprises $5,000 from the trust and $7,000 from council’s reserve financial contributions. The council loan to the trust has an outstanding balance of $74,724.
Richmond unlimited (representing local businesses) has submitted a copy if its annual report and financial statements to council. This organisation is funded by council through a targeted rate.
IS staff restructuring
The information services (IS) structure review is nearing completion with updated job descriptions and job mapping circulated to affected staff. The revised structure aims to improve internal customer service and prepare for future delivery and technology challenges. Three positions have changed. Minor cost savings have been achieves with no increase to overall staff numbers.
Operating expenditure for information services was 97% of budget, and capital expenditure was 55% of budget. This reflects a shift away from in house maintenance of software and hardware.
- lift and stairwell project for Motueka recreation centre completed
- seismic repairs to Motueka memorial hall competed
- new compressor for Richmond aquatic centre acquired ($21,000)
- sale of 95 wharf road under negotiation
- various licenses to occupy roads, road boundaries confirmations for land parcel surveys, and compensation agreements, made.
The civil aviation authority has released new rules relating to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This can be found on their website (see https://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/index.html).
The Motueka aerodrome advisory committee will be meeting to consider the new rules. The Motueka aredrome operations and safety committee has already met to consider a request to operate a UAV within 4km of the airport. Any UAV operating within the 4km zone requires prior approval. The committee has drafted a set of rules to apply to the applicant (a land surveyor) and will consider future applications on a case by case basis.
The commercial subcommittee report (28 August 2015) also reported that the Nelson drag racing association has released its racing days. These are: 7 November 2015, 9 January 2016, 6 February 2016 (or 7 February if wet), 26 March 2016 (or 27 March if wet). See http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/subcommittee-meetings/commercial-subcommittee/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CommercialSubcommittee/2015/2015-08-28.
The Nelson airport constitution was recently updated to include references to the appropriate legislation. The constitution now refers to the appropriate updated legislation (see http://www.nelsonairport.co.nz).
Great also to see some new operators in the region – with Jetstar, Origin, and Kiwi Regional Airlines now providing services for the Nelson region (see http://www.nelsonairport.co.nz/air/bacon-and-eggs-welcome-jetstar-to-region/, http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/69661139/new-airline-originair-set-to-go, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69662951/Kiwi-Regional-Airlines-names-start-date-and-routes, and http://www.nelsonairport.co.nz/air/air-rivalry-in-regions-welcome/). This is fantastic news for the region. Making the opportunity for travel to and from the region much easier (and cost effective).
The corporate services report touched on a number of topics covered in much more detail in the commercial sub-committee agenda (28 August 2015). I would recommend anyone with an interest in the councils commercial activities read that report (see http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/subcommittee-meetings/commercial-subcommittee/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CommercialSubcommittee/2015/2015-08-28).
The shed 4 development has hit a few snags and is experiencing delays. Ground work is expected to be completed soon. Discussions are ongoing for the last three lease spaces in the new Shed 4 development. Hamish’s cafe has closed and moved out. The Golden Bear has developed draft plans for the former cafe space.
During questions, staff suggested that toilets would be developed in part of the former cafe space to separate the Golden Bear from the grass area.
Information about the development is located on the council page at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/tasman/projects/community-projects/shed-4/. For a time lapse update on the construction process (scroll mouse across the picture to see time lapse progress) see http://www.tasman.govt.nz/tasman/projects/community-projects/shed-4/#Progress.
- Fearon’s bush (Motueka Top 10 Holiday park). The repurchase of assets has been approved by the leasee. Legal documentation is being prepared and settlement is expected soon. The financial performance of the asset for the year ending June 2015 shows: net profit $194,000 (revenue $233,000 less expenses $39,000).
- Pohara beach (Pohara Top 10 Holiday park). Repurchase negotiations have started and are expected to be concluded in early 2016. The financial performance shows a net profit of $195,000 (revenue $318,000 less expenses of $123,000)
- Collingwood (motor camp). Infrastructure failures (electrical, gas and plumbing) were completed in June/July for $40,000. The financial performance shows a net loss of $5,000 (revenue $198,000 less expenses of $203,000).
- Riverview (Murchison). The new operators have delivered their development commitments and the debt write off of $49,000 has ocurred. The financial performance shows a net loss of $38,000 (revenue $38,000 less expenses of $76,000).
