Agenda of Council Meeting

30 January 2020

8.1 Submission to the Department of Internal Affairs on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review

Author: Brandy Griffin, Principal Advisor Research & Policy

Authoriser: Hamish McGillivray, Manager Research & Policy

Purpose of Report

1 This report requests Council approval of the draft submission to the Department of Internal Affairs’ Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review (attached as Appendix 1 to this report).

Delegation

2 Council has the authority to consider this matter.

Background

3 Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) was established via the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, as an amalgamation of the former rural and urban fire authorities.

4 FENZ is the national body for all fire and emergency services in New Zealand. It provides fire and emergency services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from 652 fire stations across New Zealand, and responds to incidents through a mixed model that includes 1,800 career fire fighters in concentrated urban areas, partnerships with other agencies, and 11,800 volunteers across New Zealand.

5 FENZ is mainly funded through a levy on insurance for commercial property, residential property, and motor vehicles. The Government has commissioned the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to undertake a review to consider whether there are more suitable funding regimes.

6 The review of the FENZ funding regime will be carried out in two phases. Phase One (March 2019 to February 2020) will collect high-level information on various funding models; while Phase Two (March 2020 onwards) will further assess specific options in order to select a preferred funding model.

7 In December 2019, the DIA released the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review: Consultation document (attached as Appendix 2 to this report). This consultation document is part of Phase One, and submissions are due by 5 February 2020.

Issues and Options

Issues with the current funding regime

8 For the 2020/21 financial year, the estimated primary expenditure for FENZ will be $617 million (p11). During this same time period, 52.3% of FENZ’s anticipated income will be sourced from commercial levies, 33.4% from residential levies, and 8.1% from motor vehicle levies. The remaining 6.5% will be sourced from Government contributions and other revenue (additional government contributions and interest income).

9 As the consultation document notes, there are a number of benefits to the existing funding model (p7). Those benefits include:

9.1 The current system is established and works well to fund FENZ;

9.2 People understand and are used to working with the current system;

9.3 Moving to a new system would involve some costs and risks, and a degree of uncertainty;

9.4 Insurance levels are relatively stable year to year, although they can change over time; and

9.5 Insurance, where available, generally reflects value (albeit this is not considered the case for properties in the Wellington Region due to the higher perceived risks to natural disasters following the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake).

10 There are, however, some limitations to the current system (p7). For example:

10.1 Property owners who do not insure still benefit from FENZ’s services, thereby “free-riding” on those who do insure;

10.2 Levels of insurance are market-driven and can change over time, and do not necessarily match the benefit that FENZ’s services provide;

10.3 Charging a levy on insurance increases the overall cost of insurance, which may stop some people from getting insurance;

10.4 Levy systems can be complex to administer for insurers;

10.5 The complexity of insurance contracts can result in similar properties paying different amounts; and

10.6 The commercial sensitivity of insurance contracts can prevent information about some of these limitations being shared with the Government, which can make it hard to know how significant these problems are based on the information available.

11 The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 included some changes to the insurance-based levy regime to update and modernise it. These changes will not go into effect until 2024, but even then, they will only be in place until a preferred funding regime is adopted (p8).

12 Many international fire and emergency services have moved away from an insurance-based model. For example, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Victoria have moved to a property-value based model, with levies collected via local councils. Meanwhile, Northern Territory funds its fire service entirely from Commonwealth funds.

13 The key question the Government is asking in this phase of the review is, how best to split the cost of funding FENZ between those who would benefit (e.g. businesses and households, urban, rural and remote communities, and motorists), given the different level of benefit they receive from FENZ (p12).

14 It is important to note that the following are out of scope for this review:

14.1 FENZ expenditure;

14.2 FENZ operations;

14.3 Legislative settings not related to funding FENZ;

14.4 Funding arrangements for other emergency services; and

14.5 Funding FENZ predominantly through general taxation (p6).

Considerations of other funding models

15 The Fire and Emergency Act 2017 sets out the following funding principles:

15.1 A stable source;

15.2 Universal, so that costs are shared among all who benefit;

15.3 Equitable, so that the costs are commensurate with benefit;

15.4 Predictable; and

15.5 Flexible.

16 The consultation document asks submitters to consider (i) whether there are any other principles that need to be considered, and (ii) which principles are the most important and why.

17 The consultation document also seeks to summarise the benefits that businesses, households and motorists derive from FENZ, and consider the funding options that might be most appropriate for each group.

18 In a sub-section entitled ‘other potential sources of funding’, the document suggests that one option might be for local authorities to provide support in order to reflect the wider benefits to local communities (p15).

19 Lastly, the consultation document considers collection mechanisms. The document suggests that, should a property-based approach be preferred, the levy could be collected via local authorities.

Council’s draft submission

20 Council argues that affordability should be a key principle used to evaluate the various funding regime options. In addition, Council strongly believes that the main source of funding should be from general taxation, a funding model that should and can be very simple and, presumably, could be implemented and initiated at low cost by the Inland Revenue Department.

21 Council does not support a funding model based on property value and/or property use as this does not satisfy all of the proposed funding principles and Council does not support an additional arrangement whereby Council would be required to collect FENZ funding from its ratepayers.

Considerations

Policy considerations

22 There are no policy considerations arising from this submission.

Legal considerations

23 There are no legal considerations arising from this submission.

Financial considerations

24 There are no financial considerations arising from this submission.

Tāngata whenua considerations

25 Tāngata whenua have not been involved in the development of this submission.

Strategic considerations

26 The wise management of public resources and sustainable funding of Council services is a long term goal of Toitū Kāpiti. Therefore, it is important that Council advocate for a funding regime that will have a favourable impact on Council resources and funding.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

27 In accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, this submission on Phase One of the review does not have any strategic or financial implications, does not have any implications for mana whenua’s relationship with land and water, and there are no legislative requirements to submit. Therefore, this matter has a low degree of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation already undertaken

28 No public consultation was undertaken for the development of this submission.

Engagement planning

29 An engagement plan is not required for this submission.

Publicity

30 Following the Council’s approval, the final submission will be uploaded to the 'Submissions we have made' section of the Council website.

Recommendations

31 That Council receives and approves the draft submission to the Department of Internal Affairs’ Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review, as attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Appendices

1. Draft submission to Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review ⇩

2. Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review: Consultation document ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

30 January 2020

Fire Funding Review

Department of Internal Affairs

PO Box 805

Wellington 6140

Email: firefundingreview@dia.govt.nz

FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND FUNDING REVIEW

1. Kāpiti Coast District Council supports the Government’s commitment to selecting a preferred funding model for Fire and Emergency, and appreciates the opportunity to submit on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Funding Review.

2. Fire and Emergency provides a crucial set of services to New Zealand, and it is important that ample time is given for this review. With this in mind, Council considers that the timeframe for the Phase One consultation is inadequate. The consultation document was released in late November, and the submissions close on 5 February. While a two-and-a-half-month consultation period would normally be sufficient, the timeframe for this consultation is unsympathetic to the Christmas, New Year, and Summer holidays. Over this time period, staff across most organisations are on leave for sizeable periods of time, which means that many organisations have not had sufficient time to adequately review and respond to the consultation document. This is problematic for services as crucial as those provided by Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

3. It is also important that a full range of funding options be considered. For this reason, Council considers that ‘funding Fire and Emergency predominantly through general taxation’ should be included in the scope of this review (p6). Council contends that general taxation funding is one of the only options that meets all of the principles set out in Chapter 4 of the Consultation document. This is discussed further below.

What principles should be used to assess the options?

· Are there other principles the Government should consider?

· Which principles are the most important to you and why?

4. Council agrees that the preferred funding regime should be universal, equitable, stable, predictable and flexible; however, Council notes that the consultation document repeatedly refers to the importance of a ‘fair and affordable’ model, but the principle of affordability is not carried through.

5. As an example, the document states:

The Government wants to ensure Fire and Emergency can continue to deliver the fire and emergency services that New Zealanders need and expect. To do this, Fire and Emergency must have a stable and secure funding model. At the same time, the costs associated with this need to be shared in a way that is fair and affordable for households and businesses (page 7, emphasis added); and

In looking for better ways to fund Fire and Emergency, the Government is aware of the need to consider the costs in moving to a new system, both in terms of how it is set up and administered, and in how affordable the new model is for everyone (page 8, emphasis added).

6. Council contends that affordability should be added as an important principle for assessing options, and argues that affordability is one of the most important principles because the stability and predictability of the funding regime will be undermined if New Zealanders simply cannot afford to pay, regardless of the preferred funding model.

Businesses and households

· Do you agree with the summary of benefits to businesses and households?

· Which option do you prefer and why?

· What are the likely issues or challenges with implementing these options?

· Is there another option or options the Government should consider?

7. Council agrees with the summary of benefits to businesses and households (page 13), but has a number of concerns regarding the three options proposed.

8. Insurance-based approach - While the consultation document identifies a number of limitations to the existing insurance-based approach (page 7), Council would like to offer two additional limitations. First, an insurance-based approach can have a perverse effect in that it can incentivise some homeowners to underinsure their homes. Second, an insurance-based approach will not be able to collect levies from properties that are uninsurable, and this is becoming increasingly common for properties at risk to natural hazards.^{^[1]} In particular, we are aware of many Body Corporates in Wellington City either reducing their insurance cover or not re-insuring due to the high cost of insurance for properties in Wellington City.

