Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 31 May 2023

Council

31 May 2023

File No.: 23/364

6.1 Deliberations: Summary Report

1. Purpose

1.1 To present to Council for deliberation, a summary of the process followed to develop the draft Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment (LTPA) and Annual Plan 2023/24 (AP) and a summary of the consultation and engagement process, events held and an overview of formal submissions, and feedback.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/364 Deliberations: Summary Report be received.

2.2 That Council note the information and summary provided, acknowledging the comprehensive information provided to assist Elected Members with their decision making.

3. Background / Previous Council Decisions

3.1 The LTP describes the activities of Council, how they will be undertaken, how the activities will be funded, and the benefit providing these activities will have for our community. When done well, planning long-term provides Council with the means to simultaneously meet the community’s current and future needs and wants effectively. Poor future planning could result in not being able to meet the needs of our current community, or the district’s future community.

3.2 During the development of the LTP, Council needs to carefully consider the vision and ambitions for the district and weigh it up against prioritising projects and planned delivery.

3.3 At the time of adopting the LTP 2021-2041 Council was confident that the plan reflected the desires of the community and that it would set Horowhenua up for the best possible future. Since then a combination of Council receiving new information and circumstances changing, resulted in Council making the decision to amend the current LTP.

3.4 This is not a full LTP review and the scope of this amendment has been limited to the following key areas: The Future of the Levin Landfill, bringing forward key water infrastructure projects, a rates review and a Revenue and Financing Policy review.

Why a Long Term Plan Amendment is Needed

3.5 In 2022 it became clear that Council needed to address several big issues to ensure that the water services our community expects and relies upon, continues to be delivered.

3.6 With a combination of more frequent and intense weather events, addressing assets reaching their end life and growth continuing as forecast, the water infrastructure is reaching and being pushed past its capacity.

3.7 During the development of past LTPs, investment into infrastructure was delayed in order to minimise rates increases and manage debt. These decisions were also made with ratepayer affordability in mind. However previous decisions are trade-offs, as Council now needs to make decisions on bringing forward some of these planned works so services can continue to be delivered.

3.8 The future of the Levin Landfill will also be decided through this LTPA. Council made the decision to include this item in the LTPA at its meeting held 23 November 2022. It was acknowledged that timeframes are tight, however a significant amount of background work has been completed to support the decision making process, and to ensure that legislative requirements are met.

3.9 While Council is making these significant changes to planned projects, ratepayer affordability is front of mind. Many in our district are on a low or fixed income and struggle to pay their rates. The cost of living has increased measurably, with further increases forecast.

3.10 There are many factors that Council is not able to control that contribute to Council’s revenue requirement including insurance, interest rates and inflation costs. Council does however have control over how the rates are distributed and has a responsibility to consider affordability when setting the rates requirement.

3.11 The LTP 2021-2041 noted that:

“The Council have committed to a rating review in the 2021/22 year. We will look at how total rates are shared across the district’s ratepayers, and consider if these are distributed fairly and appropriately. We will consider factors like the level of rates as a % of household income for our residents.”

3.12 As rating models are agreed through the LTP process, this review has formed part of LTP amendment. Throughout this process it has been acknowledged that however the rates are shared, for example under the current method or a new method, some ratepayers will be impacted more than others.

3.13 This process, as set out in the consultation material Council adopted then took out to the community for their feedback, has been driven by the fact that Council has big issues to address and that, given the impact of the issues, there will need to be some tough decisions made. It was noted however, these decisions could no longer be pushed out because Council needs ensure the Horowhenua community receives the fundamental services they rely on daily.

Process

3.14 Preparation of the LTPA and AP commences in July 2022 with a view to both being considered for adopted by the 30 June 2023 to meet Local Government Act 2002 legislative requirements.

3.15 There are many separate parts that work together to form the LTPA including: Activity Budgets, Significant Forecasting Assumptions, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, Activity Management Plans, Financial Policies, and Levels of Service.

3.16 There have been 11 public Council workshops in the process leading up to the Deliberations meeting.

3.17 These include :

· 9 November – Introduction to the Blueprint, LTP, AP, and LTPA

· 23 November – Rates Review

· 23 November – Future of the Levin Landfill Decision – Long Term Plan Process

· 7 December – Infrastructure and Financial Strategies

· 14 December – 3 Waters AMP and all budgets. Council agreement to scope of LTPA

· 25 January 2023 – LTP Amendment: Rates Review update and Revenue & Financing Policy

· 1 February 2023 – CAPEX and borrowings assumptions, Impacts of CAPEX on Development Contributions and rates review, key themes in the draft Consultation Document

· 8 February – Details for LTPA consultation material, discussion of draft document and consultation approach

· 8 March – Pre-consultation update

· 3 May – Pre-hearings updates

· 17 May – Follow up from hearings.

3.18 The LTPA workshops have been open to the public to ensure that the community is receiving the same information as Council. Workshops were recorded and made available on YouTube. More information is being shared than previously in recognition of the big decisions to be made. It is important our community understands what is being proposed, why changes are needed, the proposals and impacts of these options.

What the Budgets Showed

3.19 As part of the Infrastructure and Financial Strategies workshop on 7 December, Council was presented with an early version of the budgets for the AP 2023/2024 and the amended budgets for 2023-2041 for the LTP 2021-2041 Amendment.

3.20 The early budget analysis showed 8.2% of the rates revenue increase were due to uncontrollable cost increases: insurance, depreciation, utilities and interest. The remaining 10.7% can be classed as controllable, but this does not mean those costs could be removed without significant impacts because these changes resulted from impacts such as legislative changes, revenue changes, and contracted increases.

3.21 Council officers were not proposing Council increase rates revenue by the 18.9% figure shown in the early budget analysis. Rather, it is common for the initial figure to be high and worked down from, rather than being considered a proposal. Council officers continued working on reducing budgets to decrease the rates requirement in order for it to be more affordable for our community.

3.22 Council indicated to Council officers they would like to see a range of options that allowed the rates increase for the 2023/2024 financial year to be between 5% and 10%. If Council were looking to adopt a rates increase at or below New Zealand’s CPI (the measure of inflation), it was clear Council would need to commit to holding discussions with the community about reducing levels of service.

3.23 On 7 December, Council was presented with a picture of the changes in borrowings over the lifespan of the current LTP. The significant increases in borrowings were mostly driven by an increase in investment in our key water infrastructure. The projects that drove this change were already identified in the LTP 2021-2041, however a number of these projects need to be moved forward to ensure we are able to maintain the level of service our community expects. These were also driven by significant increases in construction costs, which have increased faster than inflation. Council officers were aware that this level of investment was not advisable and were working on a program that will reduce borrowings in the short term.

Scope Agreed

3.24 On 14 December 2022 Council approved the scope of the LTP 2021-2041 Amendment as the Future of the Levin Landfill, Key Water Infrastructure Projects, Revenue and Financing Policy, and Rates Review. At that time it was noted that, dependent on future decisions by Council, Levels of Service for various activities may also be included in this amendment to minimise the rates revenue increase to affordable levels.

3.25 On 14 December Council acknowledged that uncontrollable cost pressures are going to have a significant impact going into the 2023/2024 financial year and beyond. Council acknowledged that the early budgets and rate income increase were not palatable and that Council officers needed to continue to work on the budgets. Officers were directed to present a range of options to Council workshops that would result in a rate revenue increase between 5 and 10%.

Consultation

3.26 The workshops on 25 January, 1 and 8 February worked through updated budgets and development of options for consultation with the public on the key issues for the LTP Amendment and Annual Plan.

Legislative Drafting Error

3.27 During this period Council was working with Audit NZ, the Office of the Auditor General and the Department of Internal Affairs, to determine the impact of the drafting error in the Water Services Entities Bill No 2, passed by Government in December 2022 that prevented any material relating to waters being included in LTP Amendments. As water data and figures are woven throughout calculations this would have been very difficult, if at all possible, to separate out – and Council would not be able to address the key water infrastructure issues.

3.28 This issue was resolved on 20 March 2023 when the problematic clause of the Water Services Entities Bill No 2 was repealed.

3.29 Audit was still required to issue an adverse opinion as Council did include water assets in calculations. From 2021 when the Government indicated they would be reforming the Three Waters sector, all LTPs have been ‘tagged’ with a note that they include this information. As the legislation is now in force, this has changed from a ‘tag’ to an ‘adverse opinion’. However, councils are in a ‘catch-22’ position because until the water assets transfer to a new entity, Council is required to account for them.

Adoption of Consultation Material

3.30 On 22 March 2023, Council adopted the Consultation Document and associated Supporting Information for the LTP 2021-2041 Amendment and AP 2023/2024. The Consultation Document can be viewed here: https://www.horowhenua.govt.nz/files/assets/public/meetings2023/council/extraordinary-council-meeting-open-agenda-22-march-2023.pdf

3.31 The remainder of this report discusses the LTPA and AP consultation, engagement events, attendance, submissions and informal feedback.

4. Topics for Consideration

Consultation and Engagement

Pre-engagement

4.1 The pre-engagement period ran from 20 February to 26 March 2023. This commenced later than planned as confirmation of Audit NZ’s findings was needed before engaging with the community.

Formal Consultation

4.2 The formal consultation period ran from 27 March to 1 May 2023.

4.3 Fourteen events were planned at the start of the consultation period, using a range of engagement methods: Facebook Live sessions, Ask Me Anything Sessions, Rates Review meetings, stalls at local fairs, and an open day.

4.4 Eight additional meetings were added or attended in response to interest and opportunities that arose.

4.5 A total of 22 consultation events were held.

4.6 The events and attendance levels are set out below:

Date	Event	Attendance
29 March	Rates Review hui: Public invited, specific invitations to Iwi, Ratepayer Groups, Grey Power, Federated Farmers	8
30 March	Ask Me Anything – Summer Series Concert (Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom) Facebook Live - Landfill	8
2 April	Horowhenua Ratepayer Association Meeting	40
3 April	Te Awahou Foxton Community Board meeting
4 April	Focus Group 1, Shannon Memorial Hall	1
5 April	Focus Group 2, Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom	11
6 April	Focus Group 3, Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō	25
7 April	Facebook Live – Rates
9 April	Foxton Easter Fair	40 consultation documents given out
11 April	Ask Me Anything, Shannon Memorial Hall	2
13 April	Cuppa with a Councillor Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō, Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, Shannon Library Facebook Live – Water projects
18 April	NLG meeting Manakau Rates Meeting	12 40
19 April	Ask Me Anything Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō	4
20 April	Facebook Live – Water Meters
22 April	Bus Tour: Levin Water Treatment Plant, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Landfill	29 with more people dropping in to Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō during the day
27 April	yEP (Youth Empowerment Programme) Horowhenua Rural Rates Meeting	15 40
28 April	Grey Power meeting, Levin	30
29 April	Big Dutch Day Out	10-15

New Ways of Engaging

4.7 Council sought to increase the engagement and interaction with the community, and the LTPA, with the big issues it covered, provided an opportunity to try some different ways of engaging with the community. Successful engagement tools will be recommended for the LTP 2024 community consultation.

4.8 The Communications and Engagement Strategy was driven by several key insights. Overall resident satisfaction was down by 8.6% to 63.2% year on year in 2022. Residents’ biggest concerns were three waters, a lack of investment in infrastructure, flooding and the view that Council didn’t listen or act on the concerns of the community. Public involvement in decision making was the most significant contributor to overall Net Promotor Score (NPS) detractor score.

4.9 Through the engagement and consultation processes, our aim was to remove barriers that prevent our community from engaging in Local Government, and to ensure the community feels heard, that their feedback is valued and that decision-making is transparent and not pre-determined.

4.10 This would be done by adopting a multichannel communications campaign that reaches the community in their preferred channels, at a time that suits them, and in a way that encourages participation and interaction in Council’s consultation process.

4.11 Attachment 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the range of social media engagements. This includes data on the Facebook Live sessions, Citizens Panels, media coverage, trial of the new Let’s Korero website and its feedback and polling tools.

4.12 What was found was that while our community were engaged, the sentiment of the comments on social media was generally negative due to the contentious nature of the key topics, but also in part to the condensing, quantity and cadence of posts. In contrast the sentiment of the emojis was positive. Our understanding of this is that people appreciate us engaging with them while they may not like or agree with the content of the topics.

4.13 Looking ahead to the LTP 2024, officers will be reviewing the success of the engagement and consultation events. For example, the Citizens Panel Focus Groups were well received, and while we held them in multiple locations, one location in future would suffice. We had good turnout at most events, with the 4WD tour being a highlight.  Our community enjoyed the ability to engage directly with the Mayor and Councillors via Facebook Lives.  Having them at the same time on the same day each week helped to build an engaged audience.

Consultation Results

4.14 Throughout the consultation period, over 500 hardcopy submission forms were distributed and over 350 hardcopy consultation documents.

4.15 In total 418 submissions were received, and formally received by Council on 10 May ahead of the oral submission hearings.

4.16 Attachment 2 provides a snapshot of the submissions received, including the demographics and responses to key consultation questions.

4.17 The Deliberations Reports that follow provide greater detail and analysis of each issue Council is considering. The Activities Report provides responses to issues raised by submitters on topics that weren’t part of the specific consultation topics.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

5. Appendices

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Communications & Engagement Analysis - May 2023	14
b ⇩	Deliberations Summary Report - Snapshot of Consultation responses	54

Author(s)

Janna Isles

Strategic Planner

Carolyn Dick

Strategic Planning Manager

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.2 Deliberations Report 1 - Rates Review

File No.: 23/348

1. Purpose

1.1 To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment in relation to the consultation issue: Rates Review for a fairer distribution of rates and provide analysis and additional information requested as part of workshop discussions held on 17 May 2023.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/348 Deliberations Report 1 - Rates Review be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted on the Rates Review consultation item

2.4 That Council adopt Option 1 Leave the rating system as it currently is.

2.5 That Council adopt Option 2 Calculate general rate based on capital value.

2.6 That Council adopt Option 3 Calculate general rate based on capital value, but include a rural differential.

2.7 That Council requests that officers commit to a further review of the rates remission policy during the first quarter of 2023/24, that considers options to address affordability.

2.8 That Council review the rates remissions policy during the next LTP.

3. Background

3.1 Elected Members started considering options back in November 2022 for whether there should be a change the way rates are shared across the district, in preparation for the Long Term Plan amendment. A key driver for the exploration of change was with the aim of making rates more equitable and alleviating some of the affordability issues in the district. With the cost of living increasing and the inflation rate sitting at a 35 year high, affordability of household expenses, including rates is front of mind for everyone, including Council.

3.2 Several options were modelled, and three options were put forward for consultation. The key assumption applied by elected members when choosing a preferred option was that a more equitable rating system for the general rates is based on using capital value rather than land value, as it includes the full value of the property.

3.3 Council needs to make a principled decision and determine what is the fairest way of distributing the general rate, based on the submission feedback received and reviewing the analysis provided to Council prior to consultation.

3.4 All options impact the community, but in different ways. During the consultation process, Officers heard that there are likely to be some affordability issues for members of the community with higher value properties on fixed incomes and rural farming families that are experiencing lower incomes. Further options are available, by providing for financial hardship, as well as rates postponement in the Council’s rates remission policy. This policy could be reviewed and consulted on as part of the first quarter of 2023/24.

3.5 During the consultation process, concerns were also raised by the rural community about the way that Council portrayed information and some commented that they felt like there was bias in the consultation document towards capital value. In particular, the map representing median rates as a % of HH income across the district, was the main area of concern. The rural community raised concerns that it unfairly gave a view that they were not paying their share as they are not rated for three waters rates due to not receiving the services. To ensure transparency, Officers have provided a revised view of the map below excluding three waters for each option:

3.6 Legal advice has also been sought on whether the Council could consider alternate options as part of finalising the rates review. Indications are that the Council would not be able to introduce additional options at this stage but instead could consider amending the level of differentials for option 3.

4. Topics for Consideration

Outline of consultation

4.1 The proposed rates review has, as expected, created a significant amount of conversation in the community.

4.2 A large number of submissions (332) were received on the Rates Review Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment consultation topic. A total of 79.6% of all submitters commented on the Rates Review consultation topic.

4.3 This LTP topic was consulted on widely in the community with all ratepayers receiving a letter outlining the proposed change in rates and the drivers of the proposed rate increase. At the beginning of the consultation process, community meetings were hosted targeted at ratepayer's associations, Grey Power and Federated Farmers to ensure that all key interest groups were engaged early. In addition, two community meetings were held in Manakau and one in rural Levin for the rural farming community to answer questions and address concerns raised by the rural farming and rural lifestyle communities.

4.4 A Facebook live session was hosted, and Council presented the key content of the proposed LTPA at a Grey Power meeting and also to the Horowhenua Ratepayer’s Association.

4.5 There were three options outlined in the Consultation Document for submitters to consider and choose from. These were:

Option 1	Leave the rating system as it currently is	235 submissions in favour
Option 2 (Preferred)	Calculate general rate based on capital value	74 submissions in favour
Option 3	Calculate general rate based on capital value, but include a rural differential	23 submissions in favour
Other proposals		1 submission
		333 submissions (total)

Summary of submissions and key points raised by submitters

4.6 The submissions for each of the three options have been summarised and analysed by officers; with a final summary outlined at the end.

4.7 Overall, 235 opposed the change to CV, of these 93 did not add a comment.

4.8 It is important to note that while almost of all submissions received were in opposition to the preferred option 2, it is important to consider the impact on properties who are proposed to be better off under option 2 and the impact on them if another option is selected. There are just over 18,000 ratepayers in the district who received a letter detailing the impact of the preferred option (Option 2) on their rates would be negatively impacted if Option 1 or Option 3 was selected instead.

5. Option 1: Leave the rating system as it currently is

Submitter and submission numbers

Debbie Munroe (#1), Jo Bendall (#3), Debbie Munro (#6), Jo Bendall (#7), Marietza Walmsley (#8) Daniel Conway Scully (#11), Michaela Dear (#12), Lewis Tate (#13), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Levi Milldove (#15), Jonathan (#16), Alan Wolland (#17), Alison Anderson (#18), Nicole Evans (#19), Aarin Bang (#20), John White (#21), Holly Wolland (#24), Deb Walker (#26), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Jason Walker (#28), Gerald (#29), Kent Barrell (#30), Amanda Abbot (#31), Michelle (#32), Laura Reitel (#37), Mansell Ireland (#40), Adele Bailey (#45), Damian Glenny (#47), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), April Dale (#51), Steven Fryer (#52), Jade Holmes - Home (#54), Jade Holmes (#55), Ellen Schaef (#58), Steven Gillespie (#60), Garry Anderson (#61), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Sinead Millard (#64), Angela Jacobs (#69), Helen Trembath - PNCC (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), Cody Shaw (#72), Hilary Moore (#75), Christopher Mark Wilson (#76), Craig Watson (#79), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Barry Eichler (#83) Mel Meates (#84), Malcolm Davie (#91), Hannah Bradbury (#96), Pātaka Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#100), Colin Sciascia - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#102), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Cindy Susan Pender - Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Shaun McNeil (#108), Marahira Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Martin Gibbs (#111). Pareraukawa Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#113). Monique Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#116), Kushla Okano (#117), Jean Cohen (#118), Ema Jacob (#119), Rebecca Collis (#120), Stuart Andrew Keall - S A & D Keall Family Trust (121), Chris Hartwell (#125), John Machin (#130), Ellise Michelle Bolstad (#132), Chris Corke - CORUM Limited (#135), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#136), Bill Inge (#137), Remana Rudd (#142), Christine and Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison (#144), Hera Eparaima - Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Harris Owen Sciascia (#146), Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen - HD Family Trust (#151), Ian Baggott (#152), Graham Keith & Eveline Isabella Bensemann (#154), Tony Strawbridge (#155), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Tony Strawbridge (#158), Ian Staples - Tapete Trustees Ltd (#159), Susan Ball (#161), Richard Brader (#171), Helen Naylor (#172), Andrea Howard (#174), Mark Thomson - The Thomson Family trust (#175), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Bramley Crysell (#196), Rose Cotter (#197), Tania Bate (#199), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Jennifer Burn (#206), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Michael Fletcher (#220), Amy Bairstow (#222), Melanie Obers (#224), Tessa Field (#225), Trevor Hinder (#228), Nick Sneddon (#229), Craig Walker (#230), Susan McPhee (#243), Brenda Chapman (#247), Eric &Betty Cornick (#248), Mischelle Stephanie Dacre - Manakau Hotel (#249), Jeremy John Smith (#251), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clarke (#252), Johnny (#253), Bruce Eccles – Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association (#254), Susan Walker (#259), Hamish McDonald – Private Property Owner (#261), John & Jeny Brown (#263), Mel Birch (#265), Janet Newman (#266), Paul Rennie (#267), Chris and Maria Te Punga-MacKay (#268), Terri Grimmett (#269), Rob and Nicola Buckland (#270), Paul Bright (#271), Paul Goodwin (#280), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Sandra van Toor (#307), Adriana Wilton (#312), Louis Hunter (#313), Craig Tweedie (#314), Jess Thomson (#315), Greg Mclean (#316), Susan Harper (#317), Derek Perkins (#318). Michele Walls (#330). Kevin Doncliff (#333). Peter Fox (#338). Hannah Street (#339). Stuart Weitzel (#341), Esther Garland (#348), Helen Brown (#351), Jason Reid (#352), Cody Finau (#253), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae - Ngati Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata - Ngati Pareraukawa (#368), Angel Wallace (#374), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold - Hokio Progressive Association (#376), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold (#377), Allan James Preston (#378), R.D.Sanson (#379), Jack Warren (#380), Perry Rewai Warren-Kerehi (#381), Charles Rudd - He Mokai O Papatuanuku (#382), Lindsay Hemiona Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#384), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Gwyneth Schibli (#388), Alan & Elizabeth Swanson - Swanson Gardens (#396), James Bernard McMillan (#398), Wendy Alison McMillan (#400), Austin Roderick Robson (#404), Lisa Sanson (#405), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Denise Jeanette Ridley (#408), Gilbert & Diana Timms (#411), Wayne Bishop - Wayne Bishop Group (#414), Paul Antony & Nicola Genevieve Simmons (#415).

Summary of submissions on Option 1

5.1 Overall, 235 opposed the change to CV, of these 93 did not add a comment.

5.2 Submitters #1, #26, #27, #28, #31, #83, #108, #251 and #318 said they opposed the increase rates charges a change to capital value would impose on them because as rural ratepayers they do not receive or use many council services.

5.3 Submitters #3, #7, #11, #12, #19, #125, #135, #266, #319, #344, #354 and #405 opposed the proposed change to capital value on affordability grounds. They commended that this was the wrong time to make such a change given the state of the economy and that the cost of living has already increased people’s costs a lot.

5.4 Submitters #8, #21, #64, #69, #130, #132, #134, #144, #152, #161, #270, #280, #288, #314, #330, #338, #352, #15, #45, #51, #52, #58, #176, #240, #244, #265, #284, #316, #320, #341, #357 and #396 and #355 opposed the change as it would increase their rates and as rural ratepayers they don’t use or receive many Council services.

5.5 Submitters #19, #230, #252, #254, #269, #281, #313, #323, #327 and #395 said they opposed the change to capital value because the large percentage or dollar change created affordability issues.

5.6 Submitters #121, 261, 324 and #348 opposed the change to capital value and said the lowest income people are likely to be renting, and so don’t pay rates, or said that landlords don’t pass savings on.

5.7 Submitter #174 suggested Council consider review of the low-income household rates rebate if Council feels some households are paying too much.

5.8 Submitters #232, #263, #271, #345 and #386 opposed the change to capital value, noting the affordability issues it would create, and suggested a delay to introduction or staggering the introduction of the change.

5.9 Submitters #49 and #172 said Council should move to a user pays system.

5.10 Submitter #281 asked how the proposed changes would affect retirement village residents.

5.11 Submitters #303 object to the proposed changes to the rating system and say another solution is needed for Tara-Ika. As proposed, with the QV rating, their rates bill would increase by 300%.

5.12 Submitters #322 and #343 in Waitārere beach said their flooding issues should be fixed before increasing rates charges.

5.13 Submitter #345 recommends that the Council cap any percentage rates increase to no greater than that stated in the Council’s 2021 Long Term Plan for the 2023/24 financial year and reduce expenditure to ensure there is no need for loan extensions to cover revenue shortfall.

5.14 Submitter #346 included tables from Statement of Financial Position showing borrowings and other financial liabilities (current and non-current). They submitted that borrowings have increased dramatically over the last 3 years. The submitter asks, ‘How much of the borrowings have been used for capital projects and how much to disguise the rate increases needed for the district to pay its way?’ and notes the rate increase last year should have been 30%.

5.15 Submitter #350 cautioned against change, noting Option 2 has quick wins in redistributing rates between households that might, in the short-term, address affordability but are not, in their view, a viable long-term solution. They commented that the danger of allocating rates based on the value of land and buildings is that there is no relationship between land and building values and the provision of Council services. The lack of a relationship between the driver for the costs and the recovery mechanism will distort the signals ratepayers receive for the services they want. A distorted signal is a barrier to ratepayers being aware of the true costs of providing services at the level they expect.

Officer analysis

5.16 235 submissions were received in support of Option 1.

Rates review responses compared to responses for proposed rates increase and fees and charges increases

5.17 Of the 235 who oppose the change from LV to CV, 88 also opposed the proposed 7.9% rates increase and any increases to fees and charges.

5.18 An additional 32 of the 235 opposed the proposed 7.9% rates increase but not the proposed increases to fees and charges increase.

5.19 A further 26 of the 235 opposed the fees and charges increase but not the proposed 7.9% rates increase.

5.20 A total of 148 submitters (62.9%) against the proposed change to capital value also opposed at least one of the proposed rates increase or proposed increases to fees and charges.

Officer comment

5.21 Officers understand and had expected opposition to the proposal from those part of the communities that will need to pay a higher share of the general rate under this proposal. To provide some further analysis to support deliberations, a summary of the impacts on the community of each of the three preferred options is provided.

5.22 While there was some conversation about other options being considered, the Council would not legally be able to decide on different options for this Long Term Plan amendment due to the requirement to consult on proposed options. The Council could consider changes to the differential proposed or could consider directing introducing some financial hardship options into the rates remission policy. This would require further consultation but could be available by the end of the first quarter in 2023/34 for residents to receive benefit from. The remission options are discussed further in the paper.

Key Submission Points

Point 1 - Strongly opposed to a change from LV to CV

5.23 Currently, charges based on land value relate to the general rate, which makes up almost 25% of the rates collected. Fixed charges make up about 60% and include water and wastewater which is only charged to those that are connected to the service or available to connect.

5.24 The level of fixed charges means that owners of lower-value homes can have rates bills that are similar to those of owners of much higher-value properties. When presenting options to the community for consultation, Officers understand that the proposal to move General Rates from Land Value (LV) base to Capital Value (CV) base will result in higher proportion of rates being levied for higher CV properties and it is not unusual to expect significantly more feedback to be received from properties that are going to pay more under the proposed change.

5.25 While 235 submissions were received favouring option 1, it is important when making a decision to also consider that there are just over 18,000 ratepayers in the district who received a letter detailing the impact of the preferred option (Option 2) on their rates. A significant number of residents, approximately 11,000 ratepayers would be negatively impacted if Option 1 was selected.

5.26 Officer’s note that more feedback may have been encouraged from those “better off” by including the potential rates for each option in the letter provided to households, as this would have clearly outlined which option(s) would have seen them paying more.

5.27 Council has options when setting rating policy and deciding how to rate should be shared in communities. The graph below provided context to how some of our neighbouring Councils share rates in their communities.

5.28 To assist further with understanding the impacts of each option, below is a summary of the impacts on households for each of the options proposed. It indicates which options is best for the individual property and which is worst.

5.29 As requested, the categories (Residential, Rural Farming etc.) have been further broken down to identity Maori Freehold Land (MFL).

Point 2 - Delay or stagger change from LV to CV

5.30 During the consultation process feedback received from the rural farming community outlined that it was not the right time to make the change to the rating system to CV.

5.31 To understand the impact of each of the options in the consultation document, it is important to understand the relative share of the general rate paid by the community under each option:

Point 3 - Rural ratepayers don’t receive or use many Council services

5.32 Across Aotearoa, it is not uncommon for rural residents and business ratepayers to have some level of objection to paying rates at the same level as urban residents. Rural ratepayers do not pay for services such as water and wastewater that they are not able to connect to, but they do contribute to other rates.

5.33 For services such as solid waste, rural ratepayers pay a smaller amount compared to urban ratepayers. This difference acknowledges that rural residents do not benefit from services such as kerbside recycling collection, however they can still use the transfer station.

5.34 However, for fixed charges including Community Facilities, Representation & Governance and aquatics, every resident is expected to pay the same level of rates for each separate rating unit.