The annual report was presented in the 28 August commercial subcommittee report (see link above). The financial results were positive and were presented to the corporate services committee as the “best financial result to date”. Net revenue was $318,534 (126%) above budget.
At first glance, TDC’s forestry looks in good shape. However, a detailed read of the annual report shows that the result was if anything a very fortunate one, and could be better described as a result of good timing and very pro-active management, operating in a downward (bear) market.
According to the annual report, the “excellent revenue results were realised despite dramatic drops in export pricing alongside softening of the domestic pricing”. An average market price fall of 16% is certainly dramatic. And like dairy, the collapse of the export market price, was to a large extent driven by the china crisis (and their glut of timber).
Further, given we also cut more timber than we had planned to harvest, revenue should have been above budgeted forecasts (volumes were 104% of budgeted harvest volume). Added to the mix was the fall of the NZ dollar which increased wharf charges, although off-set by more competitive ocean freight charges.
Added to all of these factors was timing (ie the harvesting cycle). This year, Rabbit Island logs were due for harvesting. Fortunately, Rabbit Island logs (which was all of the harvested logs for the year) produced a high density (premium) log. Apparently its high density being attributable to the sandy soils and fertiliser (or bio waste) that it grows in. Supplying premium high grade logs meant the price drops were much softer than they would have been, had TDC harvested lower quality logs.
In addition, much of the fall in export markets was softened by selling into the domestic market. Roughly 86% of the 22,000 ton of logs harvested were sold domestically. While the domestic market price also fell, it did not fall as much as the export market. According to the annual report, the “strategy for growing domestic customer base and market access has been financially advantageous for the TDC. A comprehensive understanding of wood quality and matching supply to market demand resulted in domestic log sale growth, which also minimised the exposure to export log price volatility”.
TDC’s financial performance can also be attributed (in part) to other domestic timber suppliers backing off harvesting, as they wait for better prices. This allowed TDC to sell its timber in a domestic market that was not over-supplied (so domestic prices remained higher than they might have been).
Yet, there is still a risk of harvests (and revenue) being lost. The annual report observed that in “November 2014, 0.6 hectares of 21 year old radiata was burned. There was potential for significant losses”. This loss was on Rabbit Island. Fortunately, health and safety performance was excellent this year (although there were 8 minor incidents recorded).
When all of these additional factors are taken into consideration (other than just looking at the net revenue), the picture for TDC’s forestry (going forward) is not necessarily as good as it first appeared. The long term future remains very uncertain. I do wonder if council should continue in this space, or dispose of its forestry rights.
The new weigh bridge shows large volumes of trade entering the port that was not previously measured under the old system. The first seven months of operation (to June 2015) have been invoiced. All users have paid their charges, except Talleys, who continue to challenge the charging methodology.
A review of the methodology has been undertaken in light of the commerce commissions directions for the parties to reach a commercial resolution. Until the review by PWC is completed, no further action is being undertaken.
Occupancy has stabilised with: (1) moorings 100% (20 of 20), (2) marina 78% (31 of 40), and (3) pile berths 50% (10 of 20). The storage compound remains 30% full.
The financial performance of the asset shows a net loss of $106,000 (budget $154,000 profit vs 2014 $123,000 profit), with revenue $553,000 (budget $771,000 vs 2014 $486,000), less expenses $659,000 (budget $617,000 vs 2014 $610,000). The net loss is attributable to a drop in occupancy fees down $150,000 on budget, wharf income down $33,000 on budget, and boat ramp fees down $13,000.
The current plan strategic plan for information services is expected to be reset in 2016. The current plan has 4 strategic outcomes, with associated improvement projects to deliver those outcomes. Those outcomes are: (1) a customer focus that puts customers at the centre of processes, systems, and architecture, (2) active information management that provides easier access in a more transparent and useful way, (3) building better, more aligned processes, that reduce waste and improve efficiency, and (4) providing solid robust and resilient infrastructure that delivers that information.
Within these four aspirational pillars, a number of projects have been undertaken, including: implementation of an improved document management system (silentOne) and accounting software (MagiQ), digitisation of various manual paper based processes and forms (eg, resource consents, submission forms, etc) , and upgrading services (eg intranet, MS software, etc).