9. The discussion document states that the insurance-based approach is not universal because only 85 to 87% of property is insured (page 13). If the number of insurable properties continues to decline further, then the insurance-based approach will not only continue to fail the universality principle, but also fail the stability and equitability principles. So too will the affordability principle (suggested above) fail should the status quo funding model be retained.

10. Property-based approach & property and use-based approach - As the discussion document states, a number of jurisdictions overseas are shifting towards a property-based approach or a property and use-based approach.

11. While there are clearly some benefits to a property-based approach or a property and use-based approach, there are also three limitations we would like to raise.

12. Firstly, on the surface a property-based approach might appear to be more universal, equitable, and stable than an insurance-based approach; however, a property-based approach is unlikely to pass the affordability test because many property owners will experience this as an additional cost, and this will be especially unaffordable if they are currently underinsured or uninsured due to the high cost of insurance.

13. Secondly, on a more practical level, if the allocation of cost is required to be based on property use, it may be more difficult for all councils to maintain accurate information because property use may not be a factor in setting their current rates.

14. Thirdly, because the most likely collection mechanism would be for local authorities to collect this charge as a rate, local authorities would be held accountable for what is likely to be perceived by the property owners as “unaffordable rates increases” and/or “little to no value for money”. As LGNZ note in their submission, collection by local authorities “diminishes public accountability and scrutiny as business and householders are unlikely to distinguish the relative share of their property taxes going to their council from FENZ. Any concerns people have about the level of property taxes will inevitably be raised with the local authority, not FENZ”.

15. An alternative option, simply funding from general taxation (by way of a fixed charge per household, for example) would best meet all of the funding principles. Council urges the Department of Internal Affairs to remove this exclusion from the scope of this review, and consider this as a funding option.

Motorists

· Do you agree with the summary of benefits to motorists?

· Which option do you prefer and why?

· What are the likely issues or challenges with implementing these options?

· Is there another option or options the Government should consider?

16. Council agrees with the summary of benefits to motorists (page 14). In regards, to the proposed options, Council questions whether the vehicle licencing-based approach is equitable as the consultation document suggests (page 14). Clearly there are non-vehicle owners who benefit from Fire and Emergency’s transport-related services, even if the percentage is small.^{^[2]} This means that the vehicle-licensing based approach, in particular, would place a slightly disproportionate share of costs on vehicle owners. For this reason, Council maintains that an alternative option of simply funding from general taxation would best meet all of the funding principles.

17. Other potential sources of funding

· What do you like or dislike about these options?

· What are the likely issues or challenges with implementing these options?

· Is there another option or options the Government should consider?

18. Council has made clear in this submission that it strongly believes that the main source of funding should be from general taxation, a funding model that should and can be very simple and, presumably, could be implemented and initiated at low cost by the Inland Revenue Department. This should be in addition to Crown direct contributions and/or Fire and Emergency charging for some services (e.g. nuisance charges for repetitive false call-outs).

19. The Council does not support local authority contributions because this would need to be rates funded, again bringing back the arguments already discussed in paragraph 12 above.^{^[3]}

20. In addition, since the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 absorbed rural fire authorities into Fire and Emergency, local authorities no longer have a direct role in fire and emergency services, which weakens the argument for local authority contributions.

Collection mechanisms

· Which option do you think is the most suitable and why?

· What do you like and/or dislike about the different collection mechanism options?

21. Once again, Council maintains that Fire and Emergency should be primarily funded from general taxation via the Inland Revenue Department.

Conclusion

22. Council supports Government’s commitment to reviewing and selecting a principle based funding model for Fire and Emergency services.

23. Moreover, because there are wide benefits for local communities from FENZ, this review provides an opportunity for local and central government collaboration so Council would be keen to discuss this submission directly with the Department of Internal Affairs at a mutually convenient time.

24. Thank you once again for the opportunity to submit on this review.

Yours sincerely

K (Guru) Gurunathan

MAYOR

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

8.2 Council submission to Ministry for the Environment consultation on "Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy'.

Author: Nienke Itjeshorst, Sustainability & Resilience Manager

Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks approval of the Council submission on the proposed changes to the Landfill Levy notified by the Ministry for the Environment in November 2019.

Delegation

2 Council has the authority to make a Council submission to a proposal put forward by Central Government.

Background

3 On 27 November 2019 the Ministry for the Environment released the document “Reducing waste: A more effective landfill levy” for public consultation, which closes on 3 February 2020.

4 In 2009 a $10 levy to each tonne to landfill was introduced under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. The levy currently applies to municipal landfills and transfer stations that accept all types of waste. The disposal facility operators pay the levy to the Ministry and have – in general – passed this cost on to their customers through disposal fees.

5 The levy was introduced to encourage New Zealanders to start taking responsibility for the waste they produce and to find more effective and efficient ways to reduce, reuse, recycle and reprocess waste. It also creates funding opportunities for waste minimisation initiatives.

6 Half of the levy revenue is passed on to territorial authorities to spend on promoting or achieving the waste minimisation activities set out in their Waste Management and Minimisation Plans. The remaining levy revenue is put into the Waste Minimisation Fund which is a national contestable fund for waste minimisation activities in New Zealand.

7 The Minister is required to review the effectiveness of the levy at least every three years. Reviews were carried out in 2011, 2014 and 2017 (interim review). The recommendations from these reviews are captured in the proposal for a more effective landfill levy

8 Despite the purpose of the levy, since its introduction in 2009 the amount of waste disposed of at levied municipal landfills across NZ has increased from 2.5 million tonnes to over 3.6 million tonnes in 2019.

9 Only a small portion of New Zealand’s waste is currently reused or recycled, because

· it has become much more difficult to send waste overseas for recycling with recent restrictions on importing waste for recycling, and dramatic price falls for materials for recycling in international market

· there is limited infrastructure in New Zealand for recycling and re-using waste

· many products are not designed to be reused or recycled and

· it’s often much cheaper and easier to dispose of materials to landfill than to reuse them.

10 A workprogramme at the Ministry for the Environment is underway, with improving the effectiveness of the landfill levy being a key part of this workprogramme.

11 The current levy of $10 per tonne is low by international standards and it only applies to municipal landfills, which take around 45% of the waste disposed of in New Zealand, excluding waste disposed of into cleanfills.

12 A number of organisations, including the Territorial Authorities’ Officers Forum within WasteMINZ (a waste sector representative group) and Local Government NZ have recommended an increase and expansion of the levy.

LGNZ passed a remit in 2018 calling for the Government to expand the waste levy and progressively raise the levy rate in order to reduce total waste to landfills. LGNZ also adopted a waste manifesto in 2018, which cites research on a range of scenarios for increasing the levy over time that concluded that a rate of $140 per tonne would bring the most benefits.

discussion

13 The consultation document gives an overview of the current waste situation (‘New Zealand has a problem with waste’), emphasises that there is a need for change, that more can be done to reduce waste and that the levy is seen as a significant catalyst for change.

14 The consultation document seeks feedback on proposals to:

· Increase the levy for municipal landfills (landfills that take all types of waste including household waste)

· Apply the new levy to all types of landfill except cleanfills (accepting only virgin excavated natural materials) and farm dumps

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

15 The proposal also seeks feedback on

· the development of a Waste Levy Investment Plan

· improved data collection (including regulations)

· what changes Council would like to see considered if the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 was reviewed in the future

· cost estimates expected for collecting, storing and reporting proposed increased data and challenges expected

· the main costs and benefits for Council of the proposals.

16 The full proposal can be accessed via this link https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/reducing-waste-more-effective-landfill-levy-consultation-document

17 The summary document of the proposal provided by the Ministry is attached to this report as Appendix 1.

18 The proposal seeks feedback in the form of 16 questions that have been captured in an electronic submission form, which is the Ministry’s preferred way to receive submissions.
The draft submission has been set up using the form and is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

19 In summary the Council submission states that Council under

· Question 1: Agrees that the current situation of increasing waste to landfill needs to change and that Council believes that urgent action is needed

· Question 2: Agrees that the introduction of the levy has not resulted in a decrease of waste to landfill or an increase of diverted materials

· Question 3: Agrees that the landfill levy needs to be progressively increased to higher rates in the future and beyond 2023

· Question 4: Supports expanding the levy to more landfills including industrial monofills, non-hazardous construction and demolition landfills and contaminated soils and inert materials landfills

· Questions 5 and 6 : Agrees that (compliant) farm dumps should be excluded from the levy but does not agree that cleanfills should be excluded as this will incentivise disposal of inappropriate materials at these sites

· Question 7: Prefers the rate of $60 per tonne (and not $50) for municipal landfills

· Question 8: Agrees that the highest levy should be for municipal landfills and a lower levy for other types of landfills. Council does not believe there should be a lower levy for specified by-products of recycling-operations as waste is waste regardless of the source. Council also believes a $5 levy should be applied to all Cleanfill sites

· Question 9: Supports the ‘increase then expand’ phasing but suggests a variation to the proposal that would be more effective than the proposed options (refer to Appendix 2, question 9).