5.35 The key issue for this LTPA is how the general rates is charged. The general rate currently covers maintaining our parks and reserves, public halls, community buildings, public toilets and street beautification, strategic and district planning and regulatory services including (liquor, health and safety licensing, building and resource consents, animal control and parking enforcement), supporting our community, which includes Civil Defence Emergency Management, economic development, visitor Information, community engagement and organising and facilitating popular community events.

5.36 Currently the Rural Farming Community contribute 23% towards the general rate. Below is the summary of how the General Rate would be shared under each scenario. Because the valuation increase was not as significant for the rural farming sector, the share of the general rate for this sector under each option would be:

Rural Farming share of General Rates	Share
Current general rates	23%
Current general rates with valuation	18%
General Rates 2023 Option 1	18%
General Rates 2023 Option 2	20%
General Rates 2023 Option 3	16%

Point 4 - Affordability/Cost of living

5.37 Council committed to do a Rates Review after the Annual Plan 2022/2023 to consider how rates and costs are shared across our district with the aim of taking affordability and equity into account.

5.38 Officers completed extensive rates modelling, including assessing median rates as a % of HH income based on Census New Zealand SA1 and SA2 areas. Several public workshops were held, beginning in November 2022, to consider multiple scenarios and options, which was reduced to the three options consulted on:

· Option 1 leaving the rating system as it currently is but with revaluation and rates increase impacts,

· Option 2 calculate general rates based on capital value and

· Option 3 calculate general rates based on capital value but include a rural differentiate).

5.39 Currently, charges for general rates based on land value make up almost 25% of the rates collected and fixed charges make up about 60%. This means that owners of lower-value homes can have rates bills that are similar to those of owners of much higher-value properties.

5.40 Infometrics website provided the updated figure of average household income in the Horowhenua District compares against annual average household income nationally, and it is 30% lower than nationwide in 2022. Reference: https://ecoprofile.infometrics.co.nz/horowhenua%20district/StandardOfLiving/Household_Income

· Median household income is information readily available from Stats NZ and one of the key information widely used in modelling affordability studies.

· When comparing the percentage of rates paid across the district, we included all aspects to produce a full and complete modelling results.

· Horowhenua District Council does not have access to ratepayer’s gross and net income due to privacy.

5.41 Officers understand that the preferred option consulted on to move General Rates from Land Value (LV) base to Capital Value (CV) is likely to result in higher proportion of rates being levied for higher CV properties. Those that submitted against the preferred options noted that they didn’t think it was fair to those who own high CV properties should pay more than lower value properties.

5.42 Submissions from some residents with higher capital value properties who are now on fixed incomes and are concerned about their ability to afford the additional rates.

5.43 It is important to note that while home ownership is difficult to determine, areas with lower median household income, will receive lower rates under the proposal. The council did not receive as many submissions from those that would benefit from option 2. If Option 1 or 3 were selected, it would be likely that a significant number of households would be contacting the Council concerned about the increase in their rates from the amount quoted on the letter.

5.44 Concern was raised about how the proposed changes would affect retirement village residents. The change will depend on the retirement village but during hearings it became clear that for one of the significant retirement operators, the fees are often fixed for residents and so any proposed increases would be paid by the retirement village rather than existing residents. Some retirement villages may have proposed rates increasing up to 17% due to the proposal.

5.45 Officers recommend that:

Council could consider consulting on an amendment to the rates remission policy to help address specific affordability issues. This will attract further rates increases as it will essentially be funded by rates:

· Provide financial assistance as a one-off payment of up to $300 – the basic criteria could be “household income before tax for the specified financial year, is less than or equal to the gross NZ Superannuation income level for a couple where both qualify” (approx. $40K) and “expenditure on HDC rates (after netting off any central government rates rebate) is more than 5% of net disposable income.”

· There could also an allowance for this credit to be used to benefit a tenant.

· Temporary financial assistance could be a one-off payment of up to $300 – the basic criteria is “applicants who are experiencing financial difficulties due to, for example, repair of water leaks, a serious health issue (including on-going serious health issues) or for essential housing maintenance”.

· Provide for rates postponement.

· Council should ensure it considers the impact on households better off under the preferred option if option 1 or 3 is selected instead.

Point 5 - Tara-Ika values have been impacted too heavily by valuation increases

5.46 The valuation resulted in significant valuation increases for properties within the Tara-Ika catchment. There was significant concern raised by property owners during the consultation process. The Council has been in communication with all property owners to confirm that they are eligible for a Rates Remission under the existing policy. This remission is under Part 7: Land Used for Primary Industry and Rural Residential purposes in areas that have been rezoned as Residential and Business Zones.

5.47 This means that the properties are provided with a special valuation from Quotable Value to essentially revalue the properties back to a value excluding the impact of the operative district plan and set the rates on this basis. This will be applied regardless of the decision on how to share the general rate, and will apply while the property remains in its original use, until such time as it is subdivided.

Point 6 - Renters don’t pay rates, landlords don’t need assistance

5.48 The proposal to change from land value to capital value was driven with the aim of reducing the rates burden on lower values properties and therefore likely impacting on lower income ratepayers.

5.49 Officers acknowledge that it is very difficult for Council to determine whether homes are owned by the person living in it or whether they are owned by renters and tenants are housed in the properties.

5.50 Officers acknowledge that we have heard from members of the community who have higher value properties but are on fixed incomes. The options provided above under rate affordability go some way to addressing specific affordability for low income households.

5.51 One measure that can be provided is a summary of the impacts on our lowest homeowners who receive the rates rebate. Below is the summary of the impact on the level of general rates paid by each household that receives the rates rebate. Overall, 974 of the 1717 properties are better off under option 2, 739 are better off under option 1 and 4 are better off under option 3. The table below is a more detailed summary by area:

6. Option 2: Calculate general rate based on capital value

6.1 74 submissions were received is support of Option 2.

Submitter and submission numbers

6.2 Stevie Dunn (#2), Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#4), Darren Parlato - Parlato & Associates Chartered Accountants (#5), Terry John Rozmus (#10), Anthony Scoble (#23), Kathryn Peard (#33), Regan Savage (#34), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Matthew Eric Whittington (#39), Howard Whiteley (#41), Sharon Williams (#43), Ashley Gaby (#48), Neville Earl Roberts (#59), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletcher (#78), Mel Meates (#84), Joop Winiata (#92), Arama Moore (#107), Irina Alenandrovna Campbell (#110), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), Egon Guttke (#138), Siobhan Fahy (#153), Eleanor Reo (#168), Liz Brown (#169), Phil Richards (#170), Mel Cook (#173), Alastair Boult (#193), Barbara Cahn (#202), Jody Sellwood (#208), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Leo Cooney (#221), Janette Smith (#223), Garry Good (#245), Jeremy Baker (#250), Wendy Williams (#255), Peter Thompson – Hokio Beach Resident (#256), Bernadette Casey (#257), John Girling - Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (258), Richard Bacon (#260), Brett Russell (#262), Linda Mary Matthews (#308), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Grame and Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Sarah-Jayne Shine (#340), Janice Swanwick (#342), Gaire Thompson – TPG LTD (#349), Kenneth Charles Allan (#371), Christina Paton (#386), Deanna Mere Hanita-Paki - Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Gary Colin Benton - Horowhenua Grey Power (#389), Christa Maria Krey (#397), Carol Dyer (#399), Valerie Maud Rodgers (#407), Albert Ross Burgess (#409), Willow Starstrider (#410), Terry Hemmingson - Horowhenua Grey Power (#412).

Summary of submissions

6.3 Fifty-eight (58) submitters did not add a specific comment about their reasons for supporting option 2. Many of these commented on other issues and the comments are considered in those sections.

6.4 Submitters #10, #41, #193, #392, #393 and #394 said that capital value is fairer, including one submitter who said many will likely not know now much urban ratepayers already pay.

6.5 Submitter #110 said that capital value is high but land value is more unaffordable

6.6 Submitters #258 and #298 said using capital value is not perfect but better than using land value.

6.7 Submitters #169, #170 and #231 supported the change but worried about affordability for others, and 2 of these suggested a delay or staggering the increase.

6.8 Submitter #298 had assessed the impact of the three options on all 626 dwellings in Shannon and found that under Option 1 all 626 would see an increase; under Option 3 297 would increase and 329 decrease. Under Option 2 242 would increase and 384 decrease. They still supported Option 2 but noted the hardship Option 1 could cause people and said it would be good if measures to mitigate against that hardship were able to be introduced.

6.9 Submitter #412 shared proposals for an updated Rates Rebate scheme, introducing a Rates Postponement scheme as there are a number of social medical and financial pressures being place on older people in the community.

Officer analysis

6.10 Seventy-four (74) submissions were received is support of Option 2: Calculate general rate based on capital value. Of those 48 identified as urban ratepayers, 19 as rural and 7 did not provide a response as to whether they are rural or urban.

Response to submitter comments

Point 1 - Capital value is ‘not perfect’ but ‘fairer’ than using land value

6.11 This comment was broadly the basis on which Council approved going out for consultation on the change to capital value with aim of shifting the rates burden from lower value properties to higher value properties to create a more equitable rating system. Council acknowledges that this will impact on some higher value homes on fixed incomes or will impact on rural farming properties in years where farming payouts are lower.

6.12 Council is able to consider offering remissions to support lower income properties and this is discussed in point 2 below.

6.13 Following the review of submissions and through the hearings process, there were further conversations with elected members about whether additional options could be considered. Officers sought legal advice and can confirm that the Council is not able to consider options that are significantly different to what was consulted on. In addition, the Council is not legally able to consider splitting the general rate between land and capital value.

Point 2 - Affordability concerns and ability to stagger increase & Rates Rebates and Postponement policies

6.14 While the Council is not able to limit the % increase on rates there was an option included in the consultation to stagger the transition to capital value with the differential of 80% offered in option 3. Further the Council could provide rates remission policies, including rates postponement to support properties who are experiencing a significant change and are on lower incomes.

6.15 Officers are able to consult in the first quarter of 2023/24 on amending the rates remission policy and rates rebate scheme. Officers note that a rates postponement scheme has not been considered or consulted on through the Long Term Plan Amendment and Annual Plan process. This would however be within scope of the upcoming Long Term Plan 2024 process or could be completed during the first quarter of 2023/24.

7. Option 3: Calculate general rate based on capital value, but include a rural differential

7.1 Submitter and submission numbers

7.2 Rachael - Ngati Pareraukawa (#9). Colin Young (#22). Amy Healy (#25). Nicole Smith (#36). Leeanna Thompson (#38). Joe Craddock (#44). Robert McGaw (#67). Adrian Fullwood (#73). David Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#74). Hohepa O'Donnell - Ngatokowaru Marae (#88). Janelle Tamihana (#90). Jacinta Adlam (#127). Thomas Lynch (#194). Allana Woodford (#195). Richard Trevethick (#207). Geoff Kane (#209). Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246). Philippa Paterson (#278). Robyn Mouzouri (#309). Christine & Darryl Avery (#360). Peter Everton (#401). Francesse Middleton (#416).

Summary of submissions

7.3 Seventeen (17) of the 23 submitters did not add a comment on this issue.

7.4 Submitters #22, #25, #38 and #73 noted rural ratepayers receive fewer services, so should pay less.

7.5 Submitter #209 said Council should reduce their costs instead.

7.6 Submitter #67 said rates shouldn’t include property valuations.

Officer analysis

7.7 23 submissions were received in support of Option 3

7.8 Of those 12 identified as rural ratepayers, 8 as urban, one as both, and 2 did not provide a response as to whether they are rural or urban

Submitter comments

7.9 Four submitters noted rural ratepayers receive fewer services, so should pay less

7.10 One said Council should reduce costs

7.11 One said rates shouldn’t include property valuations

Point 1 - Services received by rural ratepayers

7.12 Please refer to the earlier section on this within the report under Option 1.

Inclusion of valuations in rates calculations

7.13 The Rating Valuation Act 1988 says valuations for each rating unit (basically, a property) have to be updated every three years and be included in rating calculations.

Commented but did not choose an option

Submitter and submission numbers

7.14 Lucie-Jane & Joanne McElwee (#321) requested that properties with land only, pay less relative to other properties.

Summary of submissions

7.15 Submitter #321 objects to the use of the 2022 QV valuations as many months have passed and land value has decreased significantly since then.

7.16 Submitter #321 believes it is unfair that the council is intending to base the value of unoccupied land (and the rates share) on these 2022 QV valuations.

7.17 Submitter #321 requests that the Council review the current value of land only properties.

7.18 Submitter #321 suggests the Council review the level at which land only properties that receive no services are charged.

7.19 Submitter #321 suggests that at least no rates increase is considered for this term on unoccupied properties.

Officer Analysis

7.20 Officers understand there has been some concerns about changes in the valuations since they were set in August. We are required to revalue every three years for rating purposes and so need to select a date and value on this basis. This valuation needs to include all land and buildings across the district, including bare land. All properties are valued according to valuation rules and the process is run by Quotable Value, our independent valuers. It is reviewed by the Valuer General before the values are provided to Council.

7.21 In regard to feedback on the method for valuing bare land, Council notes that the current proposal for the general rate to be based on capital value, seeks to do this. In addition, Council sought feedback on whether further rating reviews should consider shifting some of the Council’s fixed rates (e.g. Pools and Community Facilities) to capital value.

7.22 A decision to provide no rates increase for unoccupied properties would require a separate remission to be consulted on. This is an option that Council could consider as part of deliberations.

Summary of Officer Analysis of Options 1-3

Column1	Option 1 - LV	Option 2- CV	Option 3 - CV with differential
Rural Farming & Rural Lifestyle	138	48	12
Urban	67	19	8
Both	2	0	1
Not specified	23	7	2
Total	235	74	23

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)

Jacinta Straker

Group Manager Organisation Performance

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.3 Deliberations Report 2 - Future of the Levin Landfill

File No.: 23/336

1. Purpose

To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment in relation to the consultation issue: Future of the Levin Landfill.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/336 Deliberations Report 2 - Future of the Levin Landfill be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted on the Future of the Levin Landfill.

2.4 That Council adopt Option 1 Keep Levin Landfill closed with no alternative site use.

That Council adopt Option 2 Keep Levin Landfill closed with revenue generated from alternative site use determined through the WMMP development.

That Council adopt Option 3 Reopen Levin Landfill until its consent expires in 2037

3. Background

3.1 In 2019 Council signed an agreement with the Hōkio Environmental Kaitiaki Alliance Incorporated (HEKA) and s274 parties in relation to the Levin Landfill. As part of this agreement Council’s CEO agreed to recommend a closure of the new Class A Levin Landfill to Council prior to 31 December 2025 (Clause 11.1). The options 1 and 2 allow for this closure date to be met.

3.2 If Council choose a closure date on or before 31 December 2025, the Landfill Agreement will remain in place. The Council will need to work with the Project Management Group (PMG) to develop a closure and remediation plan for the landfill and to agree and implement the leachate remediation project to address leachate from the old landfill. The reconciliation process, including a formal apology will need to take place.

3.3 If Council choose a closure date after 31 December 2025, the Landfill Agreement will terminate. It is on record that if Council votes to reopen the New Landfill HEKA will file new proceedings with the Environment Court and lodge proceedings to make Council close the new Landfill. This will likely add significant time and cost to the Council for the future consent reviews in 2024, 2029, 2034 and the consent renewal in 2037. It also could result in resource consent conditions which are more stringent and have implications for the ease and cost of operation of the landfill.

3.4 The decision will also impact Council’s relationship with Ngāti Pareraukawa as well as other members of the Hōkio community, who negotiated the Landfill Agreement in good faith. The Landfill agreement and the associated commitments sit at the heart of the process to date. To that point it is important to acknowledge the role of the Landfill Agreement in not only determining the scope of the work to date, but also acknowledge the role that the PMG and Community Neighborhood Liaison Group; a role that was clearly outlined and committed to as part of the landfill agreement.

3.5 On 10 November 2021, the Chief Executive recommended that the Levin Landfill be closed in 2022, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 11.1 (a) of the Landfill Agreement. At the same meeting, Council resolved its preferred option (option 1) for the future of the Levin Landfill Special Consultative Process (SCP), option 1 being ‘to close the Levin Landfill in 2022’.

3.6 On 24 November 2021, the Council resolved to adopt the Future of the Levin Landfill Statement of Proposal for public consultation to occur. The Statement of Proposal was open for community feedback from 30 November 2021 until the closing date of 31 January 2022.

3.7 A total of 150 submissions were received with over 95% of these in favour of option 1 – the closure of the Levin Landfill.

3.8 On 13 April 2022, Council resolved to defer a decision on the Future of the Levin Landfill until 31 December 2025, or at any time earlier than that date, following a full evaluation of the incoming Chief Executive by September 2022. The report and minutes from the meeting can be accessed here: April 13, 2022 Council Ordinary Meeting

3.9 Due to the previous consultation not covering an option to ‘open’ with associated costings and not being connected to the Long-Term Plan 2021-41 (LTP) the consultation process had to be repeated and so was included in the LTPA 2023. To facilitate this process HDC independently commissioned consultants, Morrison Low to develop a business case to show different options and to then estimate the costs of those options.

3.10 Morrison Low prepared a supplementary analysis to support the existing business case for the future of the Levin Landfill (Morrison Solutions, October 2021). Morrison Low completed a review of the business case in August 2022 – this review can be accessed from the Council Meeting Agenda 14 September 2022, p,165 . This review concluded that there are areas where additional analysis was required to provide a complete picture of the investment decision to be made by Council. In particular:

· The development of strategic objectives that articulated Council’s objectives for the future use of the Levin Landfill site, aligned to Council’s wider waste minimisation aspirations.

· Consideration of additional options not included in the original business case, including assessment of the status quo option as included in Council’s 2021 Long Term Plan (LTP) as well as options that considered alternative uses for the Levin Landfill site.

· Assessment of the expanded longlist of options against the strategic objectives (and critical success factors).

· Identification of a revised shortlist of options for consultation with the Horowhenua community, as an amendment to the 2021 LTP.

· Updated financial modelling to enable the LTP impacts of the revised shortlist to be compared.

3.11 As part of the 2023 LTPA amendment three shortlisted options were presented to the community, with Option 2 presented as the preferred option.

3.12 Option 2 would see the landfill remaining closed and Council pursuing alternative use for the Levin Landfill site to reduce the revenue gap between in-district and out-of-district disposal.

3.13 This may include using the site for acceptance of cleanfill or as a resource recovery facility, with the potential to generate a royalty for commercial use of the site. At the very least, acceptance of cleanfill would offset the cost of the additional cover required as part of the Old Dump remedial works, and additional cover could be applied as part of the Class 1 Landfill closure works.

3.14 However, like any change in site use, these would need to be assessed in further detail to understand benefits, costs, risks and consenting implications.

4. Topics for Consideration

Future of the Levin Landfill

4.1 294 submissions were received on the Future of the Levin Landfill Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment consultation topic. There were three options outlined in the Consultation Document for submitters to consider and choose from. These were:

Option 1	Keep Levin Landfill closed with no alternative site use	70 submissions in favour
Option 2	Keep Levin Landfill closed with revenue generated from alternative site use determined through the WMMP development	147 submissions in favour
Option 3	Reopen Levin Landfill until its consent expires in 2037	77 submissions in favour
		Total: 294

4.2 The submissions for each of the three options have been summarised and analysed by officers; with a final summary and then officer recommendation outlined at the end.

5. Option 1: Keep Levin Landfill closed with no alternative site use

Submitter and submission numbers

5.1 Rachael Selby – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#9), Daniel Conway Scully (#11), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Kathryn Peard (#33), Ashley Gaby (#48), Steven Fryer (#52), David Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#74), Hilary Moore (#75), Helena Winiara – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#81), Hēni Jacob (#82), Mereana Selby - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#85), Ani Mikaere - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#86), Ema Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#87), Hopepa O’Donnell - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#88), Alma Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#93), Kararaina Rewi - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#97), Vivienne Bold – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#98), Leanne Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#101), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Pumau Kuiti-Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#104), Arama Moore (#107), Marahira Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Alma Winiata-Kenny - Ngāti Pareraukawa, Ngatokowaru Marae Hokio (#114), Kushla Okano (#117), Stuart Andrew Keall – S A & D Keall Family Trust (#121), Te Oru Mikare (#123), Catherine Simpson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#131), Rachael Selby – Raukawa ki te Tonga (#139), Rachael Selby - Ngāti Pareraukawa Ngatokowaru Marae (#140), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#144), harris Owen Sciascia (#146), Jillian Nicholson - Ngāti Kikopiri me Pareraukawa (#147), Tukunui Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#148), Graham Keith & Eveline Isabella Bensemann (#154), Barrie Hoseason (#163), Mark Thomson – The Thomson Family Trust (#175), Allana Woodford (#195), Rose Cotter (#197), Emma Brown (#203), Geoff Kane (#209), Jeanette Warner (#219), Trevor Hinder (#228), Mischelle Stephanie Dacre – Manakau Hotel (#249), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clarke (#252), Jennifer Daphne Rowan (#264), Jamie Lyn Tarati Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#272), Winiata Sol Prime - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#273), Liri Pounamu Ruth Prime - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#274), Raukura Lyn Makere Prime – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#275), Kōtuku Terenga Tahi Prime - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#276), Mathew Rimu Prime - Ngāti Pareeraukawa (#277), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura Ann MacGregor (#295), Stephen & Karen Prouse – Prouse Trust Partnerships (#303), HDR & RA Committee (#305), Peter Fox (#338), Helen Brown (#351), Cody Finau (#353), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold – Hokio Progressive Association (#376), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold (#377), Jack Warren (#380), Perry Rewai Warren-Kerehi (#381), Charles Rudd – He Mokai O Papatuanuku (#382), Lindsay Hemiona Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#284), Deanna Mere Hanita-Paki – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Peter Everton – Lakeview Farm Ltd (#401), Denise Jeanette Ridley (#408).

Summary of submissions

5.2 Submitters #74, #75, #81, #82, #87, #97, #104, #114, #117, #123, #131, #195, #197, #305, #382 are concerned about the adverse environmental effects of the Landfill

5.3 Submitters #104, #114, #123, #131 noted the landfill is socially, culturally and environmentally unacceptable.

5.4 Submitter #75 requests an apology for the “environmental and financial disaster the landfill”.

5.5 Submitter #97 noted that Ngāti Pareraukawa has suffered due to the placement of the landfill and supports the closure of the landfill.

5.6 Submitter #295 said the landfill needs to be closed permanently, the land remediated, with an apology given to the land, and only after these issues have been resolved can other uses be considered.

5.7 Submitter #87, #264 noted that if Option 2 was chosen, that the Council should surrender the associated Resource Consent.

5.8 Submitter #149 explained that they weren’t happy with those outside the rohe bringing their waste here but also aren’t happy with the district’s waste being taken to another. The waste created should be minimised, 50 percent of the waste from building sites isn’t recycled and a solution is needed.

5.9 Submitters #9, #27, #48, #52, #74, #75, #81, #82, #85, #86, #88, #97, #98, #101, #103, #104, #107, #109, #121, #131, #139, #140, #143, #146, #154, #175, #195, #197, #219, #228, #249, #252, #264, #303, #338 supported Council’s waste minimisation and climate changes objectives.

5.10 Submitters #74, #75, #114, #123, #131 requests that Council focus on waste minimisation and reducing the quantity of waste going to landfill.

5.11 Submitters #74, #75, #114, #123, #131 request that Council permanently closes the Levin Landfill and commits to restoration and remediation of the landfill.

5.12 Submitter #87 believes that the landfill should be permanently closed, and that Council should focus on restoring the mauri of the whenua, the wai, the taiao, the people.

5.13 Submitter #264 states that the landfill has had a very serious negative impact on the local environment, mana whenua and the wider community of Hokio.

5.14 Submitter #325 believes that a determination by Council to close the landfill and restore the site will make a material difference to the Hokio taiao, awa, and community. It will also build confidence with the community that a number of other challenges can be addressed in a constructive way that provides for the needs of Council, community, and environment.

5.15 Submitter #361 supports permanent closure of the Landfill due to concerns of local Māori, the odours it causes in the area, the "shoddy” environmental monitoring of the landfill and the Horowhenua catchment, and breach of several resource consents.

5.16 Submitter #376 believes that the Council’s plan for the future of the Levin Landfill is to carry on in a small way taking in more rubbish/sludge, planting trees on site A of old tip site; and other planned options, and that Council plans on using the small amount of tip liner that remains on tip corner and layers of Clay around it more for Rubbish. The submitter also says the deep Aquafer was being affected by the tip site.

5.17 Submitter #377 noted a range of concerns, including that a number of gas hoses leak into the air.

5.18 Submitter #382 raised concerns about Council not historically recognising or respecting the site as a pa site. Submitter #390 objects to Council undertaking any landfill activities on the Hokio Beach Rd Landfill site, as the site is not an appropriate location for a landfill. The submitter also objects to any surface runoff or underground leachate via the Tatana property being exported across the road onto the Warena te Kerehi property then discharged into the Hokio Stream.

5.19 Submitter #401 ask "Why is ratepayer's money being used to subsidise the transport and disposal of rubbish not handled by private operators? It should be a use pay system so people realise the true cost of disposal of their rubbish and will take steps to minimise, compost or recycle their rubbish.”

5.20 Submitters #81, #82, #93 #104 states that the landfill should be closed permanently.

5.21 Submitter #93 states that this site should not be used for any other purpose.

5.22 Submitter #305 believes that the public land within the Tararua Ranges should be utilised as a new landfill site.

Officer analysis

5.23 21 submissions were received from Ngāti Pareraukawa members in Hokio Beach, Levin, Foxton and Otaki, *noting one submission from the Chair of Ngāti Pareraukawa on behalf of the 1,000 members. Seven of the Ngāti Pareraukawa members live in Hokio Beach.

Adverse environmental effects

5.24 There appears some confusion in submissions about which landfill is causing the adverse environmental effects. The closed ‘Old Dump’ (closed since 2004) is causing the adverse effects not the New Landfill which submitters are submitting on. The ‘New Landfill’ that is temporarily closed, is constructed to modern standards and has no notifiable adverse environmental effects.

Gas wells

5.25 The New Landfill gas wells are serviced and monitored monthly to optimise the available gas for combustion at the flare. Note: Gas recovery will improve as the final cover is placed over the portion of New Landfill that was last used for municipal waste disposal in October 2021.

Sludge disposal

5.26 Sludge was disposed of at the New Landfill. Sludge is permitted to go to municipal landfills. Bonny Glen Landfill in the Rangitikei presently takes HDC sludge. There is presently no alternative available way to deal with sewage sludge except landfill.

Leachate

5.27 Available monitoring data shows the ‘shallow aquifer’ not the deep aquifer has been infiltrated by landfill leachates from the Old Dump not the New Landfill. Best Practical Options (BPOs) are currently being developed for mitigating these adverse effects.

5.28 Council is looking at Best Practicable Options to reduce leachate seepage into the Northern Farm Drain (Tatana Drain). Wetland development options that would further enhance water quality are also to be considered.

The landfill is socially, culturally and environmentally unacceptable

5.29 Landfills are a feature of the world we live in. Understandably no one wants a landfill in their backyard. What has changed with landfills is the composition of the waste. Modern waste does not always biodegrade like historical waste. For example, large quantities of plastic waste sourced from a throw away and convenience first, environment second society. This waste does not biodegrade but has to be contained until some future date for processing. New methods will need to be developed to deal with enduring waste.

5.30 See also ‘adverse environmental effects’ above for remediation of the ‘Old Dump’ Council’s legacy “asset.”

An apology owed

5.31 If the decision is to close the Levin Landfill as set out in the Landfill Agreement, Council will work with Iwi and the wider community around a reconciliation process including formal apology. Appropriate remediation of the land and waterways connected with leachate from the old dump site that closed in 2004 will also be advanced.

5.32 If Council were to make the decision to keep the new landfill open, an apology process will look different. This would breach the Landfill Agreement and impact Council’s relationship with Ngāti Pareraukawa as well as other members of the Hōkio community, who negotiated the Landfill Agreement in good faith. Council has still made a commitment to investigation and remediation of the old dump site that closed in 2004.

Resource Consent forfeit

5.33 Option 2 is Council’s preferred option. All new initiatives at the Landfill will need to have land use consent approval. Council will also be required to submit a ‘Closed Landfill Management Plan’ to Horizons. Closed Landfills require management for 30 plus years.

5.34 Council only controls a small volume of waste. Commercial operators control the bulk of the district’s waste. Council does not own the largest Transfer Station in the district - the Levin Resource Recovery Facility. For any real effect on waste reduction to landfill non-Council controlled sources will also need to support Council’s waste minimisation initiatives.

Disagree with waste from outside the district being brought into the area and our waste being taken out of the district.