Setting the 2016-19 strategic plan is planned for the first quarter of 2016.
Councils debt (at 18 August 2015) was $151.5 million. The weighted average interest rate was 5.06%. Councils cost of funds (including interest and bank fees) was 5.15%.
As at 18 August 2015, council had $147.78 million of interest rate swaps in place (reflecting 86% cover of debt). In August, council undertook 4 swap extensions
A review of banking facilities resulted in $20 million of available credit facilities being cancelled. In light of the LTP’s forecasted debt levels, a further review of banking facilities will be undertaken and a reduction and consolidation of existing bank facilities is expected.
Standard and Poors credit rating review is expected on 8 September 2015.
The committee also resolved to extend the current swap policy requiring council authorisation from 10 years to 12 years. The reason for this change it to allow PWC to take up low interest swaps more easily (given the lowering of interest rates). In a fast moving financial environment, a delay of 6 weeks (being the length of time between council meetings) might prevent PWC taking up a good swap arrangement.
This resolution will come before full council for approval (as the corporate services committee does not have the necessary delegated authority). This is a good example, of the repetition of topics and issues that come before committees (and full council) and why I do not always feel the need to attend every meeting. A great deal of committee meetings either are dominated by information only updates, or require decisions to merely receive reports (hardly decisions at all).
My approach is to make sure that I do attend those meetings where I can actually make a meaningful contribution to policy outcomes, or where activities need to be challenged (or supported). This ensures my time is used efficiently – and I am not just attending meetings for the sake of attendance. In my mind its the quality of a councillors involvement (and the position they advocate), not just the fact they were at the meeting.
Agenda and minutes
The agenda and minutes are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/corporate-services-committee-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CorporateServicesCommittee/2015/2015-09-03.
The community development committee met on 12 February 2015. All councillors were present, except for Cr King and the mayor who arrived after the start of the meeting.
The public forum received a very comprehensive presentation from Michael Rea on the motueka harbour and coastal works account. This topic was discussed at the corporate service committee meeting, held immediately after this meeting. A summary of the council’s deliberations and my thoughts are included in my post on that meeting.
The agenda included the following items: (1) Tapu Bay bach removal report, (2) community reserves expenditure program report, (3) various managers reports on the following topics, including: the aquatic centre, community events review, library usage, new online LIMs process, and a new online submissions process.
I will highlight the main items of interest for councillors (and myself) below.
New internet developments
In my mind, this was the big theme of the agenda. And no doubt will play out over the coming weeks as a good news story for the council. As it should be.
Many readers will already know I am very keen for council to automate many of the manual processes using online solutions that ratepayers (and other customers) can access from the internet. This improves council service levels and timeliness for customers, and keeps the increasing pressure on staff wages, down.
In my opinion, council is making some good first steps on utilising technology to generate efficiencies and improve service levels. I can only congratulate the IT staff on their latest effort and look forward to more initiatives.
The new online “submissions form” process is a great example of the new technology culture that is beginning to flourish. This new online form has an excellent user interface (UI) and will make it easier for ratepayers to make submissions, track progress, and receive active reminders of hearings.
From council’s perspective it removes all the manual work required to enter the hardcopy submissions into databases for sending letters and arranging times to attend hearings. This is a substantial cost (and time) saving for council. Staff also advised that the system is a modular (drop and play) system and is therefore easily transportable to other networks.
In my opinion, this is a piece of technology that could (and should) be shared with other councils (as well as its development costs). For example, Nelson City Council (NCC). This is a great win-win for everyone. I note that Wellington City Council (WCC) has already expressed interested in developing co-operate arrangements with other councils over the development of apps and other technology (see http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=74752). Perhaps its time to talk with WCC too.
Note! For those who are not on the internet, or do not have email, or choose not to use the new online submission form, they can still use the post. I should also note that the new online changes are only in relation to communication from ratepayers to TDC – after TDC has first notified the public of a submission process (eg for the annual plan, special consultation, plan change, or consultation document). Initial communication notifying the public of a submission process (what ratepayers receive first) will remain unchanged. This will continue to be done primarily via hardcopy media (eg local newspapers and newline) – and including the TDC webpage.