The 14% increase referred to in the submission relates to a national average landfill fee of $75 per tonne which means that an initial $10 increase results in a 14% expected increase of gate fees. In Kāpiti, the current gate fee at the Otaihanga Resource Recovery Facility is $191.20, which means a 5% fee increase if the increase was passed on to the customer at the gate by the operators. For average domestic kerbside collections the impact would be approximately $3 per annum. This is based on the average 6kgs of household waste produced per household per week.

· Questions 10 and 11: Supports better management and collection of data from levied operators.

· Question 12 : Believes that an effective and fit for purpose Levy Investment Plan is critical if Aotearoa/New Zealand is to achieve sustainable waste minimisation and transition to a circular economy. The Waste Minimisation Fund should be better targeted to create onshore resource recovery capability and projects that support Territorial Local Authorities (TLA’s). Council doesn’t see a need for the Levy Investment Plan to ‘inform’ TLA’s how to spend their share of the levy money as there is a democratic decision-making process in place through the development of Waste Management and Minimisation Plans. Council requests that the Minister recognises the essential role TLA’s play in waste minimisation practices and services and requests that TLA’s are invited to participate in partnership with the Ministry in the development of the Levy Investment Plan and

· Question 13: Believes that the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act) in itself is generally fit for purpose because it provides opportunity for effective waste minimisation subject to the political will to use the instruments provided in the Act to drive waste minimisation. A future review should consider increased Local Government representation on the Waste Advisory Board because of the essential role TLA’s play in the delivery of waste minimisation and services. Another matter that should be reviewed is the definition of waste used in the Act which excludes diverted materials, as this has led to Council being unable to licence collectors of diverted materials and obtain data from these collectors. That is an example of where the Act itself through its definitions does not support one of the purposes of the Act which is to enable data gathering through licensing.

· Questions 14 and 15: Agrees that having accurate data is crucial for effective planning and identifying gaps and opportunities. Council thinks that using data to measure the success of waste minimisation projects and strategies should be approached with caution and there is no direct link between changed behaviour and data collected at the disposal end. Those data do not account for reduction or reuse. More detail is needed o the reasons for collecting data and setting more requirements and this will have to be weighed against the costs associated with implementing more data collection processes

· Question 16: With regard to the main costs and benefits of the proposal believes that more costs will be incurred in the form of increased staff time for data collection, reporting and delivering more education and promotion. Council also expects increased staff time and expenditure as a result of an increase of illegal dumping as the higher levy leads to increased collection and transfer station fees.

Council notes that to pro-actively enforce compliance, TLA’s need to be sufficiently resourced and supported by legislation. Enforcement based on the Litter Act is currently difficult as there is a high threshold for the evidence required to issue an infringement, and the cost of chasing fines often outweighs the fine itself. It’s necessary to review the Litter Act in line with the introduction of the expanded waste levy for that reason.

· The benefits of the proposal that Council envisages are the establishment of onshore processing capacity, additional levy funding received by TLA’s that enable TLA’s to introduce new, or expand existing waste diversion facilities, an improved cost/benefit ratio of waste diversion activities such as timber recovery and concrete crushing, greater clarity around landfill categories and appropriate use of landfills and enhanced data will enable better decision making.

Considerations

Policy considerations

20 The intended outcome of the proposal to increase and expand the current waste levy to ultimately decrease waste going to landfills aligns with Council’s long-term goals as set out in the 2017 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

Legal considerations

21 There are no legal considerations.

Financial considerations

22 Apart from an expected increase in illegal dumping of waste and associated enforcement costs (which is discussed in the submission), Council needs to be aware that an increased waste levy is likely to impact negatively on Council’s operational budgets. The budgets that cover disposal of waste to landfill from Council services will have to be increased as waste collectors and operators of waste facilities increase their fees. If the Minister is able to make a decision in the timeframe that has been proposed (before 1 July 2020), this may mean that increases may start to impact on these budgets during the 2020/21 financial year. The budgets that will be affected are the budgets for disposal of biosolids to landfill (estimated $17,000 increase) and other infrastructure budgets like for public litter bin collections, illegal dumping and road sumps and street cleaning (estimated total increase for these budgets $8300). The total potential increase for operational budgets with a disposal to landfill component is $25,249.

Tāngata whenua considerations

23 The time frame associated with the submission process has not allowed for meaningful engagement with our Iwi partners on this issue. However the Waste Taskforce, which included Iwi representation, intended to submit their own independent submission to the Waste Levy Consultation process in support of an increased and expanded levy regime.

Strategic considerations

24 Increasing the waste levy for disposal to landfill is intended to provide a better incentive for reusing, recycling and composting instead of landfilling and increase levy revenue to invest in options to reprocess diverted materials onshore, ultimately leading to less waste to landfills.

This is in line with Council’s 2017 WWMP goal of reducing waste to landfill by 30% by 2026. It also contributes to Councils 10 year outcome in the Toitū Kāpiti Long Term Plan of ‘an effective response to climate change’ as it will reduce emissions produced by the landfilling of waste.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

25 This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation already undertaken

26 No consultation has been undertaken.

Engagement planning

27 No further engagement on the submission has been planned.

Publicity

28 No publicity is proposed.

Recommendations

29 That the Council approves that the submission as presented in Appendix 2 of this report is adopted as a submission of Council to the Ministry for the Environment on the consultation document “Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy”

Appendices

1. Summary of the consultation document Reducing waste: a more effective landfill levy ⇩

2. Draft submission on consultation document Reducing waste a more effective landfill levy ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

Submission of Kāpiti Coast District Council

on the

Proposed Changes to the Solid Waste Levy notified

November 2019

1. Question 1 – “Do you agree the current situation of increasing amounts of waste going to landfill needs to change?”

Yes, Kāpiti Coast District Council believes that urgent action is required to address the increasing amounts of waste going to landfill in Aotearoa/New Zealand and to transition from the current Linear Economy (take, make, dispose) to a Circular Economy model of material re-use and recovery.

2. Question 2 – “Do you have any comments on the preliminary Review of the effectiveness of the waste disposal levy outlined in appendix A”

Council agrees with the assessment in Table 7 of Appendix A that since the last review of the levy the amount of waste disposed of in New Zealand has not decreased and that the amount of waste reused, recycled, or recovered in New Zealand has not increased.

3. Question 3 – “Do you think the landfill levy needs to be progressively increased to higher rates in the future (beyond 2023)?”

Yes, Council believes the current levy rate of $10 per tonne and the application of the levy only to waste accepted at Municipal Solid Waste (Class 1) Landfill has resulted in:

· Minimal financial incentive on customers to commit to reduction or diversion of waste.

· Insufficient funding at Local Government level to create and support effective waste minimisation.

Council supports the proposed levy increases through to 2023 and supports additional levy increases beyond 2023. Kāpiti Coast District Council believes that clear levy increase signals beyond 2023 will provide certainty and drive investment in effective waste reduction and resource recovery.

Council is acutely aware that increased funding from the Waste Levy to Territorial Local Authorities will be necessary to support sustainable local and regional waste diversion actions and initiatives.

At the same time Council is aware that significant investment may be required at a national levy to create capacity for effective recovery of specific resources and the Waste Levy funds is an appropriate mechanism for seed funding such investment as the country transitions to the Circular Economy model.

Council believes that the proposed Levy Investment Plan to guide government investment decisions on the WMF must balance the potentially conflicting demand of national infrastructure investment and funding of effective local and regional waste diversion.

For this reason, and given Territorial Local Authorities experience as the principal enablers of the Waste Minimisation Act to date, the Council wishes to ensure TLA representatives are involved in the development of the Levy Investment Plan.

4. Question 4 – “Do you support expanding the landfill levy to more landfills, including:

i. “waste disposed of at industrial monofills (class 1)

Yes

ii. “non-hazardous construction, demolition waste (eg, rubble, concrete, plasterboard, timber) (class 2)

Yes

iii. “contaminated soils and inert materials (class 3 and 4) (whether requiring restrictions on future use of site or not)?”

Yes

Council is aware that the current practice of applying the levy only to Class 1 MSW landfills has resulted in significant and inappropriate diversion of waste to construction and demolition sites.

5. Question 5 – “Do you think that some activities, sites, or types of waste should be excluded from the landfill levy, including:

i. “cleanfills (class 5)

No, as discussed in our response to Q.6

ii. “farm dumps

Yes, as discussed in our response to Q.6

iii. “any others (eg, any exceptional circumstances)? If so, please specify.”

No, cleanfills (i) and any other (iii) should NOT be excluded. See notes under question 6 below.

Farm Dumps - Council supports the inclusion of Farm Dumps in the Landfill Classification included in the consultation document and supports compliant Farm Dumps being excluded from the levy. See further comments under question 6.

6. Question 6 – “Do you have any views on how sites that are not intended to be subject to a levy should be defined (eg, remediation sites, subdivision works)?”