5.35 Options will need to be considered in the Waste Management Minimisation Plan 2023-24 to address this concern and whether any alternative is viable. Organics could very likely be processed in Horowhenua but municipal waste is more problematic. Keeping the new Landfill open would provide an option alongside options such as a pyrolysis plant if consent approval could be achieved, and the public are assured of its efficacy and low environmental impact.

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

5.36 The upcoming review and refresh of Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will enable further discussion of many of the ideas proposed by submitters here, including where the district’s waste should be disposed.

Restoration and Remediation

5.37 Council is looking at engineering options to reduce effects from the unlined Old Dump into the local environment.’ Environmental influences up stream of the landfill are outside of this consultation and so will need attention from other controls and remediation efforts.

Concerns of environmental monitoring of the landfill

5.38 Council has monitoring data from 33 sample sites that goes back many years. The data collected is very useful in explaining what is happening in the underground water table and the deep aquifer. This data shows minor effects in the local environment. The adverse effects are only from the Old Dump not the New Landfill. The report from Horizons 2021 states that the landfill is only ‘moderately non-compliant.’

Council’s plan for the future of the Levin Landfill is to carry on in a small way taking in more Rubbish/Sludge, Planting trees on site A of old tip site. The submitter also says the deep Aquafer was being affected by the tip site.

5.39 The New Landfill is presently temporarily closed. If Council decides to open it, a new cell would need to be built.

5.40 The deep aquifer is not showing evidence of infiltration from the Old Dump.

The history of the Landfill site, and how its history as a pa site and burial site has not been recognised or respected.

5.41 The known sites have been fenced off. Council is currently working with specialist archaeologists and representatives from both Muaūpoko and Ngāti Raukawa ahead of forestry maintenance activities. If there are any other unmarked sites, Council would like to know of their whereabouts to record them on the archaeological record and mark them off for preservation.

Objection to any discharged surface runoff of underground leachate from the old Hokio beach Rd landfill via the Tatana property exported across the road onto the Warena te Kerehi property then discharged into the Hokio Stream.

5.42 Geohydrological investigations have been made to determine the best way forward to reduce underground seepage into the Northern Farm Drain (Previously known as the Tatana Drain).

Why is ratepayer's money being used to subsidise the transport and disposal of rubbish not handled by private operators? It should be a use pay system so people realise the true cost of disposal of their rubbish and will take steps to minimise, compost or recycle their rubbish.

5.43 Council can consider where waste will be disposed of and how this will be paid for through the Waste Minimisation Management Plan review occurring in parallel with the LTP next year if it is decided to keep the new landfill closed.

Closing the landfill permanently

5.44 Council notes the submitters preference for permanent closure of the landfill.

Utilising the Tararua Ranges for a landfill

5.45 The public land is administered by the Department of Conservation and under present law the use of this land for landfill purposes would be very unlikely.

5.46 If Council was to build another Class A landfill like the Hokio Beach Road Levin New Landfill, Council would need to purchase additional privately owned land and undertake a resource consent application with hearings. Based on similar projects across NZ this process generally takes 8-10 years and requires a significant long-term financial commitment. A large controlled waste stream is also required to cover operational costs and provide a return on investment.

6. Option 2: Keep Levin Landfill closed with revenue generated from alternative site use determined through the WMMP development

Submitter and submission numbers

6.1 Emma Platt (#1), Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#4), Debbie Munro (#6), Jo Bendall (#7), Marietza Walmsley (#8), Alan Wolland (#17), Alison Anderson (#18), Nicole Evans (#19), Colin Young (#22), Holly Wolland (#24), Amy Healy (#25), Jason Walker (#28), Gerald #29), Michelle (#32), Regan Savage (#34), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Nicole Smith (#36), Laura Reitel (#37), Mansell Ireland (#40), Sharon Williams (#43), Adele Bailey (#45), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), Rebecca Dodds (#53), Rawiri Richmond (#57), Ellen Schaef (#58), Garry Anderson (#61), Sinead Millard (#64), Angela Jacobs (#69), Stephen Webb (#71), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletcher (#78), Barry Eichler (#83), Janelle Tamihana (#90), Joop Winiata (#92), Ngatiriti Hautapu (#94), Ben Law – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#95), Lucy Bould – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#99), Pātaka Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#100), Colin Sciascia - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#102), Cindy Susan Pender – Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Monique Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#106), Shaun McNeil (#108), Bev Sciascia - Ngāti Pareraukawa Ngatokowaru Marae (#112), Ema Jacob (#119), Jacinta Adlam (#127), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), Chris Corke – CORUM Limited (#135), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#136), Remana Rudd (#142), Hera Eparaima – Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Tomo Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#149), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Huyen Thi Thu Nquyen – HD Family Trust (#151), Djahn Rogotaua (#164), Sharon Freebairn (#165), Leigh Harrington (#167), Eleanor Reo (#168), Liz Brown (#169), Phil Richards (#170), Helen Naylor (#172), Mel Cook (#173), Andrea Howard (#174), Morgan Waitoa - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#177), Aiden Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#178), Jennifer Phillip - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#180), Crystal Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#181), Tainui Brown - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#183), Terese Fulford - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#184), Tina Tangiiau - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#185), Chelsea Strother – MCD Interiors (#186), Ashley Banks (#188), Norm Pearson (#190), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Thomas Lynch (#194), Bramley Crysell (#196), Tania Bate (#199), Barbara Cahn (#202), Jody Sellwood (#208), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Murray Staples (#217), Raymond Bishop (#218), Leo Cooney (#221), Ronald Gibson (#235), Neil Cohen (#239), Garry – Good (#245), Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246), Eric & Betty Cornick (#248), Jeremy Baker (#250), Jeremy John Smith (#251), Bruce Eccles – Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association (#254), Wendy Williams (#255), Peter Thompson (#256), Bernadette Casey (#257), John Girling – Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (#258), Richard Bacon (#260), Hamish McDonald (#261), Brett Russell (#262), Philippa Paterson (#278), Donald Nicholas (#282), Maree Collins (#283), Robin Berrigan 0 Berrigan Family Trust (#292), Susan Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), Graeme Lindsay – HDRRA Inc (#296), Sue Sexton-Smith (#297), Sharon Williams (#298), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Tony Burgess (#304), Colleen Burgess (#306), Linda Mary Matthews (#308), Greg Canty (#311), Craig Tweedie (#314), Jess Thomson (#315), Michele Walls (#330), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Nola Fox - Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Grame & Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Sarah-Jayne Shine (#340), Stuart Weitzel (#341), Janice Swanwick (#342), Jason Reid (#352), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), Peter Thompson – Over It (#361), Rangiwaiata Te Keepa Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#366), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata (#368), Phillip Toha Winiata (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#370), Kenneth Charles Allan (#371), Hayden Turoa (#373), R. D. Sanson (#379), Christina Paton (#386), Gary Colin Benton – Horowhenua Grey Power (#389), Alan & Elizabeth Swanson – Swanson Gardens (#396), James Bernard McMillan (#298), Carol Dyer (#399), Wendy Alison McMillan (#400), Lisa Sanson (#405), Willow Starstrider (#410), Terry Hemmingson – Horowhenua Grey Power (#412).

Summary of submissions

6.2 Submitter #77 asks if the landfill was to become a recovery centre, would there be an option to take food waste there to minimize waste going to landfill.

6.3 Submitter #94 supports the permanent closure of the landfill and strongly opposes any repurposing of the site towards other waste centres.

6.4 Submitter #95 supports repair and remediation of all environmental damage at Hōkio and prevention of future degradation. The submitter is in support of a waste recovery centre in Levin, however not at the current Landfill site.

6.5 Submitter #102 noted that the landfill is culturally, socially and environmentally unacceptable to their Hapū and supports closing the landfill and commencing a program to restore and remediate the surrounding whenua and stream.

6.6 Submitter #102 states that waste needs to be sent to a safe, efficient and environmentally sustainable landfill. The current landfill does not meet any of these criteria.

6.7 Submitter #106 believes that the landfill should be closed, and the site should be returned to iwi.

6.8 Submitter #170 spoke of the difficulties trying to be carbon net zero when building a home. Construction waste will be an issue for Tara-Ika if builders are not encouraged to build differently.

6.9 Submitter #170 believes that Council should be looking at GIB recycling and waste disposal.

6.10 Submitter #245 suggests that Council should supply optional green waste bins to reduce the space in household bins. This submitter would support a green waste processing operation to reduce the volumes of green waste mixing in with general waste. This would reduce costs associated with disposal of transporting the general waste to other sites.

Officer analysis

6.11 147 submissions were made in favour of Option 2. Of these 58 were from Levin, 8 from Hokio Beach, 21 from Ngati Pareraukawa. 5 Ngati Pareraukawa members live in Levin, and one lives in Hokio Beach.

Ranking of alternative uses

6.12 Submitters were asked to rank five alternative uses in order of preference, with the option of including ideas not included. All but 12 of the submitters has ranked at least some of the options for further investigation.

6.13 Submitters responded as follows:

Native Plant Nursery – Hokio stream restoration		Cleanfill		Green waste composting		Recreational Reserve		Local Resource Recovery Centre
Rank	Frequency	Rank	Frequency	Rank	Frequency	Rank	Frequency	Rank	Frequency
1	74	1	36	1	11	1	3	1	8
2	26	2	42	2	34	2	14	2	13
3	22	3	32	3	33	3	18	3	22
4	8	4	11	4	17	4	45	4	37
5	1	5	5	5	22	5	40	5	32
6	0	6	3	6	2	6	3	6	3
Not ranked	2	Not ranked	4	Not ranked	1	Not ranked	12	Not ranked	15

Figure 1: 3-dimensional graph of alternative uses for landfill – Nursey 74, Reserve 45, Clean-fill 42

Figure 2: Option 2 submissions for future uses of Landfill. Fairly even spread

Difficulties reaching carbon net zero when building a home

6.14 Encouragement for builders to build eco-friendly homes is best encouraged through central government policy. The WMMP 2023-24 consultative process may have some influence on commercial building practice. This could be handled if elected members are in favour of it by way a local bylaw.

Permanent closure of the landfill and against repurposing of the site towards other waste centres.

6.15 Council notes the support for the closure of the Levin Landfill.

Supports of a waste recovery centre in Levin, however not at the Landfill

6.16 A future waste recovery centre could be investigated through the Waste Management Minimisation Plan reviewed alongside the LTP next year.

Repair and remediation of all environmental damage at Hōkio and prevention of future degradation.

6.17 Council is working through options with engineers to determine the best way forward to mitigate adverse environmental effects from the ‘Old Dump.’

The landfill has been culturally, socially and environmentally unacceptable to Hapū.

6.18 Council is working with hapū representatives and neighbouring landowners including NLG as options to reduce effects from the unlined Old Dump are investigated.

6.19 If the decision is to close the Levin Landfill as set out in the Landfill Agreement, Council will work with hapū and the wider community around a reconciliation process including formal apology. Appropriate remediation of the land and waterways connected with leachate from the old dump site that closed in 2004 will also be advanced.

6.20 If Council were to make the decision to keep the new landfill open, an apology process will look different. This would breach the Landfill Agreement and impact Council’s relationship with Ngāti Pareraukawa as well as other members of the Hōkio community, who negotiated the Landfill Agreement in good faith. Council has still made a commitment to investigation and remediation of the old dump site that closed in 2004.

Waste needs to be sent to a safe, efficient and environmentally sustainable landfill. The current landfill does not meet any of these criteria.

6.21 The Levin New Landfill had been run by Waste Management who run and own Bonny Glen where the district municipal waste now goes. Both Landfills are Class A landfills with the same environmental protective features.

Returning the land to iwi.

6.22 This may not be an option in the short term. Council will not be able to transfer the site management. This includes development and implementation of a closed landfill management plan and work with Horizons for a number of years into the future.

Council should supply optional green waste bins and support a green waste processing operation.

6.23 Council will consider green waste disposal options through the WMMP 2023-24 consultative process.

Queried whether community gardens are being discussed and if the landfill was to become a recovery centre, would there be an option to take food waste there to minimize waste going to landfill.

6.24 A suitable use of the compost from kitchen waste would be community gardens and depending on the scale commercial gardens too. If Council selects Option 2 then the consenting of a Resource Recovery Facility (RRC) at the Landfill would be considered. Other sites would also be considered depending on the methodology used to compost, logistics and the number of participating groups who also require organics to be composted.

Additional uses suggested included:

· Tip shop/Recycle & Reuse Park – submitters #77, #254;

· Forestry - submitters #61, #250, #256

· Forestry/Pastoral Farming - #262, #336, #337

· C&D processing - submitters #167, #89

o These submitters spoke in favour of reprocessing construction waste as there is a gap in the market as Auckland currently has the only facility in the North Island. Submitter #170 spoke of the need for GIB recycling as large amounts are currently taken to landfill. Submitter #92 said resource recovery should be extended.

· Plant with Manuka and produce honey - submitter #142

· Rewilding - submitter #257

· Waste to energy - submitters #258, #256, #217, #338, #412

· Submitter #256 said it was used actively overseas when material has no other use or pathway, and if done well, is clean.

· Submitters #217, #412 said waste should be imported from other areas to make it profitable.

Analysis of suggested additional uses to be investigated if Option 2 is chosen

· Tip Shop

· Forestry

· Farming

· C&D processing

· Plant with Manuka for honey

· Rewilding

· Waste to energy

7. Option 3: Reopen Levin Landfill until its consent expires in 2037

Submitter and submission numbers

7.1 Stevie Dunn (#2), Sue Smith (#3), Darren Parlato – Parlato & Associates Charted Accountants (#5), Lewis Tait (#13), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Jonathan (#16), Aarin Bang (#20), John White (#21), Anthony Scoble (#23), Deb Walker (#26), Amanda Abbot (#31), Matthew Eric Whittington (#39), David Gerald Stanford (#42), Joe Craddock – QCONZ ITO (#44), Craig Brickell (#46), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), April Dale (#51), Jade Holmes – Home (#54), Jade Holmes (#55), Neville Earl Roberts (#59), Steven Gillespie (#60), Kiran Sunny (#62), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Robert McGAw (#67), Brian John Ellis (#68), Helen Trembath – PNCC (#70), Craig Watson (#79), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Hannah Bradbury (#96), John Machin (#130), Ellise Michelle Bolstad (#132), Bill Inge (#137), Ian Baggott (#152), Siobhan Fahy (#153), Ian Staples – Tapete Trustees Ltd (#159), Susan Ball (#161), Richard Brader (#171), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Ethan Bray (#189), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Matthew Warren (#205), Richard Trevethick (#207), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Karen Corkill (#216), karen Corkill (#216), Amy Bairstow (#222), Janette Smith (#223), Paul Waters – Harvey Bowler (#226), Craig Walker (#230), Brisn Tweddle (#236), Richard Walker (#237), Lesley-Anne Walker (#238), Brenda Chapman (#247), Johnny (#253), Susan Walker (#259), Paul Rennie (#267), Paul Goodwin (#280), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Peter Hammond (#287), Valerie Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth (#291), Marily Cranson (#300), Sandra van Toor (#307), Robyn Mouzouri (#309), Greg Mclean (#316), Susan Harper (#317), Derek Perkins (#318), Hannah Street (#339), Gaire Thompson – TPG LTD (#349), Christopher Bruce Drinkwater (#372), Angel Wallace (#374), Allan James Preston (#378), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Gwyneth Schibli (#388), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Albert Ross Burgess (#409), Wayne Bishop – Wayne Bishop Group (#414), Francesse Middleton (#416).

Summary of submissions

7.2 Submissions #5, #14 stated that waste to landfill should be minimised.

7.3 Submitter #14 suggested subsidising the purchase of compost bins, worm farms, Bokshai bins or other methods of recycling household food materials.

7.4 Submitter #14 requests that Council promotes food waste applications such as ShareWaste.

7.5 Submitter #216 noted the landfill would last for 100 years and reflected on a past submission that agreed that there needed to be a focus on waste reduction.

7.6 Submitter #39 stated that the landfill should reopened on a more suitable site.

7.7 Submitter #161 believes that management of the environment needs to come after everyone has enough food and warmth.

7.8 Submitters #189, #211, #171 said transporting waste out of district is also bad for the environment, reduces the mana of the rohe the waste is taken to, and the landfill should be within district boundaries.

7.9 Submitter #216 stated that the evidence shows the landfill could be used for many more years.

7.10 Submitter #378 said the Landfill should be reopened but no waste should be brought from outside the district because of the risk of disease.

Officer Analysis

7.11 77 submissions were made in support of Option 3. Of these 29 are from Levin and 2 are from Hokio Beach.

Reopen and focus on waste minimisation

7.12 Options for minimising waste will be discussed and developed through the upcoming Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review.

Reopen but find a more suitable site

7.13 Options for a suitable site can be examined during WMMP process.

Environmental matters needs to come after all have food and warmth

7.14 This submission is noted.

Sending waste elsewhere reduces the mana of the rohe the waste is taken to, and the landfill should be within district boundaries

7.15 This would be considered during WMMP 2023-24 process.

Landfill could be used for many more years

7.16 The current consent expires in 2037, Council will take this into consideration when deciding on the future of the landfill.

No outside waste should be brought in due to the risk of disease

7.17 The submission is noted.

Council should subsidise the purchase of food waste bins and food waste applications

7.18 This can be examined during WMMP next year.

Summary of Officer Analysis of options 1-3

7.19 A total 147 submissions showed support for Option 2. This equates to 50% of the submissions made on this issue.

7.20 The highest scoring alternative uses for the Landfill are as a plant nursery, followed next by a recreational reserve. A recreational reserve would, however, not be suitable on part of the 70Ha site used for landfilling previously due to the delicate gas reticulation network for the methane and hydrogen sulphide collection and combustion.

7.21

Overall clear support from submitters to Option 2. There is clear support from people in close proximity to the Landfill of Hokio for Option 1.

7.22 With the Total Combined graph there is a slight dominance of support for ‘protecting the environment from harm’ followed closely by ‘minimising cost to ratepayers’

8. Recommendations

8.1 The benefits and impacts of the decision for the Levin Landfill to reopen or remain closed permanently are well understood and have been communicated as part of this LTP amendment process.

Council could decide to proceed with Option 1: Permanently close the Levin Landfill with no future use of the site.

8.2 This option continues the current situation – the Levin Landfill is closed and will stay closed. However, our district will keep producing waste that will need to go to a landfill in another district – at the moment, our waste is going to the Bonny Glen Landfill in the Rangitikei district.

8.3 Under this option, we’ll keep up the compliance requirements: regulated repairs and maintenance, including capping with additional clay cover, weed control, grazing and mowing. The well-established forestry will also need ongoing maintenance and harvesting.

8.4 Cost: This is the most expensive option, at $1.6 million per annum – $500,000 per annum more than Option 3. This budget covers transport and disposal of waste elsewhere and maintaining the landfill.

8.5 Rates impact: There will be no change to rates – the current budget has factored in this option.

Council could decide to proceed with Option 2 – Keep Levin Landfill closed with revenue generated from alternative site use determined through the WMMP development (Council's preferred option used in consultation)

8.6 Like Option 1, the Levin Landfill will remain closed but we will also look at how we could use the landfill site for something else. We would still need to pay for transporting our waste out of the district and would still keep up the necessary inspections, maintenance and other compliance requirements.

8.7 We’re exploring a number ways we could use the site. The options that most aligned with our strategic objectives for alternative uses are:

· Clean fill – materials like clay, soil or rock that won’t impact the environment

· Native plant nursery

· Local resource recovery park

· Local or regional-scale processing facility for organic material

· Local or regional-scale processing facility for construction and demolition (C&D) material

8.8 All of these options have a much smaller impact on the environment than the current landfill – some would have no negative impacts and others, like the native plant nursery would help repair the area. A number of these options could also help offset some of the cost of sending waste out of the district. See the business case for other lower ranked options.

8.9 If we choose Option 2 through this LTP Amendment consultation, a further decision will be needed about how to use the site. We’ll consult you about the alternative uses, which would align with our review of the Waste Management Minimisation Plan.

8.10 Cost: Less than $1.6 million per annum

Rates impact: This option would probably see a drop in rates but not immediately. We don’t know the exact figures right now as it depends on what the site is used for, if this option is selected. To give you an idea, if the chosen alternative use generates $500,000, it will reduce rates by $32.80 per household. If the alternative use generates revenue the rates needed to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the site will likely be less than Option 1. If Option 2 is chosen, we’ll calculate by how much each alternative use will impact rates and share this with you for further feedback.

8.11 Remaining with the preferred option that will allow future investigations about alternative uses for the site. It should be noted that a sizable number of adjacent residents and landowners on Hokio Beach Road and at Hokio Beach, some of whom are members of the Neighbourhood Liaison Group (NLG) have voiced a preference for Option 1 which precludes any alternative uses at the landfill.

Council could decide to proceed with Option 3 – Reopen Levin Landfill until its consent expires in 2037

8.12 This option would see the Levin Landfill reopened, and used to dispose of our district’s waste until the consent expires or until it reaches capacity.

8.13 This is Council’s least preferred option – we know the ongoing negative effects the Levin Landfill is having on our community and our environment.

8.14 Cost: $1.1 million per annum - The total cost of option 3 is $500,000 per annum less than option 1. This is based on the assumption that the landfill will receive a total of 30,000 tons of waste per annum. This is the industry standard for landfill financial viability. Note this is 25,500 tons per annum more than Council currently collects and sends to Bonny Glen. - The cost difference may be bridged with alternative site uses, such as the ones presented in Option 2, but it is unlikely alternative use would fully bridge the gap (based on experience in NZ).

8.15 Rates impact: $500,000 would represent a rates saving of $32.80 per household.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)

David McMillan

Solid Waste Manager

Daniel Haigh

Group Manager Community Infrastructure

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.4 Deliberations Report 3 - Our Key Water Infrastructure

File No.: 23/335

1. Purpose

To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment in relation to the consultation issue: Our key water infrastructure

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/335 Deliberations Report 3 - Our Key Water Infrastructure be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted on the Community Facilities activity

2.4 That Council adopt Option 1 Increase budget to deliver the projects we need which includes universal water metering for leak detection.

That Council adopt Option 2 Reduce programme of work to meet current budget which still includes universal water metering for leak detection.

That Council adopt Option 3 Increase budget to deliver the projects we need excluding universal water metering for leak detection

That Council adopt Option 4 Reduce programme of work to meet current budget excluding universal water metering for leak detection

3. Background

3.1 In our last LTP, Council agreed to invest $121m into drinking water, $171m into wastewater and $29m into stormwater. This work is spread over the next 20 years to align with how much we thought the district would grow, when different pipes need renewing, and how soon we’d reach the limits for the water and wastewater treatment plants. This also helped make things more affordable for our community. We now need to bring forward the commencement of some key projects, and increase the investment required. We’re proposing an additional $75m be spent over the next 10 years on three waters infrastructure.

4. Topics for Consideration

Our key water infrastructure

4.1 A total of 259 submissions were received on the Key Water Infrastructure Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment consultation topic. There were four options outlined in the Consultation Document for submitters to consider and choose from. These were:

· Option 1: Increase budget to deliver the projects we need

· Option 2: Reduce programme of work to meet current budget

· Option 3: Increase budget to deliver the projects we need excluding universal water metering for leak detection

· Option 4: Reduce programme of work to meet current budget excluding universal water metering for leak detection

4.2 The submissions for each of the four options have been summarised and analysed by officers; with a final summary and recommendation outlined at the end.

Option 1	Increase budget to deliver the projects we need	85 submissions in favour
Option 2	Reduce programme of work to meet current budget	68 submissions in favour
Option 3	Increase budget to deliver the projects we need excluding universal water metering for leak detection	44 submissions in favour
Option 4	Reduce programme of work to meet current budget excluding universal water metering for leak detection	62 submissions in favour
		Total:259

5. Option 1: Increase budget to deliver the projects we need

Submitter and submission numbers

5.1 Debbie Munro (#6), Lewis Tait (#13), Regan Savage (#34), Ashley Gaby (#48), April Dale (#51), Steven Fryer (#52), Garry Anderson (#61), Robert McGaw (#67), Brian John Ellis (#68), David Moore – Ngāti Parerukawa (#74), Hilary Moore (#75), Sandy Chan (#77), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Janelle Tamihana (#90), Joop Winiata (#92), Pātaki Moore – Ngāti Parerukawa (#100), Rahiripounamu Nicholson – Ngāti Parerukawa (#103), Monique Moore – Ngāti Parerukawa (#106), Pareraukawa Moore – Ngāti Parerukawa (#113), Emma Jacob (#119), Stuart Andrew Keall – S A & D Keall Family Trust (#121), Remana Rudd (#142), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison – Ngāti Parerukawa (#144), Harris Owen Sciascia (#246), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Barrie Hoseason (#163), Sharon Freebairn (#165), Leigh Harrington (#167), Eleanor Reo (#186), Mel Cook (#173), Mark Thomson – The Thomson Family Trust (#175), Norm Pearson (#190), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Thomas Lynch (#194), Rose Cotter (#197), Barbara Cahn (#202), Geoff Kane (#209), Murray Staples (#217), Michael Fletcher (#220), Trevor Hinder (#228), Brian Tweedie (#236), Neil Cohen (#239), Garry – Good (#245), Eric & Betty Cornick (#248), Jeremy Baker (#250), Wendy Williams (#255), Peter Thompson – Hokio Beach Resident (#256), John Girling – Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (#258), Susan Walker (#259), Richard Bacon (#260), Brett Russell (#262), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Maree Collins (#283), Peter Hammond (#287), Geoff Richie (#189), Robin Berrigan – Berrian Family Trust (#292), Susan Barrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), Graeme Lindsay – HDRRA Inc. (#296), Sharon Williams – Hapai te Hapori - (#298), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Tony Burgess (#304), Colleen Burgess (#306), Greg Canty (#311), Derek Perkins (#318), Michele Walls (#330), Nola Fox - Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Graeme & Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Sarah-Jayne Shine (#340), Janice Swanwick (#342), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), R.D Sanson (#379), Christina Paton (#386), Christine Moriarty – Horowhenua District Residence & Ratepayers Association (#392), Christine Moriarty (#393), Christine Moriarty – Hokio Environmental & Kaitiaki Alliance (#394), Carol Dyer (#399), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Valerie Maud Rodgers (#407), Willow Starstrider (#410, Terry Hemmingson – Horowhenua Grey Power (#412), Francesse Middleton (#416).

Summary of submissions

5.2 Submitter #92 believes that appropriate water management is important for the future of the community due to the changing environment.

5.3 Submitter #173 believes that water meters should be introduced even if it is only to identify high users and leaks.

5.4 Submitter #173 believes that high users should be charged for excessive use of water.

5.5 Submitter #174 believes that the Poads Road storage facility project must go ahead.

5.6 Submitter #217 proposes water tanks for all houses.

5.7 Submitter #220 highlights the Auditors report in regards to 3 Waters.

5.8 Submitter #255 believes that water infrastructure cannot have enough spent on it, as it is in desperate need of upgrades.

5.9 Submitter #255 states that developers should be contributing to the costs of the needed water infrastructure upgrades.

5.10 Submitter #258 appreciates that Council is in a difficult place regarding the 3 waters.

5.11 Submitter #258 emphasises that water infrastructure needs to be planned for longevity, not just for the 3 year election cycle.

5.12 Submitter #259 believes that population growth should be kept in line with the available infrastructure capacity, as much of the infrastructure is currently at capacity.

5.13 Submitter #259 suggests that Council could support water saving initiatives such as a requirement for all new builds to have grey water systems and rainwater tanks.

5.14 Submitters #298, #392, #393, #394 believe it is risky that Levin can only store less than one day of water.

5.15 Submitter #298 supports installing water meters for leak detection.

5.16 Submitter #311 states that investment on the WTP and WWTP should start today as costs will increase the longer Council waits.

5.17 Submitters #392, #393, #394 are concerned about the ongoing unconsented discharge for Levin’s stormwater into Lake Horowhenua. These submitters seek an immediate education campaign on 'if it goes down the grate it goes into the lake.'

5.18 Submitter #342 believes that all new builds and alterations should require rainwater tanks for gardens.

Officer analysis

5.19 Submitters in favour of Option 1 support the proposed increased investment required to upgrade three waters infrastructure to improve level of service and meet future demand. This includes the installation of universal water metering as a water demand management intervention.

5.20 Submissions can be grouped into the following points:

Water demand management, which includes water metering, rainwater collection tanks and greywater recycling

5.21 Water metering – submitters in support water meters understand that the reason for it is to promote water conservation, and improve the detection and reduction of water loss through leaks.

5.22 Rainwater tanks and greywater recycling - Council can only enforce the requirement for water tanks if it is stipulated in the District Plan. Plan Change 4 for Tara-Ika has included this requirement, however the District Plan does not currently require this for other parts of the district.

Water supply management, which includes both raw and treated water storage

5.23 Several submitters raised their concerns about the current capacity of water storage, both raw water and treated water. Their support of Option 1 therefore confirms their approval for the need to increase investment in upgrade of capacity through the Poads Road water supply reservoir and Levin Water Treatment Plant upgrade projects included in this option.