Another IT development is the new online LIM’s and resource consent process. Staff have advised council that the new online LIM process has reduced processing of LIMs by one day’s worth of time. With much of the remaining time now taken up with checking data for accuracy. Clearly further improvements can be made and I look forward to seeing these come online.
Tapu Bay bach removal
In March 2011, the council established a policy on “private structures on esplanade reserves” which effectively provided that privately owned buildings, occupying council owned esplanade reserves, had to be removed by 31 March 2014. This policy has been consistently applied across the district, except for one instance, where an owner of a Bach was granted a life time license to occupy reserve land that they had donated to the council.
More recently, two baches at Tapu Bay were notified of the policy, with one owner removing their bach, and the other owner requesting they be permitted to stay on the reserve for the remainder of their life time. This owner, had been granted permission by the council in 1984 to occupy the esplanande “at the pleasure of the council”.
The bach had occupied the land since the 1930’s. Staff advised council that the Bach was built in 1894, but did not have any heritage protection and was unlikely to receive any.
The question before the council was whether there were sufficient grounds to grant an exception to the esplanade policy. The short answer was there was not. Accordingly, there was little support for the mayor’s proposal to grant an exception to the policy on “compassionate grounds”.
In my opinion, the policy was known to the community for some time and had already been widely applied. In some instances, people had already removed homes (where they had lived) from esplanade reserves.
In this case, the owner had not donated the reserve land on which their bach was located, and did not live in the bach. Rather, the bach was a family holiday home. While the owner may have donated their time and energy to community service, or was elderly, these facts were insufficient to award an exception on “compassionate” grounds. To do so would have set a very low bar (if any).
On the basis of fairness and consistency, and in the absence of justifiable compassionate grounds, the council had to apply the policy without bias or favour. The council had to be seen to be objective and neutral in its decision making. The rule of law had to be applied. To do otherwise could set a dangerous precedent for the application of other policies and rules.
Voting on this decision is recorded in the minutes of this meeting. The committee’s recommendation will now go before full council for approval. A question that was not addressed (or asked) at the meeting was whether the policy was fair (eg, that it required revisions).
Community reserves expenditure program report
Richmond ward councillors have been providing feedback on proposals for the community reserves expenditure programme for the next 20 years as part of the long term plan discussions. This outlines how money for public art, playgrounds, public toilets, and sports grounds will be spent and when. Two major changes to the reserves fund has been made. First, rather than spend anticipated income, expenditure will be based on what was received in the earlier year. This avoids overspending. Secondly, some of the fund is now allocated to the repayment of debt. For details refer to the agenda (pages 23 to 24).
In 2014, the patronage for the aquatic centre was 20,737 people (less 5,916 for gym membership and casual use or from concessions). This compares to: 22,687 (2013), 23,426 (2012), 20,935 (2011), 17407 (2010), and 17489 (2009).
Unfortunately, the aquatic centre continues to require council subsidisation. In my mind, to make the aquatic centre self sufficient, pricing concessions may have to be confined to residents, through the presentation of library cards or rates invoices.
The Skatepark tour has been run by council for several years. Staff now consider that it is now possible to hand the event over to community groups to run, allowing council to focus on establishing new events. I certainly welcome this indicated change.
The Jazz in the Park event was held in Washbourn Gardens in Richmond and was attended by nearly 3,000 people. In my opinion this is clearly a well supported event and one council should continue to support.
Cricket world cup kicks off from 16 February (including 19 February and 5 March) at Saxton oval. In my opinion, Tasman council support appears to be poorly promoted in contrast to NCC. I understand that the commentators allocated to the match for 16 Feb are: Michael Atherton, Ian Botham, David Lloyd, Alan Wilkins (all England), Ian Bishop (West Indies), and Russel Arnold (Sri Lanka).
The Trust power community awards open for submissions on 2 March and close 1 May. Awards will be made on 29 June.
Use of the libraries online resources show strong growth with use up 60% (26,119 downloads) from the same time last year. The tables below illustrate (1) the strong online growth trend from 2008, and (2) the general usage trend of the libraries in Motueka, Richmond, and Takaka since 2005.
Agenda and minutes
The agenda and minutes for this meeting are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/community-services-committee-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CommunityServicesCommittee/2015/2015-02-12.