Cleanfill (Class 5) – The exclusion of Cleanfill sites creates two specific challenges to the waste levy application:

· Virgin excavated natural materials are in themselves a “resource” with potential for reuse (e.g. Peat, topsoil, clay, rock, soils).

· The exclusion of cleanfill sites will incentivise inappropriate disposal of other “borderline” materials at these sites.

Council proposes the application of a $5 per tonne levy to these sites.

Farm Dumps: Council is concerned that any reference to “permitted activity in council plans” in further defining Farm Dumps may introduce ambiguity. Council proposes that for the purpose of the levy classification “Waste that should be accepted at these sites” (Table 3.) the criteria for Farm Dumps should be the same as Controlled Fill (Class 4).

Any Others - Council notes the intent on page 29 of the consultation document that the levy not be applied to cover:

· Site remediation (e.g. filling in a quarry after it ceases operation)

· Movement of soil during subdivision (e.g. creation of engineered contours as part of site development

Council supports the intent that the levy not be applied to the volume neutral movement of soil during subdivision or infrastructure development such as new road projects. Council does not believe such practices fall under the definitions of landfill and should therefore not be included.

Council is concerned that “Site Remediation” may provide an opportunity for avoidance of appropriate levies. In particular, the remediation of quarry sites (quarry sites have been commonly used as landfill sites) using waste which would otherwise be classified as suitable for Class 4 landfills and attract a levy.

Council is also aware that closed landfill sites require ongoing remediation such as the re-contouring of capping, topsoil and grassing.

Council supports a clear definition of Site Remediation to inform the levy regulations and agrees that one determining factor may be the payment (including offsetting of costs) to dispose of material at the site should such payment exceed the cost of the remediation works.

7. Question 7 – “Do you prefer the proposed rate for municipal (class 1) landfills of:

i. $50 per tonne

ii. $60 per tonne

iii. other (please specify, eg, should the rate be higher or lower?)”

ii. Council prefers the proposed rate of $60 per tonne.

8. Question 8 – “Do you think that the levy rate should be the same for all waste types? If not:

i. “should the levy be highest for municipal landfills (class 1)?

Yes

ii. “should the levy be lower for industrial monofills (class 1) than municipal landfills (class 1)?

Yes

iii. “should the levy be lower for construction and demolition sites (class 2) than municipal landfills (class 1)?

Yes

iv. “should the levy be lowest for contaminated soils and other inert materials (class 3 and 4)?

Yes

v. “ should a lower levy apply for specified by-products of recycling operations?”

No, Council believes that waste is waste regardless of the source.

Council believes that question 8 may better be posed as “Do you think that the levy rate be the same for all Landfill types” with the acceptance criteria for each landfill defining the appropriate levy.

Further to the above and as discussed in our response to Question 6, Council believes a further levy of $5 be applied to Cleanfill sites.

9. Question 9 – “Do you support phasing in of changes to the levy, and if so, which option do you prefer – increase then expand (option A); expand and increase (option B); expand then increase (option C); expand then higher increase (option D); or none of the above?”

Council supports the “increase then expand” phasing however suggests that the following table would be more effective than the proposed options:

Landfill type	Increase then expand
Municipal landfills (class 1)	$20 1 July 2020 $30 1 July 2021 $40 1 July 2022 $60 1 July 2023
Industrial monofills (class 1)	$20 1 July 2022, $25 July 2023
Construction and demolition fills (class 2)	$20 1 July 2022, $25 July 2023
Contaminated soils and inert materials (managed and controlled fill sites; class 3 & 4)	$10 1 July 2022, $15 July 2023
Cleanfill (class 5)	$5 1 July 2022, $7 July 2023

Council believes the above phasing provides the following benefits:

An increase to Municipal landfills in 2020 is appropriate given the collection and reporting processes are already in place.

The increase to other landfill sites may better be introduced in 2022 (rather than earlier) to allow the following:

· Provide time for the data collection methodologies (e.g. weighbridge, volumetric measure at entry or periodic fill survey and density conversion) development of reporting systems, and establishment of an effective and fully resourced compliance body.

· Provide time for operators of these landfills to establish appropriate waste diversion activities to support the intent of the levy

· Given that the application of a $20 levy to an existing construction and demolition landfill may result in an immediate increase in disposal fees of up to 200% (compared to a net 14% increase for waste to municipal landfills with a move from $10 to $20) delaying the introduction of levies will allow developers and contractors time to explore other waste diversion activities.

The inclusion of a $5 levy for cleanfill in the table has been discussed earlier in this submission.

10. Question 10 – “Do you think any changes are required to the existing ways of measuring waste quantities in the Waste Minimisation (Calculation and Payment of Waste Disposal Levy) Regulations 2009?”

Council supports better measurement and collection of data. Council notes that changes to customer requirements, weighbridge requirements, and data collection, verification and analysis, will take time and funding to enable.

11. Question 11 – “Do you think any changes are required to the definitions in the Waste Minimisation (Calculation and Payment of Waste Disposal Levy) Regulations 2009?”

12. Question 12 - “What do you think about the levy investment plan?”

Council believes that an effective, fit for purpose levy investment plan is critical if Aotearoa/New Zealand is to achieve sustainable waste minimisation and transition to a Circular Economy.

In this respect council is concerned that while the broad principles of the investment plan and the identification of priority areas are included in the consultation document we are effectively being asked to consult on something that has yet to be developed sufficiently to enable robust analysis.

A levy investment plan is necessary to ensure that the Waste Minimisation Fund is better targeted to create onshore resource recovery capability and projects that support TLA initiatives and services. Current contestable Waste Minimisation Fund spending has not resulted in any major waste minimisation activity or infrastructure that’s has had significant benefits for New Zealand and this does need to be addressed.

Council strongly supports that the main focus of the investment plan is on government levy spend through the Waste Minimisation Fund. Council doesn’t see a need for the investment plan to ‘inform’ TLA’s how to spend their share of the levy. As stated in the document, under the Act TLA’s have to develop a WMMP where they include how their levy share will be spent. This is a democratic decision making process that’s already in place and that is suitable to enable local and regional services, actions and initiatives desired by communities to which local and regional authorities are accountable.

Council requests that the Minister recognises the essential role that TLA’s play

in waste minimisation practices and services (as listed below) and requests that TLA’s are invited to participate in partnership with the Ministry in the development of the Levy Investment Plan. TLA representation may be via Local Government NZ and the TLA Officers Forum of the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand.

In support of this proposal Council notes the essential role of TLA’s in the delivery of Waste Minimisation:

· Local Waste Management and Minimisation Plans (as required by the WMA 2008)

· Establishment of Solid Waste Bylaws to guide and regulate waste minimisation practices in their district/s

· Provision of Waste Minimisation education, engagement and promotion in the absence of the provision of these services at a national level

· Provision of residential recycling services via kerbside collection, recycling stations and diversion facilities at transfer stations and green waste composting operations

· Supporting and promoting other waste minimisation activities beyond TLA’s operational involvement such as diversion of Construction & Demolition wastes.

· Investment of ratepayer funds, additional to funds received via the WMF, in waste minimisation activities.

With regard to the “priority areas for investment” stated in the consultation document Council generally supports these priorities but does not support addressing ‘legacy’ waste disposal practices. Councils’ concerns here are that the WMA’s primary role is to establish and support effective waste minimisation in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Any diversion from this goal to address or fund legacy issues e.g. landfills at risk from Climate Change, would distract from the primary goal of the Act which should remain forward looking and focussed on minimisation.

Council acknowledges the importance of the Levy Investment Plan with regard to supporting the establishment of onshore waste materials (re)processing capacity and other initiatives to enable transition to a Circular economy model.

At the same time TLA’s will be involved in the provision of maintaining and expanding local infrastructure and services to ensure provision of recovered feedstock for reprocessing. Council is concerned that there is potential for the Levy Investment Plan to compromise local minimisation actions should the plan not achieve an appropriate balance between enhanced processing capability and the enhanced local facilities and services which will support these.

Council further notes that the administration and enforcement of the expanded waste levy will require significant additional Ministry resources. Resourcing of the Ministry (and the funding of resourcing vis the WMF) in order to achieve effective compliance will be essential.

In the past, the fund has returned 50% of the WMF to TLA’s. Given the need to invest in onshore (re)processing and to support effective compliance with the expanded levy, Council acknowledges that this percentage may no longer be appropriate.

In summary, Council believes that the Levy Investment Plan is critical to the success of achieving effective waste management and that genuine collaboration through partnership with the Ministry and Local Government in developing the Plan will be required.

13. Question 13 – “If the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 were to be reviewed in the future, what are the changes you would like a review to consider?”

Council believes that the Act itself is generally fit for purpose in that it provides opportunity for effective waste minimisation subject to the political will to use the instruments provided in the Act to drive waste minimisation.

Council believes that a future review should consider increased Local Government representation on the Waste Advisory Board for the same reasons as those listed in our response to Question 12 above.

Another matter that should be reconsidered is the definition of waste that is used in the Act, more specifically the exclusion of diverted materials that are not being disposed or discarded. As a result of this definition Council has not been able to licence collectors of diverted materials that operate in our District, losing the opportunity to obtain data from these collectors on diverted materials through the licence. This is an example of where the Act itself does not support the purpose as set out in section 56 (3) (b) (data gathering) and in general does not support one of the main drivers of this levy proposal which is to improve waste data.