Three Waters Reform

5.24 The future of the 3W reform is uncertain. In this uncertain environment Council considers that the most responsible approach we can take for our community is to prepare to upgrade and renew our water infrastructure. The upgrade and renewal of infrastructure needed to meet future demand requires a lot of initial effort for planning, design and consenting prior to any construction starting. Delaying this work could result in demand outstripping supply as soon as 2025 in some scenarios.

Stormwater discharge to Lake Horowhenua

5.25 Districtwide stormwater improvement budget has been increased in Option 1 to investigate and address issues such as these raised by the submitters. There are also specific projects related to just the Lake Horowhenua water quality improvement and resource consent application. The Council officer supports the concept of an education campaign on “if it goes down the grate it goes into the lake”

Infrastructure planning and investment incl. development contributions

5.26 Submitters on this point support council’s view of the urgency and importance of infrastructure upgrades as proposed in Option 1. The officer agrees that the planning for these should take a long-term view, which is the whole point of the Long Term and Annual Plan process, i.e. plan for the future by acting and responding to the best available information at present.

5.27 A submitter stated that developers should be contributing to infrastructure upgrades. This is what Development Contributions are for.

6. Option 2: Reduce programme of work to meet current budget

Submitter and submission numbers

6.1 Emma Platt (#1), Stevie Dunn (#2), Terry John Rozmus (#10), Daniel Conway Scully (#11), Levo Milldove (#15), Jonathan (#16), Alan Wolland (#17), Alison Anderson (#18), Nicole Evans (#19), Holly Wolland (#24), Deb Walker (#26), Jason Walker (#28), Michelle (#32), Laura Reitel (#37), Mansell Ireland (#40), Sharon Williams (#43), Joe Craddock (#44), Adele Bailey (#45), Ellen Schaef (#58), Steven Gillespie (#60), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Helen Trembath – PNCC (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), Craig Watson (#79), Barry Eichler (#83), Shaun McNiel (#108), Kushla Okano (#117), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), John Machin (#130), Chris Corke – CORUM Limited (#135), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#136), Bill Inge (#137), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Ian Baggott (#152), Graham Keith& Eveline Isabella Bensemann (#154), Helen Naylor (#172), Andrea Howard (#174), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Ashley Banks (#188), Ethan Bray (#189), Bramley Crysell (#196), Tania Bate (#199), Jody Sellwood (#108), Nick Sneddon (#229), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clark (#252), Hamish McDonald – Private Property Owner (#261), Paul Rennie (#267), Donald Nicholas (#282), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Marily Cranson (#300), Stephen Prouse & Karen Prouse – Prouse Trust Partnerships (#303), Jess Thomson (#315), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Stuart Weitzel (#341), Jason Reid (#352), Christopher Bruce Drinkwater (#372), Angel Wallace (#374), Jack Warren (#380), Perry Rewai Warren-Kerehi (#381), Lindsay Hemiona Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#384), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Deanna Mere Hanita-Paki – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Gwyneth Schibli (#188), Denise Jeanette Ridley (#408), Wayne Bishop – Wayne Bishop Group (#414).

Summary of submissions

6.2 Submitter #1 believes that properties which provide their own water tanks should not have to contribute to water infrastructure in the same way as residents that directly benefit from these projects

6.3 Submitter #137 supports water meters for all properties.

6.4 Submitter #189 believes that work needs to occur, but Council should not borrow to do it.

6.5 Submitter #326 believes this is the most practical option with uncertainties around the Affordable Water Reforms.

6.6 Submitter #326 seeks clarity on why page 43 of the Consultation Document states universal water metering will cost $6.1 m while page 48 states it will cost $1m - $6.1 m

6.7 Submitter #172 believes that residents of Manakau should not bear any of the costs associated with upgrading water infrastructure including interest costs for associated borrowing.

Officer analysis

6.8 Submitters in favour of Option 2 support reducing the programme of work to meet the current budget. Where possible, certain three waters infrastructure upgrade projects required to improve level of service and meet future demand have had the scope reduced and/or been pushed out to beyond the 2041 LTP (Long Term Plan) horizon. This option still includes the installation of universal water metering as a water demand management intervention.

6.9 Submissions can be grouped into the following points:

Targeted rates for water supply

6.10 Ratepayers should be made aware that targeted rates mean you only pay for the services that you have access to. In the case of water supply, the cost for investing in the upgrade and maintenance of infrastructure is recovered through the targeted rate charged to properties that are connected to the supply. This therefore excludes properties in Manakau and other rural areas that are not serviced by reticulated water supply.

Financing of infrastructure investment

6.11 Infrastructure projects are big ticket items, costing millions of dollars to plan, design and construct. These assets usually also have a useful life of 80 years or more and will provide service for generations to come. The investment required therefore must be loan funded as there is not enough money in the annual rates budget to pay for these projects upfront. This also allows for the cost of the asset to be paid for by the intergenerational users that benefit from it.

Three Waters Reform

6.12 Refer to the response under Option 1 - Point 3.

Point 4: Water meters

6.13 A submitter seeks clarity on the range of the cost for the implementation of water metering. The final cost for Universal water metering depends on the type of meters chosen. The lower end of the price range would be for the installation of the same type of manual reading meters currently in use, while the higher end would be for smart or remote readable meters. Each option has benefits and drawbacks that will be evaluated in a business case to be presented to Council and the Executive Leadership Team prior to implementation. Council’s chosen option is for smart or remote readable meters as they will add the most benefit to managing water demand and reducing the volume of water lost through leaks.

7. Option 3: Increase budget to deliver the projects we need excluding universal water metering for leak detection

Submitter and submission numbers

7.1 Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#3), Barren Parlato – Parlato & Associates Charted Accountants (#5), Amy Healy (#25), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Gerald (#29), Alicia Kowalewska (#15), Nicole Smith (#36), Matthew Whittington (#39), Kiran Sunny (#62), Mel Meates (#84), Hohepa O’Donnell – Ngatokowaru Marae (#88), Marahira Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Jillian Nicholson – Ngāti Kikopiri me Pareraukawa (#147), Tukunui Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#148), Tomo Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#149), Ian Staples – Tapete Trustees Ltd (#159), Susan Ball (#161), Martin Berry (#166), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Richard Trevethick (#207), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Leo Cooney (#221), Tessa Field (#225), Ronald Gibson (#235), Johnny (#253), Valerie Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth – Grey Power (#291), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura Ann MacGregor (#295), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Hannah Street (#229), Cody Finau (#353), Kenneth Charles Allan (#371), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold (#277), Gary Colin Benton – Horowhenua Grey Power (#396), Alan & Elizabeth Swanson – Swanson Gardens (#396), James Bernard McMillan (#398), Wendy Alison McMillan (#400), Austin Roderick Robson (#404), Lisa Sanson (#405).

Summary of submissions

7.2 Submitter #39 would be supportive of water meters if Council provided a grace period for excessive uses of water to be remedied and took a collaborative approach to resolving issues such as leaks, especially if the issues partly resulted from, Council trees.

7.3 Submitter #159 notes that there is no mention of the coming Affordable Waters Reform. They also state their preference for the Affordable Waters Reform to not go ahead, supports inclusion of key waters planning in the LTPA and proposes increasing staff resourcing to perform the work.

7.4 Submitter #210 questions why water meters are required and believes water loss is council’s responsibility due to poor maintenance.

7.5 Submitter #211 expresses their disappointment in the statement that suggests every connection wastes 300-500 litres of water per day, suggesting that Council is twisting the statistics.

7.6 Submitter #214 asks that all new builds are required to have their own grey water recycling system.

Officer analysis

7.7 Submitters in favour of Option 3 support the proposed increased investment required to upgrade three waters infrastructure to improve level of service and meet future demand. This option excludes the installation of universal water metering as a water demand management intervention.

7.8 Submissions can be grouped into the following points:

Water meters

The concerns raised by submitter #39 about water leaks or high consumption possibly resulting in huge water bills is acknowledged. The universal metering and billing system would have policy and procedures in place to deal with possible hardship caused by these issues.

Three Waters Reform

7.9 Refer to the response under Option 1 - Point 3.

Water loss performance indicator

7.10 Indicating the volume of water loss in litres per connection per day is in line with the Best Practice Performance Indicators for Water Supply Systems guidelines published by the International Water Association. Refer to this article for more information: https://iwa-network.org/reliable-operational-performance-indicators-are-critical-to-address-water-losses/

Grey water recycling

7.11 Refer to the response under Option 1 - Point 1.

Title: Inserting image...

8. Option 4: Reduce programme of work to meet current budget excluding universal water metering for leak detection

Submitter and submission numbers

8.1 Sue Smith (#3), Marietza Walmsley (#8), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Aarin Bang (#20), John White (#21), Colin Young (#22), Kathryn Peard (#33), Craig Brickell (#46), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), Jade Holmes (#54), Jade Holmes (#55), Neville Earl Roberts (#59), Sinead Millard (#64), Angela Jacobs (#69), Grant Fletcher (#78), Leanne Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#101), Cindy Susan Pender – Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Chris Hartwell (#125), Ellise Michelle Bolstad (#132), Here Eparaima – Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen – HD Family Trust (#151), Djahn Rogotaua (#154), Richard Brader (#171), Morgan Waitoa - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#177), Aiden Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#178), Jennifer Phillip - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#180), Crystal Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#181), Tainui Brown - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#183), Terese Fulford - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#184), Tina Tangiian - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#185), Chelsea Strother – MCD Interiors (#186), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Adam Tulloch (#215), Raymond Bishop (#218), Jeanette Warner (#219), Janette Smith (#223), Melanie Obers (#224), Craig Walker (#230), Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246), Mischelle Dacre – Manakau Hotel (#249), Mel Birch (#265), Philippa Paterson (#278), Paul Goodwin (#280), HDR & RA Committee (#305), Sandra van Toor (#307), Adriana Wilton (#312), Craig Tweedie (#314), Susan Harper (#317), Peter Fox (#338), Gaire Thompson – TPG Ltd. (#349), Helen Brown (#351), Rangiwaiata Te Keepa Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#366), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#368), Phillip Toha Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#370), Allan James Preston (#378), Albert Ross Burgess (#409).

Summary of submissions

8.2 Submitter #49 believes that water infrastructure should be transferred under the affordable waters reform so Council can focus on keeping to its budget.

8.3 Submitter # 78 raised their concern about the qualified audit opinion relating to the impact of the 3 waters impact on rate changes.

8.4 Submitter # 101 notes their support for the Affordable Waters Reform.

8.5 Submitter # 305 notes their disagreement with Fluoridation and the Affordable Waters Reform and requests that HDC hold a referendum to gauge the communities' feelings on the matters.

Officer analysis

8.6 Submitters in favour of Option 4 support reducing the programme of work to meet the current budget. Where possible, certain three waters infrastructure upgrade projects required to improve level of service and meet future demand have had the scope reduced and/or been pushed out to beyond the 2041 LTP (Long Term Plan) horizon. This option excludes the installation of universal water metering as a water demand management intervention.

8.7 Submissions can be grouped into the following points:

Three Waters Reform

8.8 Please refer to the response under Option 1 - Point 3. One submitter supports the water reform, but by selecting Option 4 does not support the increased investment required to upgrade water assets now. This is counterintuitive as any projects currently under way, including all debt funding, will be taken over by the new water entity.

Fluoridation

8.9 A submitter suggests a referendum on Fluoridation. The directive for Council to fluoridate the Levin drinking water supply comes from the Ministry of Health. A local government led referendum is therefore not the most suitable way to raise public concern or opposition to this issue.

Comments with no specified option

Submitter and submission numbers

8.10 Anne Hunt (#65), David Spark (#122), Graham Mair (#322), Fyfe Williamson (#375), Peter Everton (#401)

Summary of submissions

8.11 Submitter #65 submitted their previous submission from 2013 identifying concerns over discharge consents for Levin and Foxton.

8.12 Submitter #122 explains the issue they have of build back in in their toilets due to issues with the Soak Drainage System.

8.13 Submitter #122 states that the tap water is barely drinkable due to the taste, and does not support the introduction of chlorination of drinking water.

8.14 Submitter #122 states that the current water infrastructure is not capable of meeting demand.

8.15 Submitter #322 raised the issue of storm water problems in Kanuka Drive in Waitārere Rise.

8.16 Submitter #375 raised his concerns regarding stormwater to Lake Horowhenua and the Arawhata stream.

8.17 Submitter #401 supports water meters being installed for every property that uses HDC owned water infrastructure as it would result in people conserving water. This would mean excess users can be charged and leaks would be fixed as soon as possible. It would also encourage property owners to have their own tank.

Officer analysis

8.18 Submissions can be grouped into the following points:

Wastewater system issue

8.19 Wastewater network performance suffers during high rainfall events due to high levels of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I). Both Option 1 and 2 includes increased investment in investigations to identify and reduce I&I. That said, Council records do not indicate any past complaints about wastewater blockages or overflows at the submitters address nor any other property close to that address. Officers suggest that the submitter calls and registers a request for service if the issue occurs in the future.

Water quality

8.20 The submitter raised his complaint about the taste of Levin water and stated that he is opposed to introduction of chlorination but possibly meant fluoridation. The Levin water supply has been chlorinated for several years. The water treatment plant upgrade in 2016-2017 included a specific treatment system to address taste and odour issues that could occur during periods of low flow and high temperature in the Ōhau river. Furthermore, Council records do not indicate any past complaints about water quality at the submitters address nor any other property close to that address. Officers suggest that the submitter calls and registers a request for service if the issue occurs in the future.

1. Water meters

8.21 This submitter supports water meters and understands that the reason for it is to promote water conservation and improve the detection and reduction of water loss through leaks.

2. Stormwater

8.22 Districtwide stormwater improvement budget has been increased in Option 1 to investigate and address issues such as these raised by the submitters.

Water tanks

8.23 Please refer to the response under Option 1 - Point 1.

Summary of Officer Analysis of Options 1-4

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
Rural	35	41	17	30
Urban	40	23	26	26
Not specified	10	4	1	6
Total	85	68	44	62

9. Recommendations

Council could select Option 1 – Increase budget to deliver the projects we need (Preferred consultation option)

9.1 This was Council’s preferred option for consultation because it balances what is affordable against what we need to set our district up for the future. This option takes the projects in the LTP 2021-2041, but updates the costs, so we can deliver them in the timeframes we need them. We would also add funding for the Water Treatment Plant and increasing stormwater funding.

9.2 Cost: Additional $75 million over 10 years.

9.3 Rates impact: The average impact is approximately $88 introduced over 3 years for each property with a water connection.

Council could select Option 2 – Reduce programme of work to meet current budget

9.4 This option is a short-term solution that keeps spending lower, but it has a trade-off – we’ll be continuing to underinvest in critical water infrastructure.

What does this option mean?

· No additional investment in our water infrastructure.

· Slowed investment in new water infrastructure to increase capacity.

· Deferred renewals and replacements of old pipes where possible.

· No new stormwater improvements above the current $6.2 million over the next five years.

· District-wide water metering required to identify leaks.

·
Possibility of pushing out the Waitārere and Ōhau Water and Wastewater projects which already sit in year five and beyond in the current LTP – next year is year three.

9.5 Cost: No additional increases

9.6 Rates impact: No change to LTP.

9.7 Level of Service: Means we can’t deliver the level of service agreed on in our current LTP, and will make it more likely that we won’t be able to deliver as expected in the future if the infrastructure fails or exceeds capacity.

Council could select Option 3 – Increase budget to deliver the project we need excluding universal water metering for leak detection

9.8 Both option 1 and 2 include water meters. We are proposing these for the purpose of detecting leaks and further reducing water losses. Our district is short on water, and we currently lose between 300 to 500 litres per connection per day which is putting unnecessary pressure on our water infrastructure.

9.9
Option 3 presents the same program of work as Option 1 excluding water meters.

9.10 Cost: The cost for installing water meters district wide is $1.0-$6.1 million over 3 years subject to final business case and option assessment. Not installed meters provides a saving if a narrow view of longer-term upgrades and maintenance costs savings for water supply are not taken into account.

9.11 Rates impact: In addition to impact set out in option 1, not installing water meters as leak detectors will have no impact on rates for the 2023/2024 financial year as it will be paid for through borrowing. This option will reduce rates by 1.01% for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Council could select Option 4 – Reduce programme of work to meet current budget excluding universal water metering for leak detection

9.12 Option 4 is the same as Option 2 but excluding water meters.

9.13

As said above we are proposing these for the purpose of detecting leaks and further reducing water losses. Our district is short on water, and we currently lose approximately 300 to 500 litres per connection per day which is putting unnecessary pressure on our water infrastructure.

9.14 Cost: The cost for installing water meters district wide is $1.0-$6.1 million over 3 years subject to final business case and option assessment. Not installed meters provides a saving if a narrow view of longer-term upgrades and maintenance costs savings for water supply are not taken into account.

9.15 Rates impact: In addition to impact set out in option 2, not installing water meters as leak detectors will have no impact on rates for the 2023/2024 financial year as it will be paid for through borrowing. This option will reduce rates by 1.01% for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)

Albert Hoffmann

3 Waters Contractor

Daniel Haigh

Group Manager Community Infrastructure

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.5 Deliberations Report 4 - Foxton Beach Freeholding Account

File No.: 23/334

1. Purpose

To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Annual Plan 2023/24 in relation to the consultation issue: Foxton Beach Freeholding Account.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/334 Deliberations Report 4 - Foxton Beach Freeholding Account be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted on the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account consultation issue.

2.4 That Council approve $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account for the Foxton Pool Redevelopment Project, noting that this is inconsistent with Council’s Policy. In making this decision, Council notes the extensive consultation that has been undertaken in relation to this matter, and the predominant views, not only of the wider community, but more specifically the residents of the Foxton Beach community. This deviation from the Policy will be included in the background which informs the current Policy review.

2.5 That Council notes the views expressed by the community and funds the $500,000 for the Foxton Pool Redevelopment from within Council’s existing budget.

2.6 That Council refer the deviation from the Policy, and the request to lower the minimum balance of the Account to $4 million to officers reviewing the Policy for further consideration as part of the Policy review.

3. Topics for Consideration

Foxton Beach Freeholding Account

3.1 A total of 240 submissions were received on the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Long Term Plan Amendment 2021-2041 and Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation topic. Submitters were asked whether or not they agreed with $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account (the Account) being used for the Foxton Pools Redevelopment Project. Yes or no answers were sought.

3.2 The submission responses received to this question have been summarised and analysed by officers; with a final summary and recommendation outlined at the end.

Question: Do you agree with $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account being used for the Foxton Pools Redevelopment Project.

Submitter and submission numbers

In support:

3.3 Emma Platt (#1), Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (4), Darren Parlato (#5), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Nichole Evans (#19), Colin Young (#22), Deb Walker (#26), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Jason Walker (#28), Gerald (#29), Kathryn Peard (#33), Regan Savage (#34), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Nicole Smith (#36), Lauren Reitel (#37), Matthew Whittington (#39), Sharon Williams (#43), Joe Craddock (#44), Ashley Gaby (#48), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), April Dale (#51), Steven Fryer (#52), Jade Holmes (#54), Jade Holmes (#55), Ellen Schaef (#58), Steven Gillespie (#60), Garry Anderson (#61), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Sinead Millard (#64), Robert McGAw (#67), Angela Jacobs (#69), Helen Trembath (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), Hilary Moore (#75), Leanne Harrison (#101), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson (#103), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletcher (#78), Craig Watson (#79), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Barry Eichler (#83), Mel Meates (#84), Hannah Bradbury (#96), Pātaka Moore (#100), Leanne Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#101), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Monique Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#106), Shaun McNeil (#108), Marahira Nicholsen - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Pareraukawa Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#113), Ema Jacob (#119), Rebecca Collins (#120), Chris Hartwell (#125), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), Chris Cork (#135), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#136), Bill Inge (#137), Remana Rudd (#142), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison (#144), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Graham Keith & Eveline Bensemann (#154), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Tony Strawbridge (#158), Susan Ball (#161), Barrie Hoseason (#163), Sharon Freebairn (#165), Martin Berry (#166), Leigh Harrington (#167), Phil Richards (#170), Richard Brader (#171), Helen Naylor (#172), Mel Cook (#173), Andrea Howard (#174), Mark Thomson (#175), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Thomas Lynch (#194), Allana Woodford (#195), Bramley Crysell (#196), Rose Cotter (#197), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Barbra Cahn (#202), Richard Trevethick (#207), Geoff Kane (#209), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Michael Fletcher (#220), Amy Bairstow (#222), Janette Smith (#223), Melanie Obers (#224), Tessa Field (#225), Craig Walker (#230), Brian Tweddle (#236), Garry Good (#245), Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246), Jeremy Baker (#250), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clark (#252), Johnny (#253), Bruce Eccles – Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association (#254), Wendy Williams (#255), Peter Thompson (#256), John Girling – Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (#258), Hamish McDonald (#261), Brett Russell (#262), Mel Birch (#265), Philippa Paterson (#278), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Donald Nicholas (#282), Maree Collins (#283), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Geoff Richie (#289), Valeria Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth – Grey Power (#291), Robin Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#292), Susan Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura Ann MacGregor (#295), Sue Sexton-Smith (#297), Sharon Williams – Hapai te Hapori (#298), Marily Cranson (#300), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Tony Burgess (#304), HDR & RA Committee (#305), Colleen Burgess (#306), Sandra van Toor (#307), Greg Canty (#311), Craig Tweedie (#314), Greg McLean (#316), Susan Harper (#317), Derek Perkins (#318), Michele Walls (#330), Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Graeme and Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Peter Fox (#338), Hannah Street (#339), Janice Swanwick (#342), Gaire Thompson – TPG Ltd (#349), Helen Brown (#351), Jason Reid (#352), Kenneth Allan (#371), Angel Wallace (#374), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Gwyneth Schibli (#388), Gary Benton – Horowhenua Grey Power (#389), Alan & Elizabeth Swanson – Swanson Gardens (#396), Carol Dyer (#399), Lisa Sanson (#405), Valerie Rodgers (#407), Francesse Middleton (#416).

Do not support:

3.4 Stevie Dunn (#2), Sue Smith (3), Marietza Walmsley (#8), Daniel Conway Scully (#11), Lewis Tait (#13), Jonathan (#16), Alan Wolland (#17), Alison Anderson (18), Aarin Bang (#20), Holly Wolland (#24), Amy Healy (#25), Amanda Abbot (#31), Mansell Ireland (#40), Adele (#45), Craig Brickell (#46), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), Neville Earl Roberts (#59), Kiran Sunny (#62), Janelle Tamihana (#90), Marahira Nicholson (#109), Colin Sciascia (#102), Cindy Susan Pender (#105), Irina Alenandrovna Campbell (#110), Kushla Okano (#117), Tania Sleeman (#124), Jacinta Adlam (#127), John Machin (#130), Ellise Bolstad (#132), Egon Guttke (#138), Hera Eparaima (#145), Harris Sciascia (#146), Jillian Nicholson (#147), Tukunui Nicholson (#148), Tomo Nicholson (#149), Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen - HD Family Trust (#151), Ian Baggott (#152), Ian Staples (#159), Djahn Rogotaua (#164), Eleanor Reo (#168), Morgan Waitoa – Ngāti Parerukawa (#177), Aiden Strother – Ngāti Pareuakawa (#178), Jennifer Phillip - Ngāti Pareruakawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareruakawa (#180), Crystal Strother - Ngāti Paeweuakawa (#181), Tainui Brown – Ngāti Parerukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata – Ngāti Parerukawa (#183), Terese Fulford – Ngāti Parerukawa (#184), Tina Tangiiau – Ngāti Parerukawa (#185), Chelsea Strother – MDC Interiors (#186), Ashley Banks (#188), Ethan Bray (#189), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Alastair Boult (#193), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Jennifer Burn (#206), Jody Sellwood (#208), James McMullan (#211), Leo Cooney (#221), Trevor Hinder (#228), Nick Sneddon (#229), Miles & Bev Udy (#241), Susan McPhee (#243), Brenda Chapman (#247), Mischelle Dacre – Manakau Hotel (#249), Richard Bacon (#260), Paul Goodwin (#280), Kay Thompson (#285), Peter Hammond (#287), Graeme Lindsay – HDRRA Inc (#296), Stephen & Karen Prouse – Prouse Family Trust (#303), Robyn Mouzouri (#309), Jess Thomson (#315), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Cody Finau (#353), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), Rangiwaiata Te Keepa Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#366), Hinepuororangi Muri - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#368), Phillip Toha Winiata – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahupareae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#370), Christopher Drinkwater (#372), Hayden Turoa (#373), Allan James Preston (#378), Jack Warren (#380), Perry Warren- Kerehi (#381), Lindsay Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#384), Christina Paton (#386), Deanna Hanita-Paki – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Terry Hemmingson – Horowhenua Grey Power (#412).

Did not specify:

3.5 Kimbal McHugo – Manakau District Community Association (#320), Ronald Gibson (#235).

Summary of submissions

3.6 Submitter #117 states that the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account money does not belong to Council and believes Council should be working with the rightful landowners to determine what they want to do with the money.

3.7 Submitter #189 asks what opportunities are forgone by the decision to use this money?

3.8 Submitter #262 asks that the review of the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account policy also reviews the $5 million minimum cash balance.

3.9 Submitter #262 states that they would be pleased to organise an event to enable consultation with the Foxton Beach Community in this issue.

3.10 Submitter #296 requests that Council does not use the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account.

3.11 Submitters #298, #319, #320 support the use of the Account on the basis that it is supported by the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board.

3.12 Submitters #392, #393, #394 believe this decision should be made by Foxton Beach residents only.

Officer analysis

3.13 A total of 240 submissions were received across the district that expressed a view on the contribution of $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account for the Foxton Pools Redevelopment Project. 150 of those submissions, (62.5%) were supportive, and 90 (37.5%) were opposed. A further 178 did not provide a response.

3.14 When responses from residents of Foxton and Foxton Beach are analysed, 59.4% (19 out of 32 respondents) were in favour. However, when responses from only Foxton Beach are considered, the position is reversed with 55.6% (10 out of 18 respondents) opposed. Conversely there is strong support within Foxton with 78.6% (11 out of 14 respondents) supportive.

Analysis of categorised submission points

Foxton Beach Freeholding Account money does not belong to the Council

3.15 The money within the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account has come from lease hold income, proceeds of sales of lease hold property, interest earned, and contributions by the Horowhenua District Council of $500,000 per year from 2009 to 2018. The Account was set up by the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1968. The Manawatu County Council was made the corporation responsible for administering its funds and endowment lands. The Horowhenua District Council became the corporation responsible as part of the 1989 local government reforms and reorganisation. While the Account funds may not belong to the Council, it is the corporation responsible for managing and distributing the funds under the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1968.

Council should be working with the rightful landowners to determine what they want to do with the money

3.16 Council have initiated a review of the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Strategy and Policy and this review involves engagement with hapū and iwi. Ownership of the Foxton Beach Endowment land, from which the Account receives income is currently vested in Council.

What opportunities are forgone by the decision to use this money?

3.17 At the time the then Foxton Community Board recommended to Council to use $500,000 from the Account to support the Foxton Pools Redevelopment, there were no other requests for funds from the account. If this bid is successful, the balance of the account will fall further below the $5 million minimum balance, potentially making any further bids from the fund harder to obtain.

The review of the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account policy also reviews the $5 million minimum cash balance.

3.18 Officers will include this request in the review.

Organise an event to enable consultation with the Foxton Beach Community in this issue

3.19 A community meeting was held 18 May 2023 at Foxton Beach Primary School where roughly 70 people attended, the majority were in favour of using the fund for the Foxton Pools Redevelopment however many had also raised concerns of the fund dropping below the policy limit set of $5 million.

That Council does not use the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account.

3.20 This consultation process will help guide Council’s decision to use the Account or not.

Supports the use of the Account on the basis that it is supported by the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board.

3.21 The use of the Account to support the Foxton Pools Redevelopment was initiated by the then Foxton Community Board.

This decision should be made by Foxton Beach residents only.

3.22 The views of the Foxton Beach community are being considered as part of this consultation process. An additional consultation event, specifically addressing this issue was held on 18 May 2023 for the Foxton Beach Community, as a result of submissions, to hear directly from interested residents of the Foxton Beach community. The majority of the attendees at this meeting were supportive of the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account being used for the Foxton Pools Redevelopment.

	Yes - In Support	No - Not in Support
Rural	73	39
Urban	68	46
Not specified	9	5
Total	150	90

3.23 The question before Council is whether or not to approve the expenditure of $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account to support the Foxton Pool Redevelopment Project, as recommended by the then Foxton Community Board.

3.24 The purposes for which the Account can be used are set in legislation. Section 13(14) of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1968 (ROLD) provide that:

The council shall from time to time spend the net proceeds from the sale or lease of any of the endowment land on the provision of services and public amenities for the benefit of the inhabitants of Foxton Beach Township, or on the improvement, maintenance, or repair of any such services and amenities, or on the improvement, maintenance, or repair of any existing services or public amenities. For the purposes of this subsection, the term services includes roads, road lighting, water supply, drainage, sewerage, and other public works.

3.25 The Horowhenua District Council subsequently adopted the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Strategy and Policy (the Policy) on 7 November 2009. The Policy set out, among other things a spending policy, maximum level of contributing and prioritisation for the use of the funds.

3.26 The Policy is currently under review.

3.27 The value of the fund, after commitments are forecast sits at $4.822 million as at 30 June 2022. The current policy sets the minimum fund balance at $5 million.

3.28 Approval of this request for funds would be inconsistent with the Policy. However, Council is able to make a decision that is inconsistent with the Policy, as long as it complies with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002). Section 80 provides that where a decision will be significantly inconsistent with, or is anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy, the local authority must, when making any decision, clearly identify:

a. The inconsistency;

b. The reasons for the inconsistency; and

c. Any intention of the local authority to amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

3.29 A decision by Council to distribute funds is a decision to which Part 6 of the LGA 2002 also applies. Pursuant to those provisions, Council is not obliged to consult in respect of every decision it makes. However, in making a decision, Council must consider community views under section 78 of the LGA 2002. There are many ways in which Council can take community views into account without needing to carry out a formal consultative process. For example:

a. It could consult and receive feedback from the Foxton Beach Community Board; or

b. It could be informed by prior consultation, for example via the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan processes, or if relatively recent, consultation on the Policy itself.

3.30 Where a decision is likely to be inconsistent with its own policy, Council is more likely to need to consult on that decision. The greater the inconsistency the more extensive the consultation required. Where a decision is consistent with Council’s statutory obligations and its Policy, it is less likely formal consultation would be required.

3.31 This current decision is compliant with ROLD, but inconsistent with the Policy. This inconsistency means that consultation beyond simply seeking the views of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board was required. The extensive consultation enabled by including this matter in the Draft Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation, along with the separate consultation event held on 18 May 2023 at the Foxton Primary School to hear feedback from the Foxton Beach community can provide Council with comfort that it has considered the community’s views.

3.32 It is worth noting that the Policy is currently under review, and there has been a request made during the Draft Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation that the minimum permissible balance of the Account be reduced to $4 million. This will be forwarded to the officers reviewing the policy for incorporation into the review.

Recommendation

3.33 Council could decide to approve $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account for the Foxton Pool Redevelopment Project, noting that this is inconsistent with its own Policy. In making this decision, Council notes the extending consultation that has been undertaken in relation to this matter, and the predominant views, not only of the wider community, but more specifically the residents of the Foxton Beach community. This deviation from the Policy will be included in the background which informs the current Policy review.

3.34 Council could decide not to approve $500,000 from the Foxton Beach Freeholding Account for the Foxton Pool Redevelopment Project, noting that this decision would be consistent with the policy. To ensure the Foxton Pools Redevelopment Project receives the funding required, Council would need to fund the $500,000 from existing budgets.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)

Grayson Rowse

Principal Advisor - Democracy

Ashley Huria

Business Performance Manager

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.6 Deliberations Report 5 - Activities Report

File No.: 23/359

1. Purpose

To present to Council for officer reports and recommendation on the issues raised in comments on submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment and Annual Plan 2023/24 on matters not included for consultation.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/359 Deliberations Report 5 - Activities Report be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Report Deliberations Report – Activities Report be received.

2.4 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.5 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted.

2.6 That Council requests that Officers include the Ohau Shared Path proposal in Council’s Cycling Facilities funding application to the 2024/2027 National Land Transport Programme.

2.7 That Council requests that Officers investigate options to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity under the Ohau rail over bridge.

2.8 That Council requests that officers continue to work with Ms Kilsby-Halliday to undertake engagement with the Ohau community. This engagement should focus on understanding their perspective, gauging the level of support for the proposed shared pathway, and exploring opportunities for community input in the pathway's development

2.9 That Council requests, pending a better understanding of the project's feasibility, and level of community support, that the development of the shared pathway is included within the programme of Cycling Facilities Budget for consideration as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

2.10 That Council requests that Officers investigate options for providing a safe cycling connection between Ōhau and Levin and present a report to Council for consideration.

2.11 That Council requests that Officers contact the submitter to discuss the proposal in more detail.

2.12 That Council requests that officers develop a comprehensive and inclusive development plan for Target Reserve given the diverse range of recreational demands on this site. This plan should consider various recreational activities, including walking, mountain biking, horse riding, and other existing recreational groups such as Horowhenua Paintballing and the Levin Pistol Club.

2.13 That Council approves funding up to $15k for the cost-effective fibreglass Single pan Long Drop Wilderness Toilet Unit.

2.14 That Council requests that officers collaborate with representatives from the Te Araroa Manawatu Trust regarding the installation of the fibre glass Single pan Long Drop Wilderness Toilet Unit. This approach ensures that the facilities meet the necessary Trail standards and contribute to the overall quality of the Te Araroa trail and contribute to the overall visitor experience.

2.15 That Council requests that Officers work with the Te Araroa Manawatu Trust to pursue further funding opportunities via the Tourism Infrastructure Fund to advance projects across Horowhenua.

2.16 That Council request that Officers continue the ongoing consultation process between the involved parties, including Manakau United Football Club, the Manakau District Community Association, Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Council, regarding the capital funding obtained from the 'Better Off' fund. This funding should be utilised as the initial phase of works to improve the site.

2.17 That Council explores the possibility of bringing Manakau Domain back under Council control. This would entail the transfer of operational maintenance and renewal responsibilities to the Council. It is important to consider the associated costs and budget implications, including an estimated annual expenditure of approximately 20-30k for maintenance, which would need to be funded through rates. Any decision to bring the site under Council control should also ensure that it remains available for public use.

2.18 That Council does not pursue or facilitate the provision of a “skid pad”,

2.19 That Council requests that Officers investigate options for an alternative provider such as a private provider or a community initiative.

That Council requests that Officers investigate options for the provision of a “skid pad” by Council, to be included for consideration as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

3. Topics for Consideration

Topic 1	Parks and Recreation: Ohau Shared Path
Topic 2	Parks and Recreation: Ohau to Kimberly Road cycle way
Topic 3	Parks and Recreation: Mountain Bike Park at Foxton
Topic 4	Parks and Recreation: Berm Mowing
Topic 5	Parks and Recreation: Toilets on Te Awaroa Trail
Topic 6	Parks and Recreation: Vehicular access to beaches between Waikawa Beach and Hokio Beach
Topic 7	Parks and Recreation: Improvements to Manakau Domain
Topic 8	Parks and Recreation: Sale of public housing stock
Topic 9	Parks and Recreation: Community Gardens
Topic 10	Parks and Recreation: Oxford Street Trees
Topic 11	Parks and Recreation: The Manawatu Estuary Ramsar Site
Topic 12	Parks and Recreation: Coastal Sand Dunes
Topic 13	Rating: Rates reduction for private roads
Topic 14	Roading: Foliage verging onto footpaths and walkways
Topic 15	Roading: Condition of Poplar Road
Topic 16	Roading: Skid Pad
Topic 17	Roading: Traffic in Shannon
Topic 18	Roading: Resealing of Arawhata Road
Topic 19	Community Experience: Encourage youth into meaningful education and work
Topic 20	Strategic Planning: Truck Stop, accommodation, and restaurants
Topic 21	Destination Management: Promote and run more Horowhenua Events
Topic 22	People and Capability: Living Wage

4. Topic 1: Ohau Shared Path

Submitter and submission number:

4.1 Rebecca Kilsby-Halliday (#234).

Summary of Submissions

4.2 The purpose of submission #234 is to present a proposal around the installation of a shared pathway in Ohau.

4.3 The decisions sought from Council are:

1. To give direction to the Chief Executive to allocate resources to investigate possible solutions to be included as part of the Cycling Facilities budget line in preparation for elected member Capital Programme decision making as part of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2044 process.

2. To endorse officers engaging with the Ohau community to gauge the level of support for the proposal and whether the extent of any financial or in-kind contributions that the community may be willing to make in order to progress the proposal at pace.

Officer Analysis

4.4 This proposal sets out the case to investigate the construction of a shared pathway in Ohau. The proposal suggests there is a growing pedestrian safety issue, and seeks Council support to install a shared pathway from Ohau School and playcentre to Ohau Terraces. The submitter seeks funding to be made available for the project as part of its capital program through the 2024 Long Term Plan.

4.5 This proposal is eligible for subsidised funding through the 2024-27 National Land Transport Programme, if Waka Kotahi approves Council’s wider Cycling Facilities budget in the lead up to July 2024. The benefits of this proposal identified by the Submitter strongly align with Waka Kotahi’s funding priority for Cycling Facilities. It would probably improve the likelihood of subsidy being approved for Council’s wider Cycling Facilities programme of works for 2024/27.

4.6 The only section of the Proposal which presents difficulties is as the path passes under the rail over bridge. This would require in-depth investigation and optioneering. The area is flood prone and does not provide adequate space to comfortably allow vehicles to share with cyclists and pedestrians. A feasible solution to this problem is not readily available to officers at this time and will require further work to determine the best way to provide improved pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the rail overbridge area.

4.7 The section of the proposed shared path between the rail over bridge and the intersection with Ohau Terraces would not present significant delivery difficulties. This section is approximately 750m in length. The provision of a 2.5m chip sealed shared path through the section east of the rail overbridge could be delivered within a broad estimate of $100k. Delivering this section of the proposal would have benefits even if the section through the rail over bridge is not completed.

4.8 The proposal similarly seeks Officer engagement with the Ohau community to gauge the level of support for the proposal and determine whether there is any opportunity to engage the community in the development of the pathway.

4.9 As indicated in the submission Ohau is a growing residential community with few safe off-road walkways and cycleways for the benefit of residents. The proposed pathway would initially run from the School/Playcentre to the first corner past Ohau Terraces on Muhunoa East Road. The submitter suggests ‘The proposed pathway will help reduce the risk of accidents and promote physical activity and the reduction of car use.’

Recommendation

4.10 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Rebecca Kilsby-Halliday.

4.11 That Council requests that Officers include the Ohau Shared Path proposal in Council’s Cycling Facilities funding application to the 2024/2027 National Land Transport Programme.

4.12 That Council requests that Officers investigate options to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity under the Ohau rail over bridge.

4.13 That Council requests that officers continue to work with Ms Kilsby-Halliday to undertake engagement with the Ohau community. This engagement should focus on understanding their perspective, gauging the level of support for the proposed shared pathway, and exploring opportunities for community input in the pathway's development

4.14 That Council requests, pending a better understanding of the project's feasibility, and level of community support, that the development of the shared pathway is included within the programme of Cycling Facilities Budget for consideration as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Actions

4.15 No actions required.

5. Topic 2: Ohau to Kimberly Road Cycleway

Submitter and submission number:

5.1 Jason White (#204).

Summary of Submissions

5.2 The purpose of Submission #204 is to propose a safe cycling facility on State Highway 1 Between Ōhau and Kimberley Road. The Submitter notes that a safe cycling facility on this section of SH1 would effectively connect Ōhau and Levin, as a gravel pathway exists on the west side for State Highway 1, extending from Kimberly Road north through to Levin.

5.3 Submitter #204 notes the lack of safe alternative cycling provisions to connect Ōhau to Levin through Arapaepae Road, as recently installed roadside barriers on State Highway 57 have reduced the available space for cyclists on the road.

5.4 Submitter #204 notes that if a safe cycling facility was provided, Submitter #204 and their family would be able to enjoy recreational cycling locally, rather than travelling outside the district to enjoy similar facilities.

5.5 The decisions sought from Council are:

To give direction to the Chief Executive to allocate resources to investigate possible solutions to be included as part of the Cycling Facilities budget line in preparation for elected member Capital Programme decision making as part of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2044 process.

Officer Analysis

5.6 The benefits of the Submitter’s proposal are well described, and Officers agree that connecting Ōhau to Levin with a safe cycling facility would be beneficial for the community.

5.7 There are a number of factors which need consideration in providing a safe cycling facility on State Highway 1 from Ohau to Kimberley.

5.8 Council is not the Road Controlling Authority for State Highway 1, and currently Council would require the approval of Waka Kotahi to undertake such a project. The perspective could also be taken that providing a safe cycling facility on this section should be the responsibility of Waka Kotahi rather than Council.

5.9 This section on State Highway 1 is also within the area of State Highway 1 that could be subject to revocation from the control of Waka Kotahi to Council, once the Ōtaki to North of Levin (Ō2NL) project has been completed. It is possible that a safe cycling facility could be set as a requirement for revocation and then delivered as part of the revocation process. It is not currently clear when the revocation process could be expected to be completed, and relying on this process may be seen as an unacceptable delay in delivering this proposal if it is supported by Council.

5.10 Another consideration could be made to the shared use path planned as part of the Ō2NL Project. Once this facility is in place, a safe, cycling connection with a higher level of amenity would act as a connection between Ōhau and Levin, although further work would be required to provide safe cycling improvements between Ohau and Ō2NL’s shared use path.

5.11 The final consideration for this proposal is the cost and delivery difficulties of the proposal. The distance between Ōhau and Kimberly is approximately 1.85km. There are a number of locations along this route where there is limited space for providing an additional facility and could require significant work to provide the space required. Further detailed investigation would be required to develop a reliable estimate for this proposal, but it could be reasonably assumed to cost between $2M and $5M, depending on the exact form of cycling facility provided.

Recommendation

5.12 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Jason White

5.13 That Council requests that Officers investigate options for providing a safe cycling connection between Ōhau and Levin and present a report to Council for consideration.

5.14 That Council requests that Officers contact the Submitter to discuss the proposal in more detail.

Actions

5.15 No actions required.

6. Topic 3: Mountain Bike Park at Foxton

Submitter and submission number:

6.1 Peter Wells - Manawatu Mountain Bike Club (#310).

Summary of Submissions

6.2 The submitter made the following proposal:

6.3 The Manawatu Mountain Bike Club with Foxton residents are proposing a Mountain Bike Park on the vacant area of Target Reserve Foxton.

6.4 That all available land at the Target Reserve Foxton is made available for a Mountain Bike Trail Network Community Recreational Asset.

6.5 That an MOU is established between Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and the Manawatu Mountain Bike Club (MMBC), including the Foxton MTB community authorizing MMBC to build, manage and maintain a MTB trail network

6.6 That HDC allocates $5000 for signage and initial MTB park infrastructure.

Officer Analysis

6.7 Target Reserve is a large-wooded reserve on the outskirts of Foxton that provides a good opportunity for developing a regional recreation attraction. Officers are considering a development plan that would likely include several walking, cycling, and horse-riding opportunities. With some development, the site would offer good access from SH1, and provide opportunities to integrate the DoC site at Round’s Bush into the development.

6.8 Whilst the site provides good opportunities for family-based mountain biking given its flat nature, there are other demands on the site including from both the Horowhenua and Kapiti Equine Advocacy Groups (HEAG & KEAG), and existing recreational groups including Horowhenua Paintballing, and separately, Levin Pistol Club. Levin Pistol Club has a purpose-built facility under lease on the site. It is therefore highly unlikely that Council would agree tan exclusive arrangement with the MMBC, though Officers would be keen to discuss with MMBC its interest in the site, and how that might be developed moving forward.

Recommendation

6.9 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Peter Wells on behalf of the Manawatu Mountain Bike Club.

6.10 That Council requests that officers develop a comprehensive and inclusive development plan for Target Reserve given the diverse range of recreational demands on this site. This plan should consider various recreational activities, including walking, mountain biking, horse riding, and other existing recreational groups such as Horowhenua Paintballing and the Levin Pistol Club.

Actions

6.11 No actions required.

7. Topic 4: Berm Mowing

Submitter and submission numbers:

7.1 Billy & Madaleen Cavanagh (#347), Christopher Drinkwater (#372), Carol Dyer (#399).

Summary of Submissions

7.2 Submitter #347 lives in Opiki and while they love living there because it is quiet and peaceful, they list some disadvantages.

· There is no nearby recreation facilities or other facilities enjoyed by town folk. No dog parks, no secondary schools, no libraries, no close by access to fish the Manawatu River, no walkways. The sidewalks are seldom mown, unless mow themselves, and are often littered and never cleaned. The Opiki Conservation Area near our house has no formed access or walkways.

· They have to control the pests and rodents, including possums from the Opiki conservation area opposite our house, ourselves.

7.3 Submitter #372 said Council does not mow berms in Achillies Avenue.

7.4 Submitter #399 said contractors need to be proactive in only doing those which need mowing. Doing away with berm mowing will mean untidy road frontages. The northern entrance to Levin where Avenue Road North, is a disgrace and encourages rats.

Officer Analysis

7.5 Submitters #347 raised concerns in relation to mowing of berms in Opiki and general maintenance. The current maintenance contract sees the maintenance of berms in the urban residential area only. Berms in the rural area are maintained under the roading contract which is at a significantly lower level of service consisting of four cuts annually to a maximum distance of 1.8m. There are no Council owned and maintained Parks in Opiki.

7.6 Officers note the comments in submission #372. Council mows the berms on Achilles Avenue up to 9 Achilles Avenue and no further as the new development is still under the management of the Developer and has not been vested in Council.

7.7 Officers note the comments by submitter #399. Berm mowing is undertaken by Council’s grounds maintenance contractor (Recreational Services) as routine maintenance according to a schedule of works. The contractor omits to mow those berms where residents are undertaking mowing and maintenance themselves. Moving from a routine cyclical schedule as is current, to an ad-hoc one in terms of grass maintenance would be less efficient than moving from ‘point A’ to ‘point B’ on a scheduled round given that transport costs, labour costs and other overheads remain the same. An ad-hoc approach would likely also lead to more trips, higher fuel use, and a less effective monitoring regime.

7.8 The current grounds contract requires the contractor to mow within the urban residential zone only (50km/hr), and the contract is resourced on that basis. Where an area falls outside the urban residential zone the maintenance regime transitions to the rural maintenance program which is undertaken by Council’s Roading Contractor (Higgins). The roading specification requires Higgins to cut rural berms to a maximum width of 1.8m on four occasions per year. Part way up Avenue North Road the urban residential zone transitions to the rural zone, hence the difference in maintenance regime.

Recommendation

7.9 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Billy & Madaleen Cavanagh, Christopher Drinkwater and Carol Dyer.

Actions

7.10 No actions required.

8. Topic 5: Toilets on Te Araroa Trail

Submitter and submission number

8.1 David Grant - Te Araroa Manawatu Trust (#358)

Summary of Submissions

8.2 The submitter makes the following proposal:

8.3 The Problem: Traditional long drop toilets provide a solution to the control of human refuse in frequently used outdoor locations such as the Tokomaru Shelter on Burtons Track behind Shannon, and the Mill Block camp site on the Makahika Track behind Levin. However, to work effectively they require good subsurface drainage. Despite being recently relocated, the long drop toilet at Tokomaru Shelter is causing difficulties with water seeping in and filling the hole.

8.4 The Solution: Install a proprietary toilet with a self- contained tank that can be emptied when necessary.

8.5 The Te Araroa Manawatu Trust would like to request that the Horowhenua District Council consider including the cost of such an installation at the Tokomaru Shelter site in the current Annual Plan Review:

8.6 Options:

1) NFP Environmental No.2 fibreglass Single pan Long Drop Wilderness Toilet Unit c/w 4000 litre tank (delivered) $11,301.74

· Installation including digger hire and location (estimate) $2,272.00

· Tokomaru Shelter Repairs. November 2022 Gorse Control Makahika. December 2022

· TOTAL $13,573.74

2) Permaloo Single pan PLS DV Dry Vault Pre Cast Concrete Toilet Unit $39,800.00

· Delivery and unloading $9,650.00

· Installation (estimate) $33,600.00

· TOTAL $83,050.00

3) Tank Emptying: (estimate once per year) $1100.00

We believe the NFP fibreglass option would be a good value for money choice. It has been proven in many public locations.

Officer Analysis

8.7 The submitter has indicated that despite being recently relocated, the long-drop at the Tokomaru Shelter is suffering from water ingress and has suggested a vaulted solution. The submitter has supplied two options being a fibreglass option for under $15,000 and a dry vault concrete option for $83,000.

8.8 The Te Araroa trail is a reasonably well-utilised walkway stretching 3,000km from Cape Reinga in the north island to Bluff in the south-island. The trail is often completed in sections by committed walkers and it does follow Gladstone Road in Levin for a short distance.

8.9 Whilst Council does not have a clear understanding of the value the walkway bring in terms of visitor numbers and local GDP, it would be desirable that the facilities were fit for purpose where they intersect with Council’s boundary.

Recommendation

8.10 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from David Grant on behalf of the Te Araroa Manawatu Trust.

8.11 That Council approves funding up to $15k for the cost-effective fibreglass Single pan Long Drop Wilderness Toilet Unit.

8.12 That Council requests that officers collaborate with representatives from the Te Araroa Manawatu Trust regarding the installation of the fibre glass Single pan Long Drop Wilderness Toilet Unit. This approach ensures that the facilities meet the necessary Trail standards and contribute to the overall quality of the Te Araroa trail and contribute to the overall visitor experience.

8.13 That Council requests that Officers work with the Te Araroa Manawatu Trust to pursue further funding opportunities via the Tourism Infrastructure Fund to advance projects across Horowhenua.

Actions

8.14 No actions required.

9. Topic 6: Vehicular access to beaches between Waikawa Beach and Hokio Beach

Submitter and submission number

9.1 Regan Savage (#34).

Summary of Submissions 

9.2 Submitter #34 would like to see vehicles prohibited north of the Waikawa Stream mouth at Waikawa Beach to Hokio Beach. The submitter advises it is a sensitive dune system and allows numerous birds to nest safely.

Officer Analysis

9.3 Officers note the submission and thank submitter #34 for the submission.

9.4 Currently vehicles are allowed on the beach with emphasis placed on education of users rather than Council looking to prohibit access. The majority of users are understanding of the fact that they are recreating in a sensitive space and tend to treat the environment with the respect it deserves.

9.5 Should Council in the future look to restrict vehicular access to its beaches this would be a matter well-advertised in advance with a commitment to a wide-ranging consultation that considered the full spectrum of views.

Recommendations

9.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Regan Savage.

Actions

9.7 No actions required.

10. Topic 7: Improvements to Manakau Domain

Submitter and submission number

10.1 Kimbal McHugo - Manakau United Football Club #363, Kimbal McHugo - Manakau District Community Association #402.

Summary of Submissions 

10.2 Submitters #363, #402 have provided a list of improvements they wish to introduce to Manakau Domain.

Officer Analysis

10.3 Manakau United Football Club have expressed an interest in undertaking a number of developments on Manakau Domain. Proposals include;

· Replace current roadside boundary (7 wire fence) with bollards

· Install a multi-modal pathway on the northern side of Waikawa Beach Road to allow easy and safe access for all locals and encourage greater usage.

· Provide a safe connection across State Highway 1 to connect Manakau Village and School to the Domain.

· Place bollards to surround carpark and road edge, to make the Domain accessible to the local community.

· Construct a new toilet block that can be accessed and utilised by the public to much greater degree than the current facilities. This currently is to be funded as part of the 3 waters grant.

· Remediation of the southwestern corner of the Domain to be used as a practice/training area. This would allow training to be held off the current pitch (future pitches) to retain the current high standard of playing surface created over the 13 seasons that MUFC have maintained the domain.

· Bring the Domain back into the sports field sub-activity with a view to establishing a full maintenance program as undertaken on HDC’s other sports fields. Bring park buildings (changing room and toilets) back under HDC’s management. Manakau United would however like to maintain its Kaitiaki/guardianship role.

· Expand the Domain to meet potential future demand from growth.

· Realign and reconfigure the current pitch to include a single pitch aligned east west, and a smaller pitch aligned north south.

· Install LED lighting.

· Re-form the carpark in asphalt (or similar) and kerb it.

· Install a high fence along the roadside bordering the practice pitch to stop balls getting onto Waikawa Beach Road.

· Install native plantings around the perimeter of the ground and plant natives at the north-eastern end of the field.

10.4 Currently Council has an Agreement to Administer Manakau Domain with the Manakau District Community Association. The document was signed on 21 May 2013 and states ‘That the Manakau District Community Association will be responsible to Council for the administration of Manakau Domain’. The agreement replaced a former arrangement between the Manakau Sports Club Incorporated and Council. Given the ground is subject to this agreement the Manakau District Community Association would also need to endorse any approach to Council for further funding.

10.5 Manakau Domain located on Waikawa Beach Road, is a gazetted recreation reserve historically used little by the community but being the ground for Manakau United FC. Typical of many rural assets, such as Tokomaru Domain, the actual Domain’s location is some distance from the Village’s centre, an issue exacerbated by its separation from Manakau Village by the existing SH1. As such it is unlikely the Domain will attract a significant number of other users unless accessibility to the site is significantly improved in terms of safety and connectivity to the village. This will to some extent depend on the O2NL agenda.

10.6 Manakau Domain was identified for possible subdivision and sale in 2009 and a resolution from the Council meeting of 5th August 2009 proposed ‘That with respect to Group 5 properties, an appropriate consultative process is undertaken with all identified potentially affected parties.’ The Manakau Domain was identified as the sixth site on the list.

10.7 Officers applied to the Three Waters ‘Better Off’ fund and were successful in gaining $400,000 to undertake some improvements on site at the Manakau Domain. Officers are currently in discussion with Manakau United and the Manakau District Community Association in respect of the community’s priorities for the site. It is unlikely that the current level of funding will achieve the significant improvements that the club has requested.

10.8 The Manakau Domain is unusual in that it is the only sports ground not maintained by Council under the sports ground sub-activity. However, this is likely in part because Council’s other sports fields are generally managed and administered by Council Officers on the understanding that they can be rented by the general public. The Manakau Domain, should it be decided to bring it back under Council control, would require operational expenditure in the region of $20-30k per annum. Given it would be maintained at the cost of rates, it would necessitate the need to be available for public hire.

10.9 Sports grounds in relation to Reserves are relatively expensive to maintain which is one of the main reasons the emphasis has been on investing in significant sports hubs e.g., Donnelly and Playford Parks. Whilst the Manakau Domain is well utilised primarily by a single customer (Manakau United FC), other similar sportsgrounds are significantly underutilised (e.g., Ohau Domain, Ohau; Moynihan Park, Shannon). Thus a need for future debate on such sites.

Recommendations

10.10 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions in relation to Improvements to Manakau Domain.

10.11 That Council request that Officers continue the ongoing consultation process between the involved parties, including Manakau United Football Club, the Manakau District Community Association, Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Council, regarding the capital funding obtained from the 'Better Off' fund. This funding should be utilised as the initial phase of works to improve the site.

10.12 That Council explores the possibility of bringing Manakau Domain back under Council control. This would entail the transfer of operational maintenance and renewal responsibilities to the Council. It is important to consider the associated costs and budget implications, including an estimated annual expenditure of approximately 20-30k for maintenance, which would need to be funded through rates. Any decision to bring the site under Council control should also ensure that it remains available for public use.

Actions

10.13 Officers to continue discussions around the ‘Better Off’ funding package with the Manakau United Football Club and the Manakau District Community Progressive Association.

11. Topic 8: Sale of public housing stock

Submitter and Submitter Number

11.1 Martin Gibbs (#111)

Summary of Submission

11.2 Submitter #111 requests an inquiry into the sale of public housing stock at $2 million below valuation.

Officer Analysis

11.3 The purchaser of Council’s pensioner housing stock was Compassion Horowhenua; this together with the sale date of November 2017 is a matter of public record. The Community Housing portfolio was sold for $5.25m with the express intent of retaining the portfolio as community housing. The suspensory loan associated with the portfolio was also transferred to Compassion Housing. The offer made by Compassion Horowhenua was the best offer for the portfolio following an extensive Expressions of Interest process.

11.4 The sale reduced Council’s debt, removed the future liability for upgrading or replacing housing units and reduced operational costs. This too is a matter of public record. The purchase price was paid for the entire portfolio.

11.5 The matter was comprehensively debated in the public domain at the time and there is little merit in revisiting the issue given that the price achieved for the properties at the time was the best offer by some distance, and Compassion Horowhenua has been in place delivering a wrap-around service to local pensioners in excess of five and a half years.

Recommendations

11.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Martin Gibbs.

Actions

11.7 No actions required.

12. Topic 9: Community Gardens

Submitter and Submitter Number

12.1 Sandy Chan (#77)

Summary of Submission

12.2 Submitter #77 would like to see community gardens considered. This submitter believes they are important to bring the community together while providing nutritious foods for families that may struggle to buy these foods.