Should the Waste Minimisation Act be reviewed in the future Council would welcome an opportunity to provide feedback and submissions into a future consultation process.

14. Question 14 – “Do you agree that waste data needs to be improved?”

Yes

15. Question 15 – “If the waste data proposals outlined are likely to apply to you or your organisation, can you estimate any costs you would expect to incur to collect, store and report such information? What challenges might you face in complying with the proposed reporting requirements for waste data?”

Council agrees that having accurate waste data is crucial to inform effective planning for waste minimisation initiatives. It will help identify gaps and opportunities in waste minimisation activities and support more robust investment decision making.

Using waste data (disposal and collection data) to measure the “success of waste minimisation projects and strategies” should be approached with caution though as in practice (and as part of the levy reporting to the Minister) it has proven to be almost impossible to establish a viable link between ‘success’ and the data that are available to measure that success. Data collected at the disposal end do not provide any objective proof that participants/residents have changed their behaviour as a result of education, simply because it doesn’t measure what they have done to reduce and reuse their waste in the first instance. Only recycling and end disposal are measurable through waste disposal facilities and there is an array of factors that influences whether there is an increase or a decrease of ‘waste per capita’, of which education is only a very small portion. Whether behaviour change has been established on a household or business scale can only be measured by way of surveys, which is not practical for many reasons.

Council feels that more detail is needed on the reasons for collecting the data, how (specifically commercially sensitive data and geographic source data) will be collected and what for the data are going to be used. This applies to data being provided by operators and collectors as well as for data reporting delivered to the Minister by TLA’s. Council has been submitting data reports since 2010 but is unaware that this has ever been used to inform policy or investment decisions.

A requirement for more data on composition and geographic source data will inevitably require further staff resourcing. While Council supports the proposal to improve waste data, there is a need to define what level of detail will provide valuable insights to the Ministry, and weigh this benefit against the costs associated with implementing more regulated data collection processes.

At this stage and given the actual data collection scope has yet to be finalised we are unable to respond to the cost section of this question with any accuracy.

Overall challenges for data improvement will be dependent on the nature of the processes developed to support the data gathering (e.g. interfaces with landfill/transfer station data collection systems) and the practicality of the scope (e.g. accurate determination of geographic waste sources may pose challenges).

16. Question 16 – “What are the main costs and benefits for you of the proposals to increase the levy rate for municipal landfills, expand the levy to additional sites and improve waste data?”

Costs – Council believes that the following costs will be incurred by Council:

· Increased staff time in data collection and reporting

· Increased staff time in education, information and promotion in support of the increased diversion of recoverable materials

· Increased staff time and expenditure in responding to illegal dumping subsequent to the expansion of the levy to cover landfills other than the current MSW sites

· Potentially significant adjustments to existing collection practices and infrastructure to align with the requirements of proposed new collection and processing guidelines necessary to support expanded onshore reprocessing.

· Potential capital investment (potentially in public/private partnership) in establishing new resource recovery initiatives

With regard to compliance and enforcement (bullet point 3 above) Council would like to add that as acknowledged in the document, it’s likely that expansion of the levy will lead to increased illegal dumping. To proactively enforce compliance, TLA’s need to be sufficiently resourced and supported by legislation. Under the Litter Act 1979, TLA’s are the primary regulators within their territorial boundaries for illegal dumping activities. It’s very difficult to enforce the provisions of the Litter Act as it currently stands, as there is a high threshold for the evidence required to issue an infringement, and the cost of chasing fines often outweighs the fine itself. On this basis, it is necessary to review the Litter Act in line with the introduction of the expanded waste levy to enable more effective enforcement.

Furthermore, with limited resources Council always has to consider enforcement priorities, of which illegal dumping is just one. Regular monitoring will also be necessary. While the proposal suggests that enforcement activities can be funded through Council’s levy share (by listing Bylaws in their WMMPs), a bylaw for enforcement of illegal dumping would be established under the Litter Act, not the Waste Management Act 2008 (WMA) to which the fund relates. The document lists the Christchurch bylaw that established a licensing regime for cleanfills and as such licence conditions as set under that bylaw can be enforced under that bylaw. Christchurch’s Waste Management Bylaw 2009 regulates illegal dumping and in the enforcement section the bylaw refers to the Litter Act. Council considers this a poorly used example in the proposal and wants the Minister to clarify what (legal and monetary) provision will be made for the increased requirement for monitoring and enforcement of illegal dumping.

Benefits – Council envisages the following benefits:

· The establishment of onshore reprocessing capacity will provide greater certainty and clarity for councils in determining which products may be recovered at best cost and guide investment and promotion decisions.

· Additional levy funding received by councils (assuming this is sufficient) will enable councils to introduce new, or expand existing, waste diversion facilities (potentially in public/private partnership)

· The expansion of the levy will result in an improved cost/benefit of waste diversion activities such as concrete crushing and recovery of waste timbers and reusable soils

· Greater clarity around landfill categories and levy reporting requirements may reduce the current inappropriate practice of diversion of MSW to non-levied landfills

· Enhanced data will enable better decision making

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

8.4 RMA Issues and Options Draft Submission January 2020

Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager

Purpose of Report

1 To seek Council approval of the draft submission on the Issues and Options Paper for Transforming the Resource Management System, which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Delegation

2 Council has the authority to consider this matter.

Background

3 On 13 November 2019, the Resource Management Review Panel released the Issues and Options Paper for Transforming the Resource Management System (Issues and Options Paper). The Issues and Options Paper is attached as Appendix 2.

4 The Resource Management Review Panel^{^[4]} has been established by the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and other significant legislation comprising the resource management system.

5 The RMA was introduced in 1991 and has been the subject of ongoing change and adjustment since. In recent years, more frequent questions have been asked on its ability of the RMA to meet the current needs to support urban growth and to protect the environment. This sits alongside long-running issues around the costs and timeframes for processes under the RMA.

6 The government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the resource management system with an aim “to improve environmental outcomes and enable better and timely urban and other development within environmental limits”.

7 The review will hopefully help resolve debate on key issues, including the possibility of separating statutory provision for land use planning from environmental protection. It will consider a wide range of options, including whether important principles in the Resource Management Act 1991 should be in a separate piece of legislation and apply more broadly across the resource management system.

8 The scope of the review includes looking at the RMA and how it interfaces with the:

· Local Government Act 2002

· Land Transport Management Act 2003

· Climate Change Response Act

9 The scope also includes spatial planning, which has the potential to support more strategic decisions about resources and infrastructure over longer timeframes.

10 While institutional reform is not a driver of the review, the review will consider which entities are best placed to perform resource management functions in making its recommendations.

11 The Resource Management Review Panel has been established by the government to lead the review and has asked for comments on the issues and option paper no later than Monday 3 February 2020. The Panel is chaired by QC Tony Randerson.

12 The panel will provide a report to the Environment Minister with its recommendations on reforming the RMA. This will include detailed policy proposals and indicative drafting of legalisation for key provisions. It is due in June 2020. The Government plans to consult on the proposals once finalised.

Issues and Options Paper

13 The Issues and Options paper identifies 14 issues to be addressed in the reform process and offers possible ways in which they might be addressed. It also poses a series of questions for interested parties to consider and respond to. In our submission we have commented on 8 issues which we believe are most relevant to our Council.

14 In particular, the paper looks at what changes are proposed to fix the system to ensure we have liveable urban and rural areas, that Māori have an effective role in the resource management system, that we improve our deteriorating freshwater quality and biodiversity, and that we respond to the effects of climate change.

15 The proposals are indicative of the range of possibilities. For example, whether the RMA’s core purpose of sustainable management should change or if legislation dealing with urban development and environmental management should be separated.

Issues / Discussion

Legislative Architecture

16 The Issues and Options paper asks whether there should there be separate legislation dealing with environmental management and land use planning for development, or whether the current integrated approach is preferable.

17 Council’s submission supports the current integrated approach, although has reservations about its effectiveness on balance, given the declining state of the environment on a number of measures. It suggests greater clarity is needed within the RMA framework about how tensions in balancing growth and environmental concerns ought to be managed.

Purpose and Principles

18 The Issues and Options paper asks what changes should be made to Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA.

19 Council’s submission supports the addition of a positive obligation to maintain and enhance the environment, and the addition of matters relating to climate change within Part 2. The submission also suggests that a clearer distinction of priorities within Part 2 would enable consistent implementation between Councils.

Māori Participation

20 The Issues and Options paper asks if changes should be made to the RMA regarding the recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori interests, and Māori engagement.

21 Council’s submission suggests that iwi as mana whenua hold significant expertise, and barriers preventing iwi from contributing this expertise should be removed. Barriers to meaningful iwi engagement and participation are identified.

Strategic Integration across the Resource Management System

22 The Issues and Options paper asks how better strategic integration across the Resource Management System could be achieved, including the possibilities for spatial planning.

23 Council's submission agrees that, with appropriate integration into the RMA, spatial planning provides possibilities for better consideration of economic, environmental, social, cultural and wellbeing matters across the RMA system and relevant elements of the Land Transport Management Act and Local Government Act.

Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards

24 The Issues and Options paper asks whether the RMA should be used to address climate change mitigation, and if so, what changes and integration are required to achieve this.

25 Council's submission suggests that greater national direction, funding and support as well as specific legal mechanisms around climate change and natural hazard mitigation would achieve better outcomes and help reduce the risk of legal challenge against councils as they try to implement measures to address climate change through their plans and other tools. This will also help ensure local conversations were more targeted.

National Direction

26 The Issues and Options paper asks what role should mandatory national direction have.

27 Council’s submission suggests that local governments need national direction tools (and other support) to provide assistance for contentious or critical issues, particularly around climate change and natural hazard management, as such contention can result in drawn out and expensive plan change processes which may not ultimately be successful.

Policy and Planning Framework

28 The Issues and Options paper asks how planning processes can be improved, to better the content of plans, increase certainty, and achieve efficient and effective outcomes with adequate public participation.

29 Council’s submission recommends that the ability for local government to front-load community engagement in exchange for limited appeal rights would result in a more timely and cost-efficient plan making process which retains adequate public participation. Council has also made several technical recommendations.

Consents / Approvals

30 The Issues and Options paper asks how the consenting process could be improved to deliver more efficient and effective outcomes while preserving appropriate public participation.

31 Council’s submission has a number of suggestions in response, and holds the following positions:

· The simplification of activity status categories is not necessary.

· The direct referral system is beneficial and should be retained.

· Flexibility in information requirements for consenting is necessary where appropriate, but this is already applied in practice.

· Greater certainty around notification requirements is beneficial.

· The publishing of all resource consent decisions and applications would not provide a net benefit to the public.

· Online processing would not improve processing times significantly and would result in increased costs.

· The designation process should be reviewed and streamlined.

System Monitoring and Oversight

32 The Issues and Options paper asks what changes are needed to improve the monitoring and oversight of the Resource Management System.

33 Council’s submission suggests a streamlined, simplified and consistent system would enable better reporting to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) as the systems Council currently use do not have the functionality required to provide MfE with the necessary information in an efficient manner.

Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement (CME)

34 The Issues and Options paper asks what changes are needed to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and oversight of CME.

35 Council’s submission has raised concern over the current cost-recovery system for CME, and believes that the current governance structure creates issues around the independence of councils as both a regulator and decision maker.

Considerations

Policy considerations

36 The proposed shape and form of a future resource management system are still to emerge. More detailed proposals are expected from government’s Resource Management Review Panel for consultation later this year (in June 2020). The impact of potential changes is significant, particularly as it effects District Plan and resource consent processes. Analysis of the links and impacts of changes will be identified once proposals are known.

Legal considerations

37 There are no legal considerations for this submission.

Financial considerations

38 There are no financial considerations for this submission, but future changes to the resource management system will have financial impacts on Council. Understanding the nature and scale of these will be able to be better articulated once detailed proposals are provided by government for consultation.

Tāngata whenua considerations

39 We have not engaged with iwi on this submission given the timeframe provided to Council in which to analyse and prepare a response. We also note that the Resource Management Review Panel have also engaged directly with iwi in preparing the issues and option paper, and that iwi are able to provide their own submissions.

Strategic considerations

40 Toitū Kāpiti reflects aspirations for a vibrant and thriving Kāpiti, with strong and safe communities that are connected to our natural environment. Therefore, it is important that Council advocate for outcomes that will have a favourable impact on the District.

Significance and Engagement

41 Under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, this submission on the Resource Management review has a low degree of significance. It does not have any strategic or financial implications, there are no implications for the District strategy at this stage, and there are no legislative requirements to submit. Mana whenua have the ability to submit directly with their views on how the proposal may impact on their relationship with land and water.

Consultation already undertaken

42 No public consultation was undertaken for the development of this submission.

43 Council staff sought comment from the New Zealand Planning Institute, Resource Management Law Association, Local Government New Zealand, and the Regional Planning Managers Group around the Issues and Options Paper. No other organisation was able to provide a submission or comment for comparison at the time of writing.

Engagement planning

44 An engagement plan is not required for this submission.

Publicity

45 This submission will be uploaded to the 'Submissions we have made' section of the Council website.

Recommendations

That Council approve the draft submission on the Issues and Options Paper for Transforming the Resource Management System, which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Appendices

1. RMA Issues and Options Draft Submission January 2020 ⇩

2. Transforming the resource management system: OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE. Issues and Options Paper ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

DRAFT SUBMISSION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper. We appreciate the opportunity this paper creates to have a conversation about the future of the resource management system in New Zealand. Our comments, detailed below, are relatively high level, as the timing and timeframes for consultation have been particularly challenging.

We look forward to continuing to engage in the reform discussions as the project continues.

Issue: 1 Legislative architecture

It is Council’s view that changing the legislative framework –particularly separating out growth and environmental legislation – is unlikely to have a substantial positive impact on the functioning of the RMA system. The problems local government is facing with the current resource management system are not the result of the way in which the legislative framework is configured – it is the result of a lack of integration within that framework, and a lack of clarity about how the various trade-offs in balancing growth and environmental concerns ought to be managed.

The current RM system has not achieved functional integration across the various acts that interact with the RMA under the current structure. The current separation of land transport planning legislation from the rest of the planning framework (with its own planning and funding processes) has proved difficult to integrate together in practice. Integration with the LGA has not fared much better, with Councils completing long term plans under the LGA that are out of alignment with planning processes under the RMA and NPS-UDC. This lack of alignment creates inefficiency and uncertainty for councils and their communities. That being the case, there is limited reason to believe that this pursuit of integration will be more successful through the creation of a more fractured system. Councils are very concerned they will be left with the increasingly complex and unsolvable puzzle of trying to achieve balance across conflicting directives. This leads to more complex, costly and litigious planning and consenting processes.

We acknowledge that the RMA has struggled to adequately deal with the competing interests of growth and environmental protection within a single piece of legislation. However, we would argue this is more of a function of a complex system lacking in clear direction than a failing of a framework dominated by a single piece of legislation. This system is dominated by an unclear set of priorities/principles, which are often competing with each other and lack a framework/clear direction to assist decisions-makers in navigating the unavoidable trade-offs between them. It is also a function of a complex system which, in requiring evidence-based decisions, has a bias towards those who can afford the experts to build their technical case and use their understanding of how the system works to their advantage.

In order to support dividing the RMA into specific growth- and environment-focussed legislation, Councils would need more clarity on the interface between the pieces of legislation and on the way in which it will be split up.

Issue: 2 Purpose and Principles of the RMA

Council supports the addition of a positive obligation to maintain and enhance the environment and the strengthening of Part 2 to more explicitly require environmental limits and/or targets to be set (although this may be best done through an NES/NPS). Including a separate statement of principle for urban environments may be useful if single legislation is to be retained.

Consistent implementation of the RMA by councils would also be greatly assisted by a clearer distinction of priority of matters within sections 6 and 7, particularly how conflicts are to be weighed up. We also strongly support new concepts being included in Part 2 to address climate change.

Issue: 3 Maori Participation

Iwi as mana whenua hold significant expertise and knowledge and barriers to their being able to contribute this should be removed. We support the removal of barriers to the uptake of JMA’s and transfer of powers. More clarity would be helpful in identifying when iwi are an affected party, as would a stronger direction for applicants to consult with iwi prior to applying for consent. This would help reduce delays which can occur in resource consent processes when iwi have not been appropriately consulted or involved by applicant’s early on.

Other barriers to improving meaningful iwi engagement in the present RM system include:

· a lack of resourcing of iwi entities

· significant demands for iwi input and involvement on a broad range of matters from multiple councils and other entities

· the 20-day statutory processing timeframe for non-notified resource consent applications, which puts considerable burden on iwi to provide input including raising any concerns about a consent application with the local council.

Issue: 4 Strategic integration across the resource management system

As mentioned above, finding a way to better integrate the various pieces of legislation within the broad planning framework is an important way of creating an efficient and planning system with certainty for its users. Spatial planning is one of the tools that can assist in that integration by articulating the broad outcomes being sought by the community and transposing those into a spatial form.

Spatial planning would encompass consideration of economic, environmental, social and cultural wellbeing. It would also need a long-term time horizon, and a focus on integration of environmental protection, land and natural resource use and infrastructure decision-making, including funding and financing. It could provide an opportunity for Māori to participate in strategic decision-making about resource management issues.

However, in its present form, spatial planning (to the extent it is undertaken) creates an additional layer within the planning framework to be interpreted through regional and district level documents. This is largely due to it not being mandated in the RMA. A better option could be to align and integrate spatial planning into the standard planning framework – potentially replacing parts of the current Regional Policy Statement/Regional Plan/District Plan. This would also require that spatial plans be legally binding. Coordination at the regional level is likely to be beneficial due to the scale of some infrastructure projects, although this would further complicate plan integration.

A legally binding spatial plan integrated into the planning framework should align and include relevant elements of LTMA and LGA. This should include aligning the frequency and timeframes of underlying planning and investment documents. It should also consider how private developers contribute to the provisions of infrastructure to support the outcomes of the spatial plan. Given the strong links between infrastructure planning and spatial planning, it is recommended that this be refreshed at a cycle which aligns with Long Term Plan cycles (i.e 3, 6 or 9 years).

Issue: 5 Addressing climate change and natural hazards

Council is broadly in favour of the recommended options for adaptation outlined on page 32. However, in our view there is overreliance by Government on the ETS as an effective tool for reducing emissions – more needs to be done.

Council is also concerned that using regionally coordinated spatial planning to identify a future adaption response may result in a clunky and very layered approach. It would in effect be another layer sitting between the National Adaptation plan and adaptation responses at the District/TA level. It would be beneficial to look at options to streamline actions being taken under the direction of the National Adaptation Plan, for example should the NAP (or parts of it) be given the equivalent status of an NPS under the RMA?

Climate change is an urgent and pressing problem, not a ‘future problem’. Councils are already dealing with the impacts of climate change as they respond to increased flooding and inundation events and the problems these create for our communities and infrastructure. Past attempts to address projected climate change impacts on the coast have resulted in significant litigation, potentially affecting the appetite of councils to tackle climate change adaptation through regulatory means. This can result in more emphasis being placed on reactively dealing with the aftermath of increasingly frequent and intense weather and storm events. This is not helped by the imbalance in availability of government funding/support to assist in the response to natural events which have been exacerbated by climate change. There is no government funding available for building communities’ understanding of the regional/local risks or support for Councils to make and fund decisions that create a more resilient community over time. Proactively preparing for the impacts of climate change on our communities over time will require an environment where there is confidence in making decisions on some very tough issues, such as when and whether managed retreat should be a viable option.

Greater direction is required from Central Government to support local government to respond to effects of climate change and for this to occur in a consistent way across the country. It is still a relatively new and evolving area for local government and more directive policy, as well as funding and capacity-building support, is required from central government. Greater national direction on best practice and standards with regards to climate change and adaptation methodologies and science would help reduce the risk of legal challenge as councils try to implement measures to address climate change through their plans. Greater national direction would also ensure local conversations are targeted to how (or by when) the national direction should be achieved, not whether it should be achieved at all - avoiding unnecessary delays and costs. A contestable science and engagement fund could also be used to assist those Council whose communities are ready for climate change adaptation conversations, but are unable to fund a community process which follows the MfE guidance.

Some specific amendments to RMA processes that would help councils implement climate change mitigation measures include:

· make it easier to adopt prohibited activity status for certain developments along the coast and in other areas with high natural hazard risks.

· create a clear legal mechanism and mandate providing for managed retreat – this does not currently exist (wide and uncertain interpretation of: S.10(4)(a) appears to allow Regional Council to do so through changing regional plan rules, however this is only now being tested).

· clearly establish responsibility between regional and local councils for managing climate change. This lack of clarity causes ambiguity, time delays and has financial impacts.

· align the RMA with the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (including purpose) to enable a planning regime that can effectively help New Zealand achieve the mitigation and adaptation goals of the CCRA, including moving climate change considerations from section 7 to section 6 and adding it into the sections 30 and 31 roles and responsibilities for councils.

· consider an alternative planning process to schedule 1 for climate change and natural hazard issues to allow greater speed of plan-making in this area and reduce scope for expensive and time consuming appeal processes.

· a risk assessment framework for natural hazards should be established as an NES. This should include risks caused and/or exacerbated by climate change. This would allow councils to take a nationally consistent risk-based approach to climate adaptation.

Issue: 6 National direction

There is a clear need for central government to be able to either insert targeted content into plans, or to set expectations that communities will resolve particular issues through their planning documents. However, the implementation of the RMA has seen first an absence of adequate national direction, and then a proliferation of national direction that has at times been too blunt and has resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach that may not be appropriate for all communities. We appreciate that it is a difficult balance to get right.

There has been a tendency to prioritise and produce national direction tools (especially national policy statements) as a way of getting local government to assist in the implementation of the government’s policy agenda (focused on what central government needs from local government). While that is appropriate, local government also needs national direction tools to focus on the areas where we are struggling to resolve contentious issues in the community. Climate change and natural hazard management are two good examples. The Schedule 1 plan making process, with full public consultation and appeal rights, means that plan changes that are needed to protect our communities are able to be held up by small factions concerned about their own interests (e.g., fears over the impact of hazard lines may have on their property values) over the needs of the community at large. This can lead to drawn out and expensive plan changes that may not ultimately be successful and a proliferation of other litigation. Having national direction focusing on appropriate methodologies would be helpful, in that it would both prevent appeals on the methodology and science underpinning plan changes and would also allow communities instead to focus on the details of their approach to managing these issues. These should be developed closely with local government working groups.

Making better use of provisions allowing local government to adjust or deviate from the national direction instruments where appropriate (i.e. the ability to make rules more or less stringent than the NES stipulates) and providing greater ability to deviate from national direction where appropriate would be helpful. It would allow communities to tailor provisions to best suit their needs while still achieving the overall outcomes sought by the national direction.

Issue: 7 Policy and planning framework

Schedule 1 Process – Consultation and Appeal Rights

Ensuring meaningful public engagement occurs at the right time is important for streamlining planning processes, as giving the public multiple opportunities to re-litigate their concerns creates drawn out and costly plan making processes. We would support a streamlined ‘single-stage’ plan-making process. Our second generation plan was first publically notified in 2012, decisions were notified in 2017 and this year we are expecting to resolve the remaining appeals so the plan can be made operative – some 8 years after first notification.

We therefore recommend allowing councils to front-load engagement in exchange for limited appeal rights (restricted to points of law only). This would avoid re-litigating issues through appeals while still ensuring adequate public consultation. Concern about participation could also be balanced by expanding the parties who receive a draft plan for comment beyond iwi authorities.

Similarly, removing the ability for parties to seek s.85 directions and lodge appeals with respect to plan provisions which give effect to national direction would be helpful, as national direction instruments are consulted on at the national level and shouldn’t be re-litigated during their incorporation into planning documents.

Plan oversight

Creating additional plan oversight is likely to add additional steps to the Schedule 1 process and could make plan making slower. However, if this was to be combined with a reduction in appeal rights as discussed above, then additional up-front scrutiny of plans could help offset the reduction in appeal rights.

There is some concern as to what criteria the Minister or Ministry would use to ‘approve’ or make recommendations for changes to plans prior to notification and/or finalisation and how long that might take. It would be additional steps in the process and may result in additional delays with unclear benefit, and which seem at odds with what the goal of streamlining plan-making processes. It is also concerning from a local democracy perspective. If there is genuine concern about local decision-making on plans, then the suggestion in para 105 of the Issues and Options paper would be a preferred approach.

Given the overall shortage of planners across the country, moving a number of planners into review type roles could have an overall negative consequence for councils who are already struggling to attract and retain experienced policy planners.

Other Process Improvement Suggestions

· Extending the types of amendments that can be made to plans and proposed plans under Schedule 1 clauses 16(2) and 20A would enable councils to make a wider range of minor and technical amendments to their plans without incurring a full schedule 1 plan making process, improving overall plan quality and reducing costs.

· Removing the ability to apply for a certificate of compliance under section 139 if an activity could not be done lawfully without a resource consent under a draft plan.

· Give rules immediate legal effect from notification, or at least extend the list of matters referred to in section 86B(3) to include important issues such as hazards, urban development and climate change.

Issue: 8 Consents/approvals

Simplify categories

We don’t consider that it is necessary to simplify activity status categories under the RMA. This issue is that often plans are drafted in a way that is not making effective use of the categories available.

We see a benefit in retaining the direct referral system. Often smaller TAs do not have the resourcing or experience within the team to process large complex applications, let alone nationally significant proposals. Complex applications would often go to planning consultants, so retaining direct referral provides a further option to TAs, even though it is unlikely to speed up the process (as these are complex applications that take a significant amount of time to consider).

Reduce complexity for minor consents

We agree that the RMA should be flexible in what information needs to be submitted for minor consents, which are often submitted by building designers or owners themselves. It should be made clearer that the level of information in an AEE should correspond with the scale and significance of an activity, and this should be done in a way which avoids subsequent arguments about what is sufficient.

For even seemingly minor applications the policies of the plan should inform the aspects of the environment which are important to consider in an AEE. Allowing too much discretion could undermine this approach and reduce the effectiveness of the overarching objectives and policies of the plan.

More certainty around notification

We support more certainty around when notification should be required and simplified provisions around this. Notification appears to function well in the Victorian (Australian) planning system and provides developers, neighbours and the processing planner more certainty around when people could be affected. The UK also uses a system where there are no written approvals associated with making consent applications. This system leaves it up to the Council to serve notice on affected parties, consider submissions and determine the application. Appeal rights of affected parties are limited to points of law only. This system avoids the current challenges associated with affected party approval being ‘bought’ by applicants, or resulting in significant delays while applicants attempt to obtain affect party approval.

The current notification system has a number of inefficiencies and uncertainties:

· notification can be very subjective and different planners may come up with different results

· the appeal mechanism (judicial review) is very costly, and if you are a neighbour in reality if you are not considered affected you are cut out of the planning process, and Councils spend a lot of resourcing on justifying to lay people why they were not considered affected.

More transparency

Many councils publish a list of consent applications received and decisions issued on their website. Once a resource consent application is lodged, this becomes public information and members of the public can request copies of applications and decisions if they are interested. However, our experience is that it is rare for the public to request copies of the application and decision. When they are requested it is usually by neighbours of residential developments. It is our view that the additional resourcing required to publish all decisions and applications would outweigh the benefits of the public having immediate access to this information.

Online processing

Online processing will not reduce the cost of processing an application. The majority of the cost in processing is staff time in requesting further information, assessing the application, and issuing a decision. Online submissions of applications and tracking will not negate the need for a robust assessment and further information required. It may speed up the time it takes to lodge the application and be entered into Council’s system, but it is unlikely to reduce the processing times significantly. There will be potentially significant costs associated with the development and maintenance of an appropriate IT facility to provide this service. This will very difficult for small councils to afford the initial outlay and would result in increased costs being passed on to applicants.

Designations

Designations can be complex and for many councils are a rare occurrence. We would recommend:

· simplifying the multi-stage process (notice of requirement, outline plan etc.)

· extending the five-year default timeframe for designations, as it is out of alignment with the long-term strategic function they are intended to perform (or the district plan review cycle)

· clarifying information requirements for notice of requirement applications so that consent authorities are clear on the level of information required for notice of requirement applications and outline plan applications.

Other consenting issues

· The information required for Councils to be satisfied of compliance/existing use rights and then issue Certificates of Compliance and Existing Use Rights certificates is unnecessarily high.

· The wording of section 181(3)(b) is inconsistent with that used in section 95E with respect to identifying affected parties, which can cause confusion during the designation alteration process.

· There is no ability for a territorial local authority or a requiring authority to stop the clock under section 176A. This can cause problems if more information is needed by a council to determine whether or not to request any changes to an outline plan, or in instances where the requiring authority wishes to place an outline plan on hold. Therefore, it would be useful if it was possible to place outline plans on hold and to request further information.

Issue: 11 System monitoring and oversight

Councils need a streamlined and simplified monitoring system through the development and use of consistent systems that enable data to be easily captured through daily services to relate back to council outcomes. This is a substantive and specialised function that overlays over and above the design and use of systems to serve their priority intent/purpose.

The NMS system is unwieldy and time consuming to input into for Councils. The systems that councils use (such as MagiQ) do not have the full functionality that would allow all of the information that MFE requires to be easily inputted and extracted each year. Upgrades to systems and new systems to provide the functionality required to monitor all the information MFE requires can be costly. The data available focuses on the timeliness over assessment of the quality of decisions and outcomes.

Issue: 12 Compliance, monitoring and enforcement (CME)

The independence of the regulator is a key part of any regulated system, however despite the guidance in the LGA, the line between regulator and governance can, in practice, be blurred. We note it is common in the NZ regulatory landscape for independent boards to create clearer separation between governance and regulatory functions within government (e.g. Worksafe). One possible solution could be for the EPA to have overarching responsibility for the delivery and oversight of CME functions under the RMA in NZ.

Cost-recovery under the RMA has a negative impact on CME under the RMA. The charge out rates established for cost-recovery of CME activities are high nation-wide, which can result in disproportionately high compliance costs for otherwise minor compliance matters, creating negative public sentiment towards CME under the RMA. One option could be to establish a permitted activity CME fund to cover the monitoring required for activities that don’t require consent. This would allow better enforcement of permitted activity standards without direct cost recovery creating a financial burden on the user.

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

8.5 Elected Member Remuneration, Expenses and Allowances Policy

Author: Leyanne Belcher, Democracy Services Manager

Authoriser: Janice McDougall, Group Manager

Purpose of Report

1 This report presents to the Council for adoption the updated Elected Members Remuneration Expenses and Allowances Policy 2019-2020.

Delegation

2 The Council has the authority to consider this matter.

BACKGROUND

3 The Elected Members Remuneration Expenses and Allowances Policy 2019 -2020 was approved by the Council on 8 August 2019. The Policy provides comprehensive, clear information on Elected Member remuneration, expenses and allowances, prepared in a user friendly style that can be easily referenced by Elected Members and staff.

4 The Remuneration Authority (‘the Authority’) is the independent body responsible for the setting of elected members’ remuneration.

5 The Authority began introducing the changes to the index rankings in the Local Government Members (2018/19) (Local Authorities) Determination 2018 (the 2018 Determination), and continued in the 2019/20 determination (See Appendix 2). The changes would be fully completed following the 2019 local election.

6 These changes involved a major reassessment of the rates paid to councillors. Implementation of the new approach over a period means that, between 1 July 2018 and October 2019, changes to remuneration for elected local government members varied to a considerable degree between councils, rather than being an overall consistent percentage increase. For some, there was no movement over this time, whereas for others there was a substantial increase, reflecting the Authority’s new assessment of the size of councils’ responsibilities

7 In Schedule 1 of its Local Government Members 2019/20 Determination 2019 the Authority determined the remuneration of Elected Members up to the Local Body Elections in 2019. The Determination also detailed the allowances that may be paid to Elected Members.

8 Schedule 2 of the Determination covers the payment of Elected Members following the 2019 Local Government Elections at which point a Remuneration Pool was introduced for the remuneration of Councillors. Following the 2019 election a “governance pool” was allocated to each council aligned with the ranking of the council on a size index and within the framework of the new local government pay scale.

9 New Councils were required to give the Authority recommendations for how its pool should be distributed among council members and across positions of responsibility. Kāpiti Coast District Council submitted its proposal to the Authority by the required date.

Issues and Options

Issues

10 Following the 2019 local election, all Councillors initially received the salary of $35,517. This was in place until the ratification by the Remuneration Authority of the distribution of the remuneration pool proposed by the Mayor and Councillors.

11 The pool allocated to Kāpiti Coast District Council is $497,664. This is an increase of more than 18% on the previous remuneration of Councillors which amounted to $420,593.

12 The increase to the Mayors remuneration, which is determined by the Authority and which sits outside the pool, is 12.7%.

13 The pool approach and the additional monies available for remuneration of Councillors provided an ideal opportunity to create a more inclusive governance structure, allowing councillors to be involved in a broad spectrum of key areas of importance for the district. A portfolio approach enables individual councillors to be given responsibility for a particular focus area and enables individual councillors to take an active leadership role within the community.

14 Some portfolios will be more demanding than others and require more time and effort from the portfolio holder. They may differ for example in:

· degree of complexity

· importance of relationships

· required expertise

· amount of time needed.

15 The proposed allocation of the remuneration pool took into consideration the overall responsibilities of members, including Committee or Subcommittee Chair or Deputy Chair responsibilities, Community Board responsibilities and size of portfolios.

16 The decisions of the Council were subject to approval by the Remuneration Authority. The Council provided the Authority with recommendations for how its pool should be distributed among council members, together with information on positions of responsibility. (Appendix 3). Proposed base remuneration being $36,000. Proposed additional remuneration being $24,000 for the Deputy Mayor, $19,000 for the Chair of the Strategy and Operations Committee, $14,610 for Portfolio A holders, and $9,056 for Portfolio B holders.

17 The decisions of the Council are subject to approval by the Remuneration Authority. Following its formal decision-making, the council will need to forward its resolutions to the Authority for consideration for inclusion in the determination.

Considerations

Policy considerations

18 The Elected Members Remuneration Expenses and Allowances Policy 2019-2020 has been updated to include the determination of the Mayors remuneration and ratification of Councillors remuneration by the Remuneration Authority incorporated in the Local Government Members (2019_20) Amendment Determination 2019 (Appendix 4) . The updated policy is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Legal considerations

19 There are no additional legal considerations.

Financial considerations

20 The determination of the Remuneration Authority involves a significant increase in the budget required for Elected Members Remuneration as indicated earlier in this report. The budget will need to be increased as a result.

Tāngata whenua considerations

21 There are no tāngata whenua considerations.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

22 This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement planning

23 An engagement plan is not needed to implement this decision.

Publicity

24 Upon the completion of the approval of the pool allocation process and process and the update of the Elected Members Remuneration Expenses and Allowances Policy 2019-2020, the signed policy will be available to view on the Kāpiti Coast District Council website.

Recommendations

25 That the Council adopts the Elected Member Remuneration, Expenses and Allowances Policy as at Appendix 1 of this report, ‘Elected Member Remuneration, Expenses and Allowance Policy’.

Appendices

1. Elected Member Remuneration, Expenses and Allowances Policy 2019 -2020 ⇩

2. Link to Local Government Members 2019/20 Determination ⇩

3. Important dates and positions of responsibilty ⇩

4. Local Government Members (2019_20) Amendment Determination 2019 ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

ELECTED MEMBER REMUNERATION

EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES POLICY

2019-2020

	Page
Policy objective	2
Principles	2
A. Remuneration – Mayor and Councillors	2
B. Remuneration – Community Board Chairs and Members	2
C. Elected Member Expenses and Allowances