Officer Analysis

12.3 Community gardens or alternatively edible reserves are an increasing feature in a range of Territorial Authorities. Wellington City Council have around 20 community gardens and Nelson has a reasonably long history in providing edible reserves. Community gardens will deal primarily with the growing of vegetables whereas edible reserves include establishing fruit trees on public Reserves.

12.4 In both cases a successful outcome would need to consider the community structure required to deliver the proposed outcome. This may be in the form of an incorporated society or charitable trust. There is a need to establish some form of community entity for a range of reasons including maintenance and management, access and distribution, safety and public health.

12.5 There is undoubtedly a role for community gardens and edible reserves in delivering access to an additional source of fresh fruit and vegetables particularly in communities where access through established paths may be problematic or cost-prohibitive. However, such an approach would require some structure to ensure the supply was both safe and sustainable.

12.6 Officers would be keen to progress discussions should an appropriate organisation, or group of individuals wish to progress the matter.

Recommendations

12.7 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Sandy Chan.

Actions

12.8 No actions required.

13. Topic 10: Oxford Street Trees

Submitter and submission number

13.1 Kathryn Peard (#33), Paul Waters – Harvey Bowler (#226).

Summary of Submissions 

13.2  Submitter #33 believes that the main street trees should not be cut down as it would result in a boring, non-descript town. Instead, this submitter suggests that these trees should be tidied up as they provide shade and character.

13.3 Submitter #226 believes that the Oxford Street trees need to be cut down as these trees are not fit for purpose as the trees are a trip hazard and the leaves cause many issues.

Officer Analysis

13.4 Council has made an application under the Resource Management Act to remove the Oxford Street Plane trees which are identified as notable trees. The consent was notified with the submissions period ending on 2 May 2023. The comments raised by submitters #33 and #226 are in alignment with the submissions Council has received in relation to the proposal with a number of submitters in favour of removal of the trees and other submitters against the proposal. Council has received around 119 submissions on the proposal.

13.5 Given the issue is a current live application, Officers are not in a position to comment further on the matter outside the existing process. Should the submitters wish to express a view on the trees, the appropriate mechanism to do that would be via the Council’s notified resource consent process. The decision on the consent application to remove the notable trees will be through the consent process under the Resource Management Act.

Recommendations

13.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Kathryn Peard and Paul Waters from Harvey Bowler Funeral Services.

Actions

13.7 No actions required.

14. Topic 11: The Manawatu Estuary Ramsar Site

Submitter and submission number

14.1 Dr R H Hoskins (#66).

Summary of Submissions 

14.2 Submitter #66 asks that Council allocate sufficient funds to construct robust barriers to prevent vehicular access to dunes, remove invasive exotic weed species, and replant with native plant species to better protect this area.

Officer Analysis

14.3 The submitter requests that Council invest in ongoing improvements to the dune land areas adjacent to the Manawatu Estuary site.

14.4 Council along with the other two agencies involved in the maintenance/management of the Ramsar site at the Manawatu Estuary (DoC and HRC) are active members of the Manawatu Estuary Management Team (MEMT) which meets regularly to discuss issues around the estuary and associated transitional dunes on the foreshore of Foxton Beach.

14.5 In recent months Council has entirely renewed the rope barrier along Pinewood Road and has through its relationship with the other statutory bodies and MEMT installed some new educational/interpretational signage throughout the dune network. It is currently engaged with the MEMT in rewriting the Manawatu Estuary Management Plan.

14.6 For the last 8-10 years council has been planting around 20,000 Spinifex and Pingau plants at this beach site and other sites at Waitarere and Waikawa Beach. This process is set to continue into the future developing much needed resiliency into the dune system by way of reducing the impact of storms and high-tides that lead to localised erosion.

14.7 Council applied and received $160k from the Freedom Camping Transition Fund in the 2022-2023 round of applications that has been used to employ two Freedom Camping and Open Space Ambassadors who were tasked with engaging and educating people taking vehicles onto the dune areas. Council is currently writing a number of bylaws one of which will consider the administration and management of the foreshore (dune) environment. The Bylaw will consider matters in relation to vehicle access to the beach.

14.8 Horizons Regional Council is responsible for managing noxious weed populations in the Horizons region including Foxton Beach and have been undertaking a limited spraying and management program in Foxton Beach this fnancial year.

Recommendations

14.9 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Dr R H Hoskins.

Actions

14.10 No actions required.

15. Topic 12: Coastal Sand Dunes

Submitter and submission number

15.1 Dr R H Hoskins (#66)

Summary of Submissions 

15.2 Submitter #66 seeks better protection of all sand dunes in Horowhenua as vehicles have continuously destroyed a number of dunes across the district.

15.3 Submitter #66 seeks:

· All vehicles to be banned from dunes, and robust physical barriers constructed to prevent access

· Funding to place storm strewn logs on the costal dunes with signs on the logs and an education program to stop the removal of them

· Designate formal access ways such as board walks, steps and marked tracks to keep people off fragile dunes

· Fencing with windbreak cloth above the storm surge zone to keep people off fragile dunes and help sand accrete in the dunes

· Remove exotic weed species

· Planting native plans

· Pest control

· Have an education program

Officer Analysis

15.4 Horizons Regional Council (HRC) has an overarching role in managing the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) wherein the majority of foreshore dunes sit. Chapter 18 of the HRC One Plan deals with permitted, controlled and discretionary activities. Removal and depositing of minor quantities of sand and driftwood is a permitted activity but significant relocation of driftwood and sand is likely to require a resource consent from HRC. Council has in the past utilised various forms of windbreak cloth to help stabilise dunes but has in recent years turned to the use of natural materials to achieve the same outcome. In this context the submitters suggestion to use driftwood and sand has been used to good effect at Waitarere Beach where HDC has a resource consent to cut the Wairarawa Stream mouth utilising driftwood and sand to stabilise and strengthen coastal dunes.

15.5 This process is augmented by an annual Spinifex (and Pingau) planting program that has been used to good effect on Council’s beaches. The planting of these indigenous species provides a much more resilient coastline and Council has provided an ongoing budget for the work which sees around 20,000 plants planted annually in the beach communities.

15.6 Horowhenua District Council has in place a number of signs which are designed to educate beach users and encourage them to use established walkways and discourage both vehicular and pedestrian access over and through dune systems. Council applied and received $160k from the Freedom Camping Transition Fund in the 2022-2023 round of applications that was used to employ two Freedom Camping and Open Space Ambassadors who were tasked with engaging and educating people around vehicle and pedestrian access to the dune areas. A proportion of the funding is being allocated towards the development of a set of draft bylaws aimed at enhancing the Council's authority in managing its dune network. These bylaws will specifically address concerns related to vehicle access, although a complete ban on vehicular access is not anticipated to be recommended at this stage.

15.7  Horizons Regional Council is responsible for managing noxious weed populations and animal pests in the Horizons region. Some work has been done by Horizons in the control of pests in collaboration with Foxton Wildlife Trust, who also have an educational function locally. Horizons has also been involved in weed pest management in the Foxton Beach area and charge a targeted rate agreed with the Waitarere Beach Progressive Association in managing pest plant populations in that area.

Recommendations

15.8 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Dr R H Hoskins.

Actions

15.9 No actions required.

16. Topic 13: Rates reduction for private roads

Submitter and submission number

16.1 Stevie Dunn (#2).

Summary of Submission

16.2 Submitter #2 would like to see rates for private roads be decreased to factor in lack of liability from the council. Their property at Royal Place utilises a private road. The submitter explains it is extremely stressful for the majority of elderly residents to fork out funds for street lights and road maintenance when their rates are substantial and comparable to all other rates which include these services.

Officer Analysis

16.3 Horowhenua District Council’s Land Transport (Roading) rate funds all Roading (Land Transport) costs (maintenance, renewals and minor capital improvements of roads, streets, roadside signage, road marking, bridges, footpaths, roadside drainage) covered by the Land Transport Group of Activities.

16.4 The Roading rate is set using Capital Value (CV) which are assessed every three years. These were last assessed in 2022, and it is those values that formed the basis of rating from 1 July 2023.

16.5 Everyone in the district contributes to the Roading Rate. Royal Place is a private road and essentially a larger private driveway with those properties along the road expected to contribute to the upkeep of the road, not dissimilar to private driveway. The title of each property on Royal Place includes a share of the road.

Recommendations

16.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Stevie Dunn (#2).

Actions

16.7 No actions required.

17. Topic 14: Foliage verging onto footpaths and walkways

Submitter and submission number

17.1 Tony Strawbridge (#155).

Summary of Submission

17.2 Submitter #155 believes that Council needs to stop boundary creep on to footpaths and side boundaries where a walkway is provisioned. There is too much foliage and fencing placed out to edge on footpath making walking two abreast difficult without having to walk on the grass berm.

Officer Analysis

17.3 The submitter raises concerns about the grass verge encroaching on footpaths, and foliage and fencing encroaching into the road reserve. The submitter is encouraged to contact Council to identify where these issues are so officers can organise them to be addressed.

17.4 Council do undertake routine footpath condition assessments throughout the district, where these problems are identified and addressed. However direct community feedback is an important source of information and helps officers to prioritise the problems which are having the worst effects.

Recommendations

17.5 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Tony Strawbridge.

Actions

17.6 No actions required.

18. Topic 15: Condition of Poplar Road

Submitter and submission number

18.1 Billy & Madaleen Cavanagh (#347).

Summary of Submission  

18.2 Submitter #347 say Poplar Road is in very poor condition in places. The submitter states that they love cycling but the potholes and rough edges make it quite unpleasant. They also say State Highway 56, is regularly closed for days due to flooding meaning further travel to get to Palmerston North.

Officer Analysis  

18.3 The submitter raises concerns relating to the poor condition of Poplar Road. A road rehabilitation project to address these issues has been designed and partially constructed. Construction has paused for winter until the next construction season.

18.4 The submitter raises concerns with frequent closures on State Highway 56, presumably referring to the section north of the Manawatu River Bridge. Waka Kotahi are the Road Controlling Authority for all State Highways in New Zealand. Horowhenua District Council do not control this road.

Recommendations  

18.5 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Billy and Madaleen Cavanagh.

Actions  

18.6 No actions required.

19. Topic 16: Skid pad

Submitter name and number

19.1 Jake Winstanley (#88)

Summary of Submission 

19.2 Submission #234 proposes that Council enable the establishment of a “skid pad” facility for the purpose of enabling car enthusiasts to conduct manoeuvres which are illegal and unsafe on public roads such as “skidding.”

19.3 The decision sought from Council is:

· To give direction to the Chief Executive to allocate resources to investigate possible options in establishing “skid pad” and develop one or more costed options and in preparation for elected member Capital Programme decision making as part of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2044 process, or;

· To give direction to the Chief Executive to investigate how Council could enable and encourage a private provider or community initiative to provide a “skid pad”.

Officer Analysis

19.4 This proposal advocates for the provision of a “skid pad” and describes a potential benefit of such a facility. The sole benefit identified by the submitter is that this facility would provide a space for car enthusiasts to use without resorting to undertaking dangerous and antisocial driving on public roads.

19.5 Consideration would need to be given to whether providing a recreation facility suited only for a small proportion of the population is an appropriate activity for Council to be undertaking, or whether this activity could be better provided for by the private sector, or other community initiative.

19.6 Consideration would also need to be given to whether the provision of a “skid pad” would suitably contain the unsafe and dangerous activity away from public roads, or whether a “skid pad” would encourage and propagate this behaviour on public roads. A privately operated “skid pad” is available for hire at the Hampton Downs Motorsport Park north of Hamilton, yet that area has a thriving “boy racer” culture who do not confine their dangerous driving to this facility.

Recommendations

19.7 That Council acknowledges , with thanks, the submissions from Jake Winstanley

19.8 That Council does not pursue or facilitate the provision of a “skid pad”,

19.9 That Council requests that Officers investigate options for an alternative provider such as a private provider or a community initiative.

19.10 That Council requests that Officers investigate options for the provision of a “skid pad” by Council, to be included for consideration as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Actions

19.11 No actions required

20. Topic 17: Traffic in Shannon

Submitter and submission number

20.1 Marilyn Hanson (#300)

Summary of Submissions 

20.2 Submission #300 advocates for two road safety improvements in Shannon, and requests the repair of a construction defect in a recently completed Ultra-Fast Broadband installation. The identified sites and corresponding concerns are listed below:

· Speeding on East Road, in the area immediately around, and to the west of the Hennessy Road intersection. Submitter #300 suggests installation of speed humps.

· The layout of the Stafford Street / East Road Intersection, which Submitter #300 believes leads to vehicles failing to give way. Submitter #300 proposes the installation of a small roundabout.

· A failure of a trench reinstatement undertaken on behalf of Chorus.

20.3 The decision sought from Council is as follows:

· To give direction to the Chief Executive to have these concerns investigated and appropriately addressed.

Officer Analysis

20.4 The concerns raised by Submitter #300 appear to be valid and could be confirmed by further investigation.

20.5 Similarly, the proposed treatments for each of these concerns are viable treatments to remedy these issues. They could be further developed and if appropriate, delivered by Officers through existing Land Transport Budgets, subject to priority and overall programme.

Recommendations

20.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Marilyn Hanson.

Actions

20.7 Land Transport Officers are to contact the submitter to discuss these concerns and seek to address them using appropriate Land Transport budgets if required.

21. Topic 18: Resealing of Arawhata Road

Submitter and Submitter Number

21.1 Martin Gibbs (#111).

Summary of Submission

21.2 Submitter #111 requests an inquiry into the resealing of Arawhata Road. The submitter is concerned that several decisions made by Council have been made because Council was “duped or corrupt” and believes these decisions require an enquiry. The submitter does not elaborate on why they are concerned with the decision-making process for the resealing of Arawhata Road, but it could be presumed that the submitter believes the resealing was undertaken to enable a residential development on Arawhata Road.

21.3 The decision sought from Council is as follows:

· To give direction to the Chief Executive to have an enquiry undertaken into the decision-making process for the resealing of Arawhata Road.

Officer Analysis

21.4 Arawhata Road has recently been resealed. This work was undertaken as a second-coat seal and was required after the Arawhata Road Rehabilitation Project in 2020. Second-coat resealing is a standard treatment chipseal surfacing following a road rehabilitation, as the first seal coat requires a second coat within 1-3 years in order for the surface to be completely watertight and achieve a desired useful life.

21.5 The 2020 Arawhata Road rehabilitation project was completed as part of the 2020-21 sealed road rehabilitation programme, and was selected due to its very poor condition at the time. All road rehabilitation projects within Horowhenua District are selected based on condition assessments. Growth projections are also considered when developing the road rehabilitation programme, however the residential development on Arawhata Road will not generate enough vehicle movements to have an effect on treatment selection or programming. At no point has contact been made by parties involved in any land development on Arawhata Road with Officers within Council’s Land Transport Team who are responsible for treatment selection.

Recommendations

21.6 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Martin Gibbs.

Actions

21.7 No actions are required.

22. Topic 19: Encourage youth into meaningful education and work

Submitter and submission number

22.1 Sandy Chan (#77).

Summary of submission

22.2 Submitter #77 would like to see how we are encouraging more youth and school leavers in the district to go into meaningful education and work.

22.3 Submitter #77 would like to see how we are helping businesses to be more visible and share their knowledge so growers and food producers travel to the district to learn.

Officer Analysis

Mayors Task Force for Jobs

22.4 Horowhenua District Council is actively participating in the Mayors' Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ) program, an initiative organised and administered by Local Government NZ (LGNZ). This program is designed to address youth unemployment and foster positive outcomes for young individuals aged 16 to 25 within our community.

22.5 Since the implementation of the MTJF Programme in October 2022, Horowhenua District Council has facilitated 102 positive outcomes for young individuals, providing them with valuable employment, education, and training opportunities.

22.6 Horowhenua District Council remain committed to addressing youth unemployment and nurturing the potential of our young individuals, making a lasting difference in the Horowhenua District.

Taste Trail

22.7 Council is a key partner in the Horowhenua Taste Trail event contributing financial and officer support.

22.8 The Horowhenua Taste Trail is an annual event that highlights the diverse culinary offerings and agricultural expertise of the Horowhenua district. It is a unique opportunity for locals and visitors alike to embark on a culinary journey, exploring the region's vibrant food scene and connecting with local growers, producers, and businesses

Recommendations

22.9 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Sandy Chan.

Actions

22.10 No actions required.

23. Topic 20: Truck Stop, accommodation, and restaurants

Submitter and Submitter Number

23.1 Joop Winiata (#92)

Summary of Submission

23.2 Submitter #92 believes the new road to come provides a good opportunity for an extensive truck stop close to the highway that provides a space for services such as a restaurant, accommodation and services. This submitter also notes that currently, accommodation options and restaurants in Levin are currently limited.

Officer Analysis

23.3 The new O2NL expressway will provide many different development opportunities within the district, including opportunities like a truck stop. The new road will be delivered by Waka Kotahi. Their project will focus on the road construction not the activities or development that occurs adjacent to the new highway. As Council has a very limited number of land holdings and not many adjacent to the new highway corridor, a truck stop with associated activities like restaurants and accommodation would likely be provided by private developers and not Council. Council’s role is to ensure that there are opportunities for appropriate development to occur. Council fulfils this function through the zoning of land and strategic land use planning. Council officers are currently working on District Plan changes to rezone land in the vicinity of the new highway, which potentially could provide additional commercial and industrial development opportunities. Officers are also working on the Levin Structure Plan and the Levin Town Centre Transformation both of which will identify future opportunities for where additional accommodation and dining facilities could be developed.

Recommendations

23.4 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Joop Winiata.

Actions

23.5 No actions required.

24. Topic 21: Destination Management: Promote and run more Horowhenua Events

Submitter and Submitter Number

24.1 Sandy Chan (#77), Joop Winiata (#92).

Summary of Submission

24.2 Submitter #77 seeks a collective vision or marketing strategy to promote Horowhenua.

24.3 Submitter #77 would be happy to pay higher rates to cover the costs of more events in Horowhenua that bring the community together, while also bringing more people into the district.

24.4 Submitter #92 believes our unique environment could support more adventure projects.

Officer Analysis

24.5 The Horowhenua 2040 Strategy (October 2020) consolidated Horowhenua District Council’s strategies and plans, focusing on economic, environmental, social and cultural wellbeing across all Horowhenua communities. The strategy incorporates the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, aligns with central government policies and explores opportunities for collaborative partnerships across sectors. This fed into the Horowhenua 2040 Blueprint (adopted May 2022), which details 12 action areas for Council. Attracting more visitors with a strong district identity and nurturing and promoting a food culture were among these action areas. This focus was driven by the Horowhenua Destination Development and Management Plan 2020-2030, which recognised that between 2016 and 2019, Horowhenua visitor expenditure growth outstripped New Zealand (organically), but had since plateaued.

24.6 As a result of this direction Council launched the new Horowhenua NZ brand, which included the horowhenuanz.co.nz website, new visitor guide, district signage, brand guidelines and marketing strategy. Eventfinda automatically links to the new website, which has an always on marketing campaign driving users to the site. As a result, if local events are listed on Eventfinda, they will by default be benefiting from this marketing.

24.7 At the same time, Council commissioned the Horowhenua Company Ltd to develop an Event Strategy for the district. This was completed in 2022 and briefed to Council just prior to the election in 2022, and was not adopted at that time. It has yet to be brought back to the new Council for consideration or adoption. Among the recommendations in this strategy was the initiation of an events tool kit and the establishment of a Contestable Major Events Fund to support larger events in the district and therefore drive greater economic benefit.

24.8 The Three Waters Better Off Funding provided Council Officers the opportunity to pitch for funding to support ideas that may not have otherwise be funded through the Long Term Plan process. A successful pitch was made for $350,000 to support the establishment of a 12 month fixed term Destination Management Lead role, support the ongoing delivery of the rebrand and destination management and initiate a contestable major events fund.

Recommendations

24.9 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submissions from Sandy Chan and Joop Winiata.

Actions

24.10 That following the successful recruitment of the the Destination Management Lead role, the Draft Event Strategy is brought back to Council for further consideration and that the Destination Management Lead develops a programme of work that includes establishing a major contestable events fund.

25. Topic 22: Living wage

Submitter and submission number

25.1 Sharon Williams (#298)

Summary of submissions

25.2 Submitter #298 notes that there is a huge variation in what contractors and staff are paid, and asks that, unless specifically on a training wage, all relevant employees are paid the living wage (currently $23.65 due to rise to $26 on the 1st September) and once that is in place Council also work towards accreditation.

Officer Analysis

25.3 All attempts are being made to increase our lower paid people to a rate as close to living wage as possible. Last year our approach during our pay and performance review was to focus on lifting pay for our lower grades. This year we have the same guiding principle to Improve equity by lifting the pay of our lower grades. All increases are based on individual performance, affordability, market data, cost of living (inflation) data, economic conditions and local market factors.

25.4 Council could consider moving to implementing living wage during the LTP Proper 2024-44.

Recommendations

25.5 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the submission from Sharon Williams.

Actions

25.6 No actions required

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)	Lisa Campbell Strategic Communications Manager
	James Wallace Land Transport Manager
	Arthur Nelson Parks and Property Manager
	Michelle Rogerson Community and Social Development Manager
	Lauren Overend People & Capability Manager
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance
	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

31 May 2023

6.7 Deliberations Report 6 - Financial Matters

File No.: 23/347

1. Purpose

To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment in relation to the consultation issue: Annual Plan 2023/24

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/347 Deliberations Report 6 - Financial Matters be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.3 That Report Deliberations Report 5 – Financial Matters be received.

2.4 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act

2.5 That Council acknowledges, with thanks, all who have submitted on the Community Facilities activity

2.6 That Council approve the increased Development Contributions and endorse the proposed changes to the Development Contributions Policy.

2.7 That Council approve the attached Fees and Charges Schedule for the year 2023/2024, noting the fees and charges adequately meet Council’s Revenue and Financing Targets consulted on.

2.8 That Council approve an average rates increase of 7.9% (after accounting for growth) in line with Topic 4 Option 1; OR

2.9 That Council approve an average rates increase of TBC% (after accounting for growth) by making further service reductions in the draft Long Term Plan Amendment 2021-41. In doing do, Council approves the following changes to service levels resulting in the listed dollar and percentage savings in rates:

a. Remove Wellington Regional Growth Framework funding by $140,000 (0.3%)

b. Reduce community grants and community group funding by $200,000 (0.4%)

c. Events – having no contestable fund/support for major events in 2023/24 - $80000 (0.2%)

d. Stop urban berm mowing $140,000 (0.3%)

e. Reduce Maintenance: Waitārere Rise Boulevard - $19,000 (0.0%)

f. Reduce Maintenance: Victoria Park, Foxton $31,000 (0.1%)

g. Reduce Maintenance: Moynihan Park, Shannon $22,000 (0.0%)

h. Reduce Maintenance: Vincent Drive Reserve, Levin $10,000 (0.0%)

i. Reduce targeted capital spend from $41m to $38m - $57,000 (0.1%)

j. Reduce targeted capital spend from $41m to $38m -$114,000 (0.2%)

k. Reduce budget for professional services across the organisation - $100,000 (0.2%)

l. Further operational savings target noting that this is currently up to $500,000 based on officers not seeking additional rates to fund expected increases in interest rates - $100,000 (0.2%)

3. Background

3.1 When the LTP 2021-2041 was developed, we expected that we would need a 6.4% rates revenue increase and set a limit of 6.5% for the total rates revenue increase: however, things have changed.

3.2 Our first look at the budget, when setting the draft LTPA showed us we’d need an 18.9% rates increase to do everything planned for 2023/24 in the LTP. This figure isn’t something a council would usually share – it’s not something we’d propose. By sharing it this year we hope it gave more insight into how Council calculates rates increase, the pressures the budget is facing and that there’s little we could sensibly cut.

3.3 When we develop LTPs and Annual Plans, we look at the work we’re proposing, how we pay for it and whether that’s reasonable. Rates revenue lets our Council deliver the levels of service we agreed to provide in the LTP. Unlike some other councils, we don’t have income from assets in airports or ports to offset our rates income. We rely on rates to pay for a majority of what we do.

3.4 As part of setting the draft proposed rates increase, we also reviewed our Revenue & Financing together with our proposed fees and charges to make sure that there was a fair split between user charges and rates. To bring the rates down from 18.9% to 7.9% we made decisions to fund some of the additional operational costs in three waters through borrowings in the short term and slowed the level of depreciation funding increases that were planned in the LTP. This has the effect of delaying the year where we will be fully funding depreciation from 2026 to 2028.

3.5 During the LTP 2024-2044, the Council will continue to implement its zero-based budgeting approach and will look across our activities further to make sure that we are fairly sharing the cost of providing services to the district.

4. Topics for Consideration

Topic 1	Development Contributions
Topic 2	Fees and Charges
Topic 3	Any Management Changes
Topic 4	Rates Increase

5. Topic 1: Development Contributions

5.1 259 submissions were received on the proposed increase to development contributions Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment/Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation topic. The increases were proposed to ensure that the growth component of the additional water costs was appropriately included in the development contributions amount. Yes or no answers were sought to the question “Do you support increased development contribution payments to help meet the increased costs of water infrastructure programme upgrade?”

5.2 The submission responses for this question have been summarised and analysed by officers; with an officer recommendation outlined at the end.

Question: Do you support increased development contribution payments to help meet the increased costs of water infrastructure programme upgrade?

Submitter and submission numbers

In Support of the proposal

5.3 Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#4), Darren Parlato (#5), Debbie Munro (#6), Jo Bendall (#7), Lewis Tait (#13), Alison Anderson (#18), Aarin Bang (#20), Colin Young (#22), Gerald (#29), Michelle (#32), Regan Savange (#34), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Nicole Smith (#36), Matthew Eric Whittington (#39), Mansell Ireland (#40), Adele Bailey (#45), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), April Dale (#51), Steven Fryer (#52), Jade Holmes – Home (#54), Ellen Schaef (#58), Neville Earl Roberts (#59), Garry Anderson (#61), Kiran Sunny (#62), Robert McGaw (#67), Brian John Ellis (#68), David Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#74), Hilary Moore (#75), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletcher (#78), Craig Watson (#79), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Barry Eichler (#83), Janelle Tamihana (#90), Hannah Bradbury (#96), Pātaka Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (100), Monique Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#106), Pareraukawa Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#113), Ema Jacob (#119), Stuart Andrew Keall – S A & D Keall Family Trust (#121), Chris Hartwell (#125), Chris Corke – CORUM Limited (#135), Egon Guttke (#138), Remana Rudd (#142), Harris Owen Sciascia (#146), Jillian Nicholsen - Ngāti Kikopiri me Pareraukawa (#147), Tukunui Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#148), Tomo Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#149), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Tony Strawbridge (#158), Ian Staples – Taoete Trustees Ltd (#15), Sharon Freebairn (#165), Liz Brown (#169), Phil Richards (#170), Richard Brader (#171), Helen Maylor (#172), Mel Coo (#173), Andrea Howard (#174), Mark Thomson – The Thomson Family Trust (#175), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Ethan Bray (#189), Norm Pearson (#190), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Thomas Lynch (#194), Allana Woodford (#195), Bramley Crysell (#196), Rose Cotter (#197), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Barbara Cahn (#202), Geoff Kane (#209), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Murray Staples (#217), Michael Fletcher (#220), Leo Cooney (#221), Melanie Obers (#224), Tessa Field (#225), Trevor Hinder (#228), Ronald Gibson (#235), Brian Tweddle (#236), Neil Cohen (#239), Garry – Good (#245), Eric & Betty Cornick (#148), Jeremy Baker (#250), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clarke (#252), Wendy Williams (#25), Peter Thompson (#256), John Girling – Te Awahau Foxton Community Board (#258), Susan Walker (#259), Richard Bacon (#260), Hamish McDonald (#261), Brett Russell (#262), Rob & Nicola Buckland (#170), Paul Goodwin (#280), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Donald Nicholas (#282), Maree Collins (#283), Russell Newton & Others – Lakeside Trust (#285), Peter Hammond (#287), Geoff Richie (#289), Valeria Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth – Grey Power (#291), Robin Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#292), Susan Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura Ann MacGregor (#295), Graeme Lindsay – HDRRA Inc (#196), Sharon Williams – Hapai te Hapori (#298), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Colleen Burgess (#306), Greg Canty (#311), Adriana Wilton (#312), Derek Perkins (#318), Michele Walls (#330), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Grame and Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Peter Fox (#338), Hannah Street (#339), Sarah-Jayne Shine (#340), Janice Swanwick (#342), Gaire Thompson – TPG LTD (#349), Jason Reid (#352), Cody Finau (#353), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), Hayden Turoa (#373), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold (#377), Allan James Preston (#378), R D Sanson (#379), Charles Rudd – He Mokai O Papatuanuku (#382), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Christina Paton (#386), Christa Maria Krey (#397), James Bernard McMillan (#398), Carol Dyer (#399), Peter Everton – Lakeview Farm Ltd (#401), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Valerie Maud Rodgers (#407), Denise Jeanette Ridley (#408), Albert Ross Burgess (#409), Terry Hemmington – Horowhenua Grey Power (#412), Francesse Middleton (#416),

Against the proposal

5.4 Emma Platt (#1), Stevie Dunn (#2), Sue Smith (#3), Marietza Walmsey (#8), Terry John Rozmus (#10), Daniel Conway Scully #11), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Levi Milldove (#15), Jonathan (#16), Alan Wolland (#17), Nicole Evans #19), John White (#21), Holly Wolland (#24), Amy Healy (#25), Deb Walker (#26), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Jason Walker (#28), Kathryn Peard (#33), Laura Reitel (#37), Charon Williams (#43), Joe Craddock – QCONZ ITO (#44), Ashley Gaby (#48), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), Jade Holmes (#55), Steven Gillespie (#60), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Sinead Millard (#64), Angela Jacobs (#69), Helen Trembath – PNCC (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), Mel Meates (#84), Hohepa )’Donnell (#88), Leanne Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#101), Colin Sciascia - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#102), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Cindy Susan Pender – Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Shaun McNeil (#108), Marahira Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Kushla Okano (#117), Rebecca Collis (#120), Tania Sleeman (#124), Jacinta Adlam (#127), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), John Machin (#130), Ellise Michelle Bolstad (#132), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#136), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#144), Hare Eparaima – Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Huyen Thi Thu Ngyen – HD Family Trust (#151), Ian Baggott (#152), Graham Keith & Eveline Isabella Bensemann (#154), Susan Ball (#161), Djahn Rogotaua (#164), Martin Berry (#166), Eleanor Reo (#168), Morgan Waitoa - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#177), Aiden Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#178), Jennifer Phillp 0 Ngāti Pareraukawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#180), Crystal Strolther - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#181), Tainui Brown - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#183), Terese Fulford - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#184), Tina Tangiiau - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#185), Chelsea Strother – MDC Interiors (#186), Ashley Banks (#188), Tania Bate (#199), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Richard Trevethick (#207), Jody Sellwood (#208), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Raymond Bishop (#218), Jeanette Warner (#219), Janette Smith (#223), Tessa Field (#225), Nick Sneddon (#229), Craig Walker (#230), Miles & Bev Udy (#241), Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246), Brenda Chapman (#147), Mischelle Stephanie Dacre – Manakau Hotel (#249), Jeremy John Smith (#251), Johnny (#253), John & Jeny Brown (#263), Mel Birch (#265), Paul Rennie (#267), Philippa Paterson (#278), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Marily Cranson (#300), Stephen & Karen Prouse – Prouse Trust Partnerships (#303), HDR & RA Committee (#305), Sandra van Toor (#307), Craig Tweedie (#314), Jess Thomson (#315), Susan Harper (#317), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Stuart Weitzel (#341), Helen Brown (#351), Rangiwaiata Te Keepa Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#366), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#368), Phillip Toha Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa #370), Kenneth Charles Allan (#371), Christopher Bruce Drinkwater (#372), Angel Wallace (#374), Vivienne Gwenyth Bold – Hokio Progressive Association (#376), Lindsay Hemiona Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#384), Deanna Mere Hanita-Paki – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Wendy Alison McMillan (#400), Austin Robson (#404).

Commented but did not provide yes or no answer

Gary Benton – Horowhenua Grey Power (#389).

Summary of submissions

5.5 Submitter #44 believes developers should also be held more accountable for installing infrastructure such as drainage – Waitārere given as an example.

5.6 Submitter #79 believes that development contributions should be invoiced as soon as RC (resource consent) has been granted and paid prior to the building consent being issued.

5.7 Submitter #79 believes that development contributions should be ring fenced to that area the development is being carried out and not go into a big pool to be divided to other areas across the district.

5.8 Submitter #111 asks what is the current balance in the Development Contributions Account?

5.9 Submitters #111, #221 and #337 believes that Development Contributions should be higher to more accurately reflect the cost of the sections being developed.

5.10 Submitter #127 raised that increases in Development Contributions are a deterrent for Māori to develop their land. Believes Māori should be exempt from development contributions when the development is on Māori whenua.

5.11 Submitter #189 asks whether Development Contributions should increase by more in Foxton Beach as there is so much development and need for services.

5.12 Submitters #223, #255 and #342 believe developers should pay for the cost of increasing capacity of infrastructure.

5.13 Submitter #303 believes that Tara-Ika is unfairly singled out.

5.14 Submitter #352 states that current ratepayers should not have to pay for infrastructure caused by new developments.

5.15 Submitter #342 believes that developers should pay for water infrastructure, particularly new developments along Gladstone Road, and that all new builds and alterations should be required to install rainwater tanks for gardens.

5.16 Submitter #389 states yes from developer and no from rate payer.

5.17 Submitter #401 supports charging development contributions for areas that are currently connected to infrastructure. This submitter does not support development contributions being charged for single subdivisions in areas that are not currently connected to infrastructure.

Officer analysis

5.18 Of the 259 submissions that responded to the questions on Development Contributions, 145 submissions (55.9%) were in favour of increasing the current rate of development contributions charged upon development, with the remaining 114 submissions (44.1%) against the increase.

5.19 Of those that supported the increase, 67 respondents (46%) live in Rural parts of the district, whilst 66 (45%) live in urban areas. The remaining 12 respondents (9%) did not provide an answer to the question. Of those who did not support the increase, 60 respondents (53%) live in rural areas, whilst 45 (39%) live in urban areas. The remaining 9 respondents (8%) did not specify. The graphs below provide a further breakdown of where in the district’s respondents reside.

Submissions were generally yes/no answers with only a few additional supporting comments. The submissions with comments fall broadly into the following categories:

Point 1 - Developers paying the cost of development

5.20 The majority of the comments on Development Contributions were supportive of developers, rather than ratepayers, bearing the cost of increasing capacity of infrastructure. These included submitters #223, 255, #342, #352 and #389. Submitters #111, #221, #337 stated that the proposed Development Contributions were not high enough and should accurately reflect the actual cost of providing the services. On this note, Development Contributions are devised by using the cost of growth projects (as opposed to maintenance projects). Council is not able to pass on any additional costs through development contributions. Submitter #221 said “consolidate but charge developers more”. It is unclear what is meant by “consolidate” in this instance but the rest of the comment is noted. Submitter #79 also noted that they believe that Development Contributions should be ring fenced to that area the development is being carried out and not go into a big pool to be divided to other areas across the district. Within the Development Contributions policy, we group our charges by catchments based on service area so that only those additional properties that benefit from the growth infrastructure, need to contribute towards it.

Point 2 – Single Lot Subdivisions on unserviced sites shouldn’t attract development contributions

5.21 Submitter #401 supports charging development contributions for areas that are currently connected to infrastructure. This submitter does not support development contributions being charged for single subdivisions in areas that are not currently connected to infrastructure. In response to this, Council only charges contributions for available services. Whilst some sites may not be connected to three waters services, all subdivisions in the district contribute to demand for additional roading and community facilities, hence the rural rate.

Point 3 - Timing of payment of development contributions

5.22 Submitter #79 raised the issue of timing of payment of development contributions, stating that they should be invoiced as soon as the Resource Consent has been granted and paid prior to the building consent being issued.

5.23 Officers note that not all developments that are subject to Development Contributions require either or both resource consent or building consent. When the Development Contributions Policy was being developed, the timing of invoicing of Development Contributions was given considerable thought. The current Development Contribution policy allows for development contributions to be charged for resource consent (land use and subdivision), building consent, building certificate of acceptance, or service connection - whichever of these occurs first. Under the current policy, an assessment is provided to the customer upon granting of a resource consent, building consent or application for service connection, to advise of the amount that is payable for that particular development. At the current time, an invoice for the development contribution is sent out at the following times for the various project types (noting that if a project comprises more than one activity, Council invoices at the first opportunity):

a. 14 working days after the issuing of a land use consent, service connection authorisation or certificate of acceptance

b. At the time of receiving a Section 224(c) application for subdivision consent

c. At the time of the first inspection of a building consent.

5.24 Council’s preference is to invoice for development contributions at the time when the demand for the additional services is created, which is generally at the time any new connection is made. This usually occurs as one of the last components of a building consent for a habitable building or to complete a subdivision, though it can be done as a separate process.

5.25 The Local Government Act 2004 also allows Council to delay the release of certification (224(c), Code of Compliance and Certificate of Acceptance) until the required contribution is paid, which assists with the easier administration of the policy. The risk of invoicing prior to the activity commencing is that there will be instances where the activity does not proceed, and Council would have to administer refunds. This adds administrative costs that could be avoided with an alternative approach.

5.26 Since the consultation material for the LTP Amendment was adopted, there has been some consideration of the current timing of invoicing/collecting Development Contributions. It is noted that Council's current approach has led to a lot of carried over debt appears on our books, because of the potential lag between invoicing for Development Contributions for building consents in particular, at the beginning of the building process, but not being payable until the Code Compliance Certificate is sought. There is also some difficulty with taking a Development Contribution on land use consents, as these are the only type of development that do not require a certificate or works that Council can withhold for non-payment of Development Contributions. It is noted that none of the neighbouring Councils (Manawatū District, Kāpiti Coast District or Palmerston North City) take a development contribution on land use consents, perhaps for this very reason, and because the demand for services is usually generated at another stage of the development, such as building consent/service connection, rather than by the granting land use consent itself.

5.27 Officers propose Council’s current approach be amended to address these issues. The differences between the current and proposed approaches are summarised below:

Activity	Current Trigger for Development Contributions Invoice	Is there certification/work needed to complete the project that can be withheld for non-payment of DCs?	Proposed changes to current DCs
Subdivision	224(c) Application	yes	none
Land Use	14 working days after consent is issued	no	Remove
Building Consent	First inspection	yes	Change wording to allow invoicing at either: · the final inspection is completed, or · a Code Compliance Application is received, or · two years after the date building consent was granted whichever occurs earlier
Certificate of Acceptance	14 working days after CoA is issued	yes	none
Service Connection	Granting of application	yes	none

5.28 In order to give effect to the recommended changes, some additional minor changes to Sections 2 and 3 of the Development Contributions policy are proposed, and summarised in the table below:

Section	Proposed Change
2.11 - When are Development Contributions Assessed and Invoiced?
2.11.2	Remove reference to land use consent
2.11.3	Change invoicing stage for building consent
3.5 - Assessments and Invoicing
3.5.1	Remove reference to land use consent
3.5.2	Remove land use consent, change invoicing stage for building consent
3.5.4	Add 224(c) certification and Code Compliance Certificate to set out what can be withheld for non-payment of development contributions, to bring it more accurately into line with Section 208 Local Government Act 2004.
3.6.2 - Postponements
3.6.2.1	Remove references to land use consent
3.6.2.3	Remove whole point (relates to land use consent)
3.6.2.4	Re-number to 3.6.2.3, remove references to land use consent

5.29 Given that the proposed changes are administrative only and will not have any detrimental financial effects on people with projects that are subject to the Development Contributions Policy, it is considered that they can be considered as part of this process and will not require a separate consultation process. It is recommended that the proposed changes to the Development Contributions Policy are made.

Point 4 - Cost/Standard of Services – Specific Settlements

5.30 Submitter #189 said Development Contributions at Foxton Beach should increase by more as there is so much development and need for infrastructure.

5.31 The proposed development contribution for Foxton beach reflects the additional cost of providing new or upgrade services to Foxton Beach to support the anticipated development. Increasing the Development Contributions ensures that the cost of providing services for growth are borne by the developers who increase demand for the services, rather than the cost being borne by ratepayers.

5.32 Submitter #44 believes developers should also be held more accountable for installing infrastructure such as drainage – Waitārere given as an example.

5.33 The comment is noted. Dependant on the requirements for each zone type within the district plan, developers do have a level of accountability for the installation or infrastructure and drainage. This will vary by subdivision dependant on the zoning.

5.34 In the Waitārere example the primary infrastructure installed has been roading and roadside swales or curbing for the collection of water runoff from the impervious road surface, and soak pits. There have been observed changes to the environment along the coast in recent times with increased levels of groundwater being prevalent, resulting in higher levels of runoff than expected. Each lot in Waitārere is also required to have soak pits installed to manage stormwater. Note that these soak pits however may become less effective in high groundwater situations.

5.35 Submitter #342 believes that developers should pay for water infrastructure, particularly new developments along Gladstone Road, and that all new builds and alterations should be required to install rainwater tanks for gardens. Submitter #303 considers that Tara-Ika has been unfairly singled out.

5.36 These submissions are is noted. It is understood submitter #342 is referring to the Tara-Ika development. The Development Contributions for Tara-Ika (formerly known as Gladstone Green), including those for water infrastructure are higher than for other parts of Levin, reflecting the actual cost of providing services to Tara-Ika. New dwellings in Tara-Ika are required to install stormwater tanks as part of the suite of new rules approved under Plan Change 4.

5.37 Any new rules to require stormwater tanks on other sites in the district are not part of the scope of the LTPA. However, the use of such rules can be canvassed as part of future urban growth/intensification Plan Changes 6 and 7, which are currently being researched. Stormwater solutions for development are being investigated as part of this plan change.

Point 5 - Equity for Māori developing on Whenua Māori

5.38 Submitter #127 said that increases in Development Contributions are a deterrent for Māori to develop their land, and queried whether an exemption for development on whenua Māori is appropriate. Council acknowledges that developers of whenua Māori face additional barriers to development. It may be possible for remission to be granted for Development Contributions under Section 3.6 of the Development Contributions Policy. The scope of the current amendment to the Development Contributions Policy is not seeking to make changes to those sections, but it is recommended that this be investigated as part of the Long Term Plan and full review of the Development Contributions Policy to occur next year.

Point 6 – Current Balance of Development Contributions

In response to submitter #111, the total take so far of Development Contributions has been $1.2 million, since the policy was implemented in July 2021.

Summary of officer Analysis of options 1 and 2

	Option 1 – In Support	Option 2- Not in Support
Rural	67	60
Urban	66	45
Not specified	12	9
Total	145	114

Consequential Changes

5.39 As part of finalising the LTPA, the Schedule of Assets (at Appendix 5 of the Development Contributions Policy) needs to be updated for the proposed $16m of carried forward work and funding from 2022/23. The proposed carried forward work is outlined in Topic 3 below.

5.40 This does not change the rates of Development Contributions for the various settlements within the district as it relates to the timing of the programme rather than increasing the amounts.

5.41 The risk of not taking the additional costs into account would be that the Development Contributions would not cover the actual cost of development, and funding would need to be sought from other sources.

5.42 The benefits of the taking the additional costs into account would mean that the costs would be borne by developers, rather than ratepayers. The risk of proceeding with this approach under this current LTPA process is that the amended figures have not been put out for consultation and the general public has not had a chance to have any input. Unlike the changes to the proposed to the invoicing timing set out in the Development Contributions Policy, there would be an additional cost to developers.

Recommendation

5.43 As consulted on in the LTPA, Council has the option resolve to adopt Option 1, which is to increase the Development Contributions to reflect the increased cost of servicing the district, rather than the costs falling on ratepayers as a whole. This is in line with Council’s approach in 2021, when the current policy was brought in. Alternatively, Council could resolve to adopt Option 2, which would mean that the increased cost of servicing development would fall on ratepayers.

5.44 Additionally, Council has the option to change the Development Contributions Policy to make the timing of invoicing clearer and easier to administer. To do this, the following changes would be needed:

· That the proposed changes to Policy 2.11.2, 2.11.3, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 3.6.2.1, 3.6.2.3 and 3.6.2.4 of the Development Contributions be approved.

5.45 Alternatively, Council has the option to retain the current versions of those policies and maintain the status quo.

5.46 Council can also decide that the potential to offer Development Contributions remission to Whanau Māori for development on Whenua Māori be investigated as part of the Long Term Plan 2024. Alternatively, Council could decide not to investigate this matter as part of the next Long Term Plan.

6. Topic 2: Fees and Charges

6.1 318 submissions were received on the proposed increases to the fees and charges Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation topic. Yes or no answers were sought to the question Do you support the proposed changes to the way fees and charges are shared?

6.2 The submission responses for this question have been summarised and analysed by officers; with an officer recommendation outlined at the end.

Question: Do you support the proposed changes to the way fees and charges are shared?

Submitter and submission numbers

In support of the proposal

6.3 A total of 115 submitters agreed with the proposed changes to the way fees and charges are shared.

6.4 Emma Platt (#1), Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#4), Darren Parlato – Parlato & Associates (#5), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Alison Anderson (#18), Colin Young (#22), Kathryn Oeard (#33), Regan Savage (#34), Matthew Eric Whittington (#39), Sharon Williams (#43), Joe Craddock – QCONZ LTO (#44), Ashley Gaby (#48), April Dale (#51), David Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#74), Hilary Moore (#75), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletched (#78), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Barry Eichler (#83), Mel Meates (#84), Janelle Trembath (#89), Pātaka Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#100), Leanne Harison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#101), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Monique Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#106), Pareraukawa Moore - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#113), Ema Jacob (#119), Kristin Jamie Berge (#128), Ronald Forrest Anderson (#16), Bill Inge (#137), Remmana Rudd (#142), Harris Owen Sciascia (#146), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Tony Strawbridge (#158), Barrie Hoseason (#163), Sharon Freebairn (#165), Leigh Harrington (#167), Eleanor Reo (#168), Phil Richards (#170), Richard Brader (#171), Helen Naylor (#172), Mel Cook (#173), Andrea Howard (#174), Mark Thomson – The Thomson Family Trust (#175), Ethan Bray (#189), Norm Pearson (#190), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Thomas Lynch (#194), Allana Woodford (#195), Rose Cotter (#197), Barbara Cahn (#202), Geoff Kane (#209), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Suzanne Hunt (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Murray Staples (#217), Leo Cooney (#221), Tessa Field (#225), Ronald Gibson (#235), Brian Tweddle (#236), Neil Cohen (#239), Garry – Good (#245), Jeremy Baker (#250), Peter Thompson – Hokio Beach Resident (#256), Bernadette Casey (#257), John Girling – Te Awahau Foxton Community Board (#258), Susan Walker (#259), Richard Bacon (#260), Hamish McDonald (#261), Brett Russell (#262), Philippa Paterson (#278), Donald Nicholas (#282), Maree Collins (#283), Kay Thompson (#286), Geoff Richie (#289), Valerie Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth (#291), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura Ann MacGregor (#295), Graeme Lindsay – HDRRA Inc (#296), Sue Sexton-Smith (#297), Sharon Williams – Hapai te Hapori (#298), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Robyn Mouzouri (#309), Greg Canty (#311), Jess Thomson (#315), Justin Tamihana – Huia Marae (#335), Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#336), Grame & Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton Trust (#337), Hannah Street (#339), Janice Swanwick (#342), Gaire Thompson – TPG – LTD (#349), Jason Reid (#352), Kenneth Charles Allan (#371), Hayden Turoa (#373), Allan James Preston (#378), R.D Sanson (#379), Gwyneth Schibil (#388), Gray Colin Benton – Horowhenua Grey Power (#389), James Bernard McMillan (#398), Carol Dyer (#399), Wendy Alison McMillan (#400), Pater Everton – Lakeview Farm Ltd (#401), Lisa Sanson (#405), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Valerie Maud Rodgers (#407), Albert Ross Burgess (#409), Terry Hemmingson – Horowhenua Grey Power (#412), Francesse Middleton (#416).

Against the proposal

6.5 A total of 146 submitters did not agree with the proposed changes to fees and charges.

6.6 Stevie Dunn (#2), Sue Smith (#3), Marietza Walmsley (#8), Daniel Conway Scully (#11), Michaela Dear (#12), Lewis Tait (#13), Jonathan (#16), Alan Wolland (#17), Nicole Evans (#19), Aarin Bang (#20), John White (#21), Holly Wolland (#24), Any Healy (#25), Deb Walker (#26), Jason Walker (#28), Gerald (#29), Amanda Abbot (#31), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Nichole Smith (#36), Laura Reitel (#37), Manswell Ireland (#40), Howard Whiteley (#41), Adele – Bailey (#45), Craig Brickell (#46), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), Riedewaan Isgaak Petersen (#50), Steven Fryer (#52), Jade Holmes – Home (#54), Jade Holmes (#55), Helen Trembath (#56), Ellen Schaef (#58), Neville Ear Roberts (#59), Steven Gillespie (#60), Garry Anderson (#61), Kiran Sunny (#62), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Sinead Millard (#64), Robert McGAw (#66), Angela Jacobs (#69), Helen Trembath – PNCC (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), Craig Watson (#79), Alma Winiata (#Ngāti Pareraukawa (#90), Hannah Bradbury (#96), Colin Sciascia - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#192), Cindy Susan Pender – Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Shaun McNeil (#108), Marahira Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#109), Irina Alexandrovna Campbell (#110), Kushla Okano (#117), Rebecca Collis (#120), Tania Sleeman (#124), Chris Hartwell (#125), Jacinta Adlam (#127), John Machin (#130), Ellise Michelle Bolstad (#132), Chris Corke – CORUM Limited (#135), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Ana Harrison - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#144), Hera Eparaima – Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Jillian Nicholson - Ngāti Kikopiri me Pareraukawa (#147), Tukunui Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#148), Tomo Nicholson - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#149), Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen – HD Family Trust (#151), Ian Baggott (#152), Graham Keith & Eveline Isabella Bensemann (#154), Ian Staples – Tapete Trustees Ltd (#159), Susam Ball (#161), Djahn Rogotaua (#165), Martin Berry (#166), Morgan Waitoa - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#177), Aiden Strother - Ngāti Parera (#178), Jennifer Phillip - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#180), Crystal Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#181), Tainui Brown - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata – Ng1ato Pareraukawa (#183), Terese Fulford -Ngāti Pareraukawa (#184), Tina Tangiiau - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#185), Chelsea Strother – MCD Interiors (#186), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Bramley (#196), Tania Bate (#199), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Jennifer Burn (#206), Richard Trevethick (#207), Jody Sellwood (#208), Jeanette Warner (#219), Janette Smith (#223), Melanie Obers (#224), Trevor Hinder (#228), Nick Sneddon (#229), Craig Walker (#230), Miles & Bev Udy (#241), Susan McPhee (#243), Caron Lesley Hobbs (#246), Brenda Chapman (#247), Eric & Betty Cornick (#248), Mischelle Stephanie Darcre – Manakau Hotel (#249), Jeremy Jogn Smith (#251), Ernest Donald & Marion Jane Clarke (#252), Johnny (#253), Bruse Eccles – Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association (#254), Wendy Williams (#255), Mel Birch (#265), Paul Rennie (#267), Chris & Maria Te Punga-MacKay, Terri Grimmett (#269), Paul Goodwin (#280), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Robin Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#292), Susan Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), Marily Cranson (#300), Stephen & Karen Prouse – Prouse Trust Partnerships (#303), Tony Burgess (#304), HDR & RA Committee (#2305), Colleen Burgess (#306), Sandra van Toor (#307), Adriana Wilton (#312), Craig Tweedie (#314), Greg Mclean (#316), Susan Harper (#317), Derek Perkins (#318), Michele Walls (#330), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Peter Fox (#338), Esther Garland (#348), Cody Finau (#353), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), Rangiwaiata Te Keepa Tahupareae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#366), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Easton Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#368), Phillip Toha Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahuparae - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#370), Christopher Bruce Drinkwater (#372), Angel Wallace (#374), Perry Rewai Warren-Kerehi (#381), Lindsay Hemiona Warren (#383), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor (#384), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Deanna Mere Hanita-Paki – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Auston Roderick Robson (#404), Denise Jeanette Ridley (#408).

Commented but did not provide a yes or no answer

6.7 Christa Maria Krey (#397), Gilbert & Diana Timms (#411).

Summary of Submissions

6.8 Submitters #49 and #201 believe Horowhenua needs to move to a system of user pays. Most people do not use services such as libraries or pools so should not have to pay.

6.9 Submitters #56, #58, #199 and #255 are against an increase in dog fees as the additional cost will put more stress on dog owners.

6.10 Submitters #56, #60, #70, #225, #246 and #255 believe an increase in dog fees will result in people not registering their dogs.

6.11 Submitters #56 and #62 believe an increase in costs will put more stress on Animal Control as people will not be able to afford to keep their dog.

6.12 Submitter #129 supports increasing fees for services that not everyone uses.

6.13 Submitter #129 would support further increases for services not everyone chooses to use including dog fees and pool fees.

6.14 Submitters #199, #224, #246 and #411 seek for Council to consider charging rural residents less for dog fees.

6.15 Submitters #202, #203, #213, #223, #225, #226, #227 and #247 do not believe that responsible dog owners should be penalised due to some dog owners not being responsible.

6.16 Submitters #202, #208 and #298 propose that responsible dog owners receive a discount on their dog fees.

6.17 Submitters #214 and #247 believes fines should be increased.

6.18 Submitter #214 proposes that all cats and dogs should be required to be microchipped.

6.19 Submitter #225 does not believe the price they pay accurately represents the services/infrastructure they receive.

6.20 Submitter #227 believes the system is unfair for owners of multiple dogs.

6.21 Submitter #246 suggests that dogs not claimed from the pound should be adopted to help cover costs.

6.22 Submitter #255 recommends that Council helps those who are struggling to pay for their dog.

6.23 Submitter #298 requests that fees and charges are rounded up or down to a whole number or $0.50.

6.24 Submitter #298 proposes that solid waste disposal fees are increased to align with the user pays principle.

6.25 Submitter #298 supports the proposed fee increase for the Levin pool adult admission, but not children, preschool, senior citizen, student/beneficiary/community card holder, and move well class.

6.26 Submitter #298 supports a higher proposed fee increase for the Shannon pool adult admission, but not the other admission types.

6.27 Submitter #298 requests that the planning and regulation infringement fees are increased.

6.28 Submitter #298 assumes the Health Licencing fees are a legislative requirement and asks that small businesses that struggle to pay are offered a payment plan.

6.29 Submitter #298 believes that Shannon Memorial Hall is not used as the hire fee is too high.

6.30 Submitter #398 states that these increases are not fair and they have no Council services or facilities in their area that should generate a fee or charge.

Officer analysis

The submissions received in relation to fees and charges centred around three areas. Officer analysis is broken down into those areas below:

Compliance

6.31 Councils current Revenue and Financing Policy combines both the animal control and dog control activities and sets out that 70-80% of the combined cost be recovered through fees and charges. Year 3 of the Long Term Plan (LTP) sets the costs for dog control at $743K and the costs for animal control at $294K. This means that of the combined animal control and dog control activity costs, 28% of the combined cost is attributed to the animal control activity and therefore 72% is attributed to the dog control activity

6.32 If Council retains the current public/private split, this would require a dog fees component of at least $520K, and $205K for the animal control component.

6.33 For the dog control activity, fees and charges are received in the form of dog registration fees, infringement fees and fees associated with dog impounding; with majority of the fees received through dog registrations.

6.34 For animal control, the framework for setting fees and charges is set by the Impounding Act 1955. Section 14 of the Impounding Act provides the framework for setting fees and charges, and allows for reasonable fees associated with impounding stock (which includes the sale of stock if impounded animals are unclaimed), hiring cages and infringement fees. On average the income received through animal control fees and charges is less than $1,500 annually. Given that the annual cost to deliver this service is almost comparable to the income received, it is not feasible to recover 70-80% of costs from fees and charges

6.35 Nine submitters commented that increasing the cost to register a dog would have a detrimental impact on a dog owner, would result in less people registering their dogs and/or would result in additional costs to animal control. There are a number of essential costs associated with owning a dog, the cost of dog registration being a small component of these when compared to the annual costs for dog food and kennelling.

6.36 A number of submitters requested Council consider a responsible dog owner regime that offers discount for responsible owners. The Dog Control Act sets the framework for what fee types can be fixed by Council, and specifically section 37(1)(e) allows for Council to set a fee type for any dog that is registered by a person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of Council that they have a specified level of competency as a responsible dog owner. Council currently has a fee type for this purpose, and it is referred to as “Selected Owner Policy” in the schedule of fees and charges and is set with a discount.

6.37 Four submitters requested Council consider reducing the dog registration fee for rural residents, as previously mentioned the Dog Control Act sets the framework for what fee types can be fixed by Council. To have a separate “Rural Resident” fee type is not included. However, a fee type for “Rural Stock Dog” does. As at 11 May 2023 there were 294 dogs registered as rural stock dogs, making up 4.7% of known dogs in the district.

6.38 One submitter commented that our dog registration system is unfair to owners of multiple dogs, which could be alluding to the suggestion that a discount be implemented for owners with multiple dogs. There are a handful of councils that offer a discount to dog owners of multiple dogs, and/or they offer a discounted fee for working dogs where there are four dogs or more registered to the same owner. Of the Councils in the Manawatu-Whanganui area, there is one Council who offers a discount for the fourth and subsequent non-working dog registered to one owner; a discount known as a “Multi-dog reduced fee” and it is subject to pre-approval.

6.39 Horowhenua District Council’s Dog Control Bylaw permits two dogs can be registered on any urban zoned property of under 5000m2 and that an additional dog permit be required for three or more dogs. In this case the introduction of a reduced fee for multi-dog owners can be managed through the approval process for an additional dog owner permit. Conversely, the Dog Control Bylaw does not restrict the number of dogs registered in a rural zone, and although the implementation of a reduced fee for multi-dog owners is achievable, in reality the next dog renewal registration period starts on 1 July 2023 and the administration of the discount will require some effort to design and implement in order to be available for the next registration renewal period which is unlikely to occur in time if it is to be applicable across all registration categories.

6.40 There are currently 593 dogs registered to a dog owner who has four or more dogs registered to them. If Council were to adopt the introduction of a reduced fee for the fourth and subsequent dogs registered of $10.00 per dog, there would be a corresponding reduction in income of approximately $6K. There are currently 974 dogs registered to a dog owner who has three or more dogs registered to them. If Council were to adopt the introduction of a reduced fee for the third or subsequent dogs registered of $10.00 per dog, there would be a corresponding reduction in income of approximately $10K.

6.41 Alternatively, Council could also decide to adopt the introduction of a reduced fee that is only applicable for a certain registration category, such as introducing a fee reduction that is only available to stock dogs. Given our large rural landscape, this could benefit our farming community that have four or more working stock dogs. There are currently 75 stock dogs that are registered to a dog owner that has four or more dogs.

6.42 Dog Control fees and charges set must be balanced against the users ‘ability to pay’ together with the requirement to ensure that the fees and charges are reasonable for both the registration and control of dogs in the district, as required by section 37(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996. As at 11 May 2023 there were 6,299 known dogs in the Horowhenua.

6.43 Although it is possible the number of un-registered dogs may increase due to dog owner affordability, it is important to note that Councils have a statutory obligation to administer the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996.

6.44 When deciding on the most appropriate mix of funding for both the animal control and dog control activities, consideration should be given to the private benefit and the public interest in the various functions that make up the activities. This information is provided in the table below:

Dog Control functions	Primary beneficiary	Need created by	Funding source
registration	Dog owners	Presence of dogs in the community generally well managed and controlled dogs do not require enforcement action Companion value of dogs	Registration fees
education	Children, general public and dog owners	Presence of dogs in the community	Registration fees Infringement fees Impound fees Rates
enforcement	General public	Failure / individual choice not to comply Owner responsibility Penalties provide incentive to comply	Registration fees Infringement fees Impound fees Rates
Animal Control functions	Primary beneficiary	Need created by	Funding source
enforcement	General public	Failure / individual choice not to comply Owner responsibility	Impound fees Infringement fees Rates

6.45 A few submitters commented on infringement fees and charges, one submitter suggesting they should be increased. Council is unable to make changes to these fees because they are set through legislation. The parking infringement fees for parking on the road exceeding a time restriction or in an expired parking space are set by the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999.

6.46 A small number of submitters requested that Council support those who struggle to pay fees and charges. Council offers a payment plan for customers wanting to pay for registration fees, however enforcement related fees and charges cannot. This is because enforcement costs are intended to deter non-compliant behaviour and as such are to be paid in full. Enforcement related fees and charges include dog registration penalties, infringements, any impounding fees.

Community Facilities and Services

6.47 Providing Community Facilities and Services, in particular Libraries and Aquatic facilities, is a core service and function of Council. Council aims to provide all-inclusive facilities and fit for purpose services that cater for our whole community. In doing so, we can ensure that members of the community have access to quality outcomes. For example, access to a swimming pool allows a person to learn to swim, stay active, be healthy and have recreational enjoyment.

6.48 A small number of submissions received, supported the idea of changing the way people pay for services, in particular our communities that don’t have an immediate Library or Aquatic Facility. Council Officers acknowledge that for some members of our community, there are barriers to accessing our Community Facilities. It’s for this reason that we continue to prioritise our outreach services to those communities.

6.49 One submitter suggested that rather than having non-rounded entry charges, such as $1.10, we instead increase the adult admission price but keep some of the other entry charges the same. This would result in more rounded figures, making it easier for customers to understand and pay. In response to this submission, Council Officers have amended the Shannon Pool entry charges to reflect a zero percent increase. This will ensure that our entry fees are a rounded figure. The impact of not increasing the fees is minimal as the proposed increases were low (10c increase) and the Pool is open for a short period of time over summer.

6.50 In considering the entry charges for our Aquatic Facilities during this time, Council Officers took the opportunity to assess the entry charges for Foxton Pools. With the upgrade of Foxton Pool set to be complete by the end of this year, it would be suitable to align those entry charges with Levin Aquatic Centre to provide consistency. Council Officers have amended the Foxton Pool entry charges, matching them with Levin Aquatic Centre.

6.51 One submitter, suggested that the Shannon Memorial Hall is not utilised due to the fee to hire the facility. Council Officers can confirm that the fee to hire the Shannon Memorial Hall is consistent with other hall hire fees across the district.

Solid Waste

6.52 Solid waste fee changes are proposed to allow for the extra $20/tonne waste levy from Ministry for the Environment to be applied at 1 July 2023. The waste levy is used for initiatives to reduce waste and encourage resource recovery (e.g. composting, recycling).

6.53 There was also another increase on 1st January 2023, a cost fluctuation increase of effectively 5.6% on previous tonnage rate.

6.54 A need exists to stop ‘waste drift’ across the district and by people from outside the district to our lower priced transfer stations.

6.55 In response the solid waste fees have been changed to incorporate this additional charge.

Summary of Officer Analysis of options 1 and 2

	Option 1 – In Support	Option 2- Not in Support
Rural	44	80
Urban	65	54
Not specified	6	12
Total	115	146

Recommendations

Animal Control

6.56 As consulted on, Council has the option resolve to adopt Option 1, which is to separate the dog control activity and the animal control activity in the revenue and financing policy, and to reduce the public funding component for the dog control activity to recover 80-90% through fees and charges, and to increase the public funding component for the animal control activity to fund 95-100% of the cost to deliver the service through rates. For the dog control activity, this would mean an increase in the costs recovered through fees and charges.

6.57 Alternatively, Council could resolve to adopt Option 2, which would mean that the revenue and financing policy is not changed to separate the animal control and dog control activities and retains that 70-80% of the combined activity costs be recovered through fees and charges. Council needs to decide on the most appropriate mix of funding for the dog control activity taking into consideration the private benefit and the public interest in the various functions that make up the activity. This leaves the following options:

o Option 1: Council separates the animal control and dog control activities and changes the funding mix, to recover 80-90% of the cost to deliver the dog control service through user pays by way of fees and charges, and to fund 95-100% of the cost to deliver the animal control activity through rates. OR

o Option 2: Council retain the current revenue and financing policy for dog control and animal control activities, where the activity is funded 70-80% through user pays by way of fees and charges.

6.58 In addition, Council could decide to make changes to the schedule of dog control fees and charges to introduce a fee discount for multi-dog owners. This option is available to Council regardless of whether changes are made to the revenue and financing policy and can be formally introduced through Council resolution.

Shannon Pool entry charges

6.59 Council could decide to agree to the amended Shannon Pool entry charges to reflect a zero percent increase as it ensures that our entry fees are a rounded figure.

6.60 Council could decide to retain the proposed entry fees which would result in odd figures that are not consistent with other entry charges.

Foxton Pools entry charges

6.61 Council could decide to agree to the amended Foxton Pools entry charges, applicable when the upgrade is complete, and matching them with Levin Aquatic Centre. This would create consistency across the district and in line with the levels of service the upgraded facility can offer. Noting that this is a general increase on most charges associated with Foxton Pool.

6.62 Council could decide not to agree to the amended Foxton Pools entry charges which would result in the entry fees for the upgraded facility not being in line with the level of service that will be offered and inconsistent with Levin Aquatic Centre. Users of the facility will notice a very minor increase in their entry price, if any.

Solid Waste

6.63 Council could agree the changes to the Solid waste fees to allow for extra $20/tonne waste levy from Ministry for the Environment to be applied at 1 July 2023.

6.64 Council could retain the current Solid waste fees, which would not allow for extra $20/tonne waste levy from Ministry for the Environment to be applied at 1 July 2023.

7. Topic 3: Management Changes

Change to the capital programme

7.1 When the Long-term plan amendment was set, we planned for a total available capital programme for 2023/24 of $42m. We also assumed that $41m would be delivered and this is what was assumed for borrowings.

7.2 As part of finishing the 2022/23 Financial year, officers have worked through the approved capital programme of $56.5m and confirmed that it is still reasonable to assume that between $32m and $35m will be completed by the end of June 2023. This means that $21.5m of the budget will not be spent during this current financial year, noting Council is likely to achieve between the $32 and $35 million that was committed to.

7.3 Officers seek approval to carry forward $16m and included it in the budget for the first three years of the LTPA. This ensures that the projects that have been planned and started can be completed over the first three years of the LTPA.

7.4 Officers are still proposing to maintain the maximum spend for borrowings purposes of $41m for 2023/24. If additional spending is an option because planning and procurement work is complete, officers will seek approval from Council for further spending.

Recommendation

7.5 Officers recommend that $16m of the capital programme, which is not forecast to be completed by the end of 2022/23, is carried forward to 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26. Officers are still assuming that a maximum of $41m will be completed during 2023/24.

7.6 Attachment 1 is a listing of the capital projects that are proposed to change.

Council continues to face additional cost pressures

7.7 Since setting the draft LTPA budget, the Council has continued to face additional cost pressures across the Council’s operations. These pressures have included the following:

· Interest rates – An update from Bancorp advises that we may face an addition $760k in interest with assumptions going from 3.75% to 4.26% - This would impact rates by up to 1.6%

· Utilities costs – We are beginning a review and update of the contract for utilities. Prices may increase further than the current assumption, but this is likely to be ok for 23/24 but will have a significant impact for 24/25 onwards. This will be part of LTP.

· Audit Fees - Budget for 23/24 is $193k - Audit has indicated that may be significantly higher.

· Valuation Contract - Contract renewal process is being started. Indications are that there could be a shortfall of up to $74k.

· Insurance - We are currently creating an insurance strategy aiming to reduce insurance costs to offset additional spending – Budget is $1.53m for 23/24 - We are working towards a $200k saving.

· Roading & Grounds Maintenance - These contracts are likely to face budget pressure.

Recommendation

7.8 While the Council is facing increases that would require a further budget increase, the Council is proposing to fund any additional costs through finding efficiencies within the existing budget and through making savings in insurance as part of the insurance review.

8. Topic 4: Proposed Rates Increase for 2023/24

8.1 279 submissions were received on the proposed increase to rates Long Term Plan 2021-2041 Amendment/Annual Plan 2023/24 consultation topic. That means 66.7% of all submitters provided a response on this issue. There were two options outlined in the Consultation Document for submitters to consider and choose from. These were:

Option 1

7.9% rates increase

101 submissions

Option 2

Rates increase of less than 7.9%

178 submissions

Total

279 submissions

8.2 The submissions for both options have been summarised and analysed by officers; with a final summary and recommendation outlined at the end.

Option 1: 7.9% rates increase

Submitter and submission numbers

8.3 Lindsay Calvi-Freeman (#4), Darren Parlato – Parlato & Associates Chartered Accountants (#5), Debbie Monro(#6), Allan Wolland (#17), Holly Wolland (#24), Deb Walker (#26), Catherine Hapeta (#27), Jason Walker (#28), Regan Savage (#34), Matthew Whittington (#39), Sharon Williams (#43), Craig Brickell (#46), Damian Glenny (#47), Garry Anderson (#61), Jonathan Tulitt (#63), Brian Ellis (#68), Adrian Fullwood (#73), Sandy Chan (#77), Grant Fletcher (#78), Jacob Winstanley (#80), Hohepa O’Donnell (#88), Monique Moore – Ngati Pareraukawa (#106), Arama Moore (#107), Ema Jacob (#119), Rebecca Collis (#120), Stuart Keall – SA & D Keall Family Trust (#137), Ana Harrison – Ngati Pareraukawa (#144), Tony Strawbridge (#156), Tony Strawbridge (#157), Tony Strawbridge (#158), Barrie Hoseason (#163), Sharon Fairbairn (#165), Leigh Harrington (#167), Liz Brown (#169), Phil Richards (#170), Richard Brader (#171), Mel Cook (#173), Norm Pearson (#190), Blair Fitzgibbon (#191), Carol Earnshaw (#192), Thomas Lynch (#194), Allana Woodford (#195), Rose Cotter (#197), Geoff Kane (#209), Murray Staples (#217), Raymond Bishop (#218), Leo Cooney (#221), Trevor Hinder (#228), Richard Walker (#237), Lesley-Anne Walker (#238), Neil Cohen (#239), Renee Cohen (#240), Miles & Bev Udy (#241), Gary Good (#245), Eric & Betty Cornick (#248), Jeremy Baker (#250), Ernest & Marion Clarke (#252), Bruce Eccles – Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association (#254), Peter Thompson (#256), Bernadette Casey (#257), Susan Walker (#259), Richard Bacon (#260), Hamish McDonald (#261), Brett Russell (#262), Mel Birch (#265), Janet Newman (#266), Rob & Nicola Buckland (#270), Paul Bright (#271), Donald Nicholas (#282), Maree Collins (#283), Judith O’Donnell (#284), Russell Newton & Others – Lakeside Trust (#285), Geoff Richie (#289), Valarie Prater – Grey Power (#290), Ann Elizabeth – Grey Power (#291), Graeme Lindsay – Horowhenua District Residents & Ratepayers Association (#296), Sue Sexton-Smith (#297), Sharon Williams – Hapi te Hapori (#298), Greg Canty (#311), Louis Hunter (#313), Derek Perkins (#318), Michele Walls (#330), Sarah-Jayne Shine (#340), Stuart Weitzel (#341), Janice Stanwick (#342), Esther Garland (#348), Christine & Darryl Avery (#360), Jacqueline Ropare-Lisa McGregor Liebenthal (#384), Deanna Hanita-Pake – Lake Horowhenua Trust (#387), Gwyneth Schibli (#388), Gary Benton – Grey Power (#389), Alan & Elizabeth Swanson – Swanson Gardens (#396), James McMillan (#398), Carol Dyer (#399), Wendy McMillan (#400), Austin Robson (#404), Willow Starstrider (#410), Gilbert & Diana Timms (#411), Terry Hemmingson – Grey Power (#412), Paul & Nicola Simmons (#415), Francesse Middleton (#416).

Summary of submissions

8.4 Few submitters in support of Option 1 added comments about their reasons why. It is noted that this is similar to those who supported the Rates Review Option 2 – Change to Capital Value, where few people supporting it made comments in support of that proposal.

8.5 Submitters who did comment raised the following points:

8.6 Submitter #217 said that global warming is happening now so funding to respond is needed now.

8.7 Submitter #218 supported the increase but noted it felt like they were subsidising Levin.

8.8 Submitter #399 said most residents mow their berms so there is no need for this to be done by Council.

Officer analysis

8.9 101 people submitted in favour of Option 1: A 7.9% rates increase. Of those 39 said they are urban ratepayers and 54 said they are rural ratepayers.

Point 1 - Global warming is happening now so funding to respond is needed now.

8.10 The Council is aware of increased funding required to ensure our infrastructure is resilient to weather events. The key focus of this LTPA is to increase the level of funding for stormwater which will help manage the more frequent rain events the district is experiencing. Council is also working with Councils in the Manawatu-Whanganui and Wellington Regions on climate issues to ensure our district is best placed to be part of larger initiatives. Further discussions on the Council’s response to the changing climate could be discussed as part of the LTP 2024.

Point 2 – Other areas of the district subsidising Levin

8.11 The Council acknowledges that Levin does have some of the more significant community infrastructure, including Donnelly Park and the Levin Aquatic Centre. These facilities are however used by residents across the district and overall Council’s approach to funding is to harmonise the costs of providing services to help make our rates more affordable overall.

Option 2: A rates increase less than 7.9%

Submitter and submission numbers

8.12 Emma Platt (#1), Stevie Dunn (#2), Sue Smith (#3), Jo Bendall (#7), Mareitza Walmsley (#8), Rachel Selby – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#9), Terry Rozmus (#10), Daniel Scully (#11), Lewis Tait (#13), Charlotte Flanagan (#14), Levi Milldove (#15), Jonathan Johnson (#16), Alison Anderson (#18), Nicole Evans (#19), Aarin Bang (#20), John White (#21), Colin Young (#22), Anthony Scoble (#23), Amy Healy (#25), Gerald (#29), Kent Barrell (#30), Amanda Abbott (#31), Kathryn Peard (#33), Alicia Kowalewska (#35), Nicole Smith (#36), Laure Reitel(#37), Leeanna Thompson (#38), Mansell Ireland (#40), David Stanford (#42), Joe Craddock (#44), Ashley Gaby (#48), Ross Dudan-Moore (#49), April Dale (#51), Stephen Fryer (#52), Jade Holmes(#54), Jade Holmes – Sands Poultry (#55), Ellen Schaef (#58), Neville Roberts (#59), Stephen Gillespie (#60), Sinead Millard (#64), Robert McGaw (#67), Helen Trembath (#70), Stephen Webb (#71), David Moore – Ngati Pareraukawa (#74), Hillary Moore (#75), Barry Eichler (#83), Mel Meates (#84), Janelle Tamihana (#90), Malcolm David (#91), Hannah Bradbury (#96), Pātaka Moore (#100), Colin Sciascia – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#102), Rahiripounamu Putawhati Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#103), Cindy Pender – Gateshead Equestrian (#105), Shaun McNeil (#108), Irina Campbell (#109), Kushla Okano (#117), Tania Sleeman (#124), Chris Hartwell (#125), Jacinda Adlam (#127), Kristin Berge (#128), John Machin (#130), Ellise Bolstad (#132), Chris Corke – Corum Limited (#135), Ronald Anderson (#136), Egon Guttke (#138), Christine & Larry Woodley (#143), Hera Eparaima – Ngatokowaru Marae (#145), Harris Sciascia (#146), Jillian Nicholson (#147), Tukunui Nicholson (#148), Tomo Nicholson – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#149), Geoffrey McBrydie (#150), Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen (#151), Ian Baggott (#152), Siobhan Fahy (#153), Graeme & Isabella Bensemann (#154), Tony Strawbridge (#155), Ian Staples – Tapete Trustees Ltd (#159), Susan Ball (#161), Djahn Togotaua (#164), Martin Berry (#166), Leigh Harrington (#168), Helen Naylor (#172), Andrea Howard (#174), Mark Thomson (#175), Morgan Waitoa - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#177), Aiden Strother - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#178), Jennifer Phillip – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#179), Ana Winiata - Ngāti Pareraukawa (#180), Crystal Strother – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#181), Tainui Brown – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#182), Reginald Winiata – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#183), Terese Fulford – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#184), Tina Tangiiau – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#185), Chelsea Strothers – MCD Interiors (#186), Nigel Cuthbert (#187), Ashley Banks (#188), Ethan Bray (#189), Alastair Boult (#193), Bramley Crysell (#196), Tania Bate (#199), William Timmer-Arends (#201), Barbara Cahn (#202), Emma Brown (#203), Matthew Warren (#205), Jennifer Burn (#206), Siobhan Gilbert (#210), James McMullan (#211), Carla Wardle (#214), Adam Tulloch (#215), Jeanette Warner (#219), Michael Fletcher (#220), Amy Bairstow (#222), Janette Smith (#223), Melanie Obers (#224), Tessa Field (#225), Nick Sneddon (#229), Craig Walker (#230), Brian Tweddle (#236), Susan McPhee (#243), Caron Hobbs (#246), Brenda Chapman (#247), Mischelle Dacre – Manukau Hotel (#249), Jeremy Smith (#251), Wendy Williams (#255), John Girling – Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (#258), Paul Rennie (#267), Chris & Maria Te Punga-MacKay (#268), Terri Grimmett (#269), Richard & Meillyn Swarbrick (#281), Peter Hammond (#287), Rob & Nicola Buckland - Berrian Family Trust (#292), Susan Berrigan – Berrigan Family Trust (#293), James MacGregor (#294), Parekura MacGregor (#295), Marily Cranson (#300), Jacinta Liddell (#302), Stephen & Karen Prouse – Prouse Trust Partnerships (#303), Tony Burgess (#304), RA & HDR Committee (#305), Robyn Mouzouri (#309), Adriana Wilton (#312), Craig Tweedie(#314), Jess Thomson (#315), Greg McLean (#316), Suan Harper (#317), Kevin Doncliff (#333), Nola Fox – Wildlife Foxton trust (#336), Graeme & Nola Fox (#337), Peter Fox (#338), Hannah Street (#339), Gaire Thompson – TPG LTD (#349), Helen Brown (#351), Jason Reid (#352), Cody Finau (#353), Hinepuororangi Muri Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#367), Gene Winiata – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#368), Philip Winiata – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#369), Te Pikikotuku Hohua Tahuparae – Ngāti Pareraukawa (#370), Kenneth Allen (#371), Christopher Drinkwater (#372), Angel Wallace (#374), Vivienne Bold (#377), Allan Preston (#378), RD Sanson (#379), Perry Rewai Warren-Kerehi (#381), Bryan & Pauline May (#385), Christina Paton (#386), Christa Krey (#397), Peter Everton – Lakeview Farm Ltd (#401), Lisa Sanson (#405), Peter & Jill Hammond (#406), Valarie Rogers (#407), Denise Ridley (#408), Albert Burgess (#409), Wayne Bishop (#414).

Summary of submissions

8.13 Eight of the 38 comments made in relation to a smaller than 7.9% rates increase were made by ratepayers who identified as urban ratepayers. Twenty-nine (29) of the 38 comments were made by rural ratepayers. Twenty-five (25) of those who commented selected the Rates Review Option 1 – stay with Land Value.

8.14 Submitters made the following points:

8.15 Submitter #2 said that rates should be decreased for those on private roads.

8.16 Submitter #7 said all ratepayers should pay the same amount

8.17 Submitters #3, #23, #38 said the increase was too high with the current cost of living increases.

8.18 Submitters #8 and #25 said they didn’t receive any services. Submitter #8 said Levin should be charged instead.

8.19 Submitters #15, #20, #21, #22, #52, #58, #69, #220, #269, #316, #338 and #405 all said they would all receive large percentage increases if the Rating system was changed to CV and the 7.9% increase went ahead. Eleven of the 12 submitters on this point said they are rural.

8.20 Submitters #11, #30, #59, #125, #130, #189 #287, #303, #339, #349 said rates payments are already high and Council should reduce their costs.

8.21 Submitter #44 said user pays is preferable, and suggested councils collectively contract mowing services to reduce costs.

8.22 Submitters #49, #201, and #302 say user pays is preferable.

8.23 Submitters #136 are a retired rural couple who say the rates increase is too high, they’ve worked hard to be in their current position and ask Council to revisit the proposal with an eye to those affected like this.

8.24 Submitter #249 hopes the increase won’t affect their ability to stay in their home and business.

8.25 Submitter #267 says Council should push back on the Government more about costs. This was also said in relation to the Rates Review.

Officer analysis

8.26 178 people submitted in favour of Option 2: A rates increase less than 7.9%

8.27 The numbers supporting the following cost reductions to reduce rates:

· 60: Stop urban berm mowing

· 55: If urban berm mowing is to be maintained, should it be directed to main arterial roads that a majority use and benefit from?

· 29: Reduce Parks Maintenance budget by reducing mowing, weeding, maintaining playground, cleaning toilets, collecting rubbish at Waitārere Rise Boulevard, Waitārere Beach

· 26: Reduce Parks Maintenance budget by reducing mowing, weeding, maintaining playground, cleaning toilets, collecting rubbish at Victoria Park, Foxton

· 25: Reduce Parks Maintenance budget by reducing mowing, weeding, maintaining playground, cleaning toilets, collecting rubbish at Moynihan Park, Shannon

· 21: Reduce Parks Maintenance budget by reducing mowing, weeding, maintaining playground, cleaning toilets, collecting rubbish at Vincent Drive Reserve, Levin

· 82: Events - having no contestable fund/support for major events in 2023/24

· 78: Reduce funding for community grants and funding arrangements with community groups

· 99: Reduce level of funding for Wellington Regional Growth Framework collaboration

Additional ways suggested to reduce costs:

· 9 said reduce council costs (included reducing overheads ‘nice to haves’, contractor costs, staff costs)

· 3 supported moving more costs to user pays

· 1 said push back more on central government costs

· 1 asked how will those in retirement villages manage the increases

· 1 was very disappointed to see community grants included in the list

· 1 was very disappointed to see parks maintenance on the list.

· 1 said everyone should pay the same

· 1 wanted a rates reduction for people living on private roads

8.28 The comments included above also related to the Rates Review change and have been captured in that analysis.

Use of borrowings for capex projects

8.29 Council uses debt (loans) to fund the cost of providing new infrastructure for growth and increases to levels of service. To ensure future generations pay their fair portion of the cost of the new assets, Council collects rates to put money aside (repay debt) for the replacement of assets in the future.

8.30 Council, with the aim of reducing the impact on rates, has not over the over the years fully funded the cost of future asset replacement. This has resulted in higher debt and an unbalanced budget. During the setting of the Long Term Plan 2021, the Council’s Financial Strategy was set with the commitment to a balanced budget 2028. This was planned to be 2026 in the 2021-41 Long Term Plan

8.31 As part of planning for the LTPA, Council deliberated on how to bring the level of proposed rates down to 7.9%. The Council voted to fund a share of the operational cost increases for water through borrowings rather than rates.

8.32 This is proposed to be addressed through the 2021-41 Long term plan (20-year plan) by increasing 3 waters rates to fund renewals.

8.33 The growth our district is projecting is significant. The population is expected to almost double within 20 years, which increases demand on existing infrastructure and community assets and requires considerable investment in new assets.

8.34 We fund our renewals through rates, grants from Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and other sources that contribute towards renewals and new assets. We also have a development contributions policy to recover our spending for growth. This makes sure new properties pay their share towards repaying our borrowings.

Summary of Officer Analysis of options 1 and 2

	Option 1 (7.9%)	Option 2 (<7.9%)
Rural	54	90
Urban	39	70
Both	0	1
Not stated	5	17
Total	101	178

Recommendation

8.35 Council could agree to a rates increase of 7.9%.

8.36 Council could agree to a rates increase lower than 7.9%.

8.37 Officers acknowledge the submissions received in favour of reducing the rates increase below 7.9% (option 2). During the setting of the LTPA, elected members debated a number of options for reducing rates below 7.9% and in the end decided to instead consult on options that could be used to reduce rates. In addition during the consultation process and through hearings, additional options were discussed for inclusion in the options for Council to vote on when setting the final rates increase, capital programme and borrowings.

8.38 The options included in the consultation document were:

In addition to these options, officers have offered further options for consideration:

Option	Savings ($000)	Rates impact
Reduce targeted capital spend from $41m to $38m	($57k)	(0.1%)
Reduce targeted capital spend from $41m to $35m	($114)	(0.2%)
Reduce budget for professional services across the organisation	(100k)	(0.2%)
Further operational savings target (Currently up to $500k is assumed based on not seeking additional rates to fund the increasing interest rates)	(100)	(0.2%)

8.39 The Council acknowledges that elected members discussed the option of reducing the level of operational funding for shared pathways. While the total budget for 2023/24 is $299,000, this is all internal costs (including mainly interest and roading overhead). There was also $15,000 in the subsidised budget in 2022/23 for cycle path maintenance. There is no specific budget for direct costs for 2023/24 for shared pathways and cycle path maintenance. There is $61k in total for subsidised footpath maintenance for 2023/24. Council is planning to review how are allocated within the roading activity as part of preparing the next Long Term Plan to ensure we are maximising our subsidy from Waka Kotahi.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Changes proposed to the Capital Programme	180
b ⇩	2023-24 Fees and Charges - Deliberations Report	181

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Signatories

Author(s)	Lisa Campbell Strategic Communications Manager
	Vai Miller District Licensing Committee Secretary
	James Wallace Land Transport Manager
	Mark Hammond Community Facilities and Services Manager
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Mayor	His Worship The Mayor Bernie Wanden
Deputy Mayor	Councillor David Allan
Councillors	Councillor Mike Barker
	Councillor Rogan Boyle
	Councillor Ross Brannigan
	Councillor Clint Grimstone
	Councillor Nina Hori Te Pa
	Councillor Sam Jennings
	Councillor Paul Olsen
	Councillor Jonathan Procter
	Councillor Justin Tamihana
	Councillor Piri-Hira Tukapua
	Councillor Alan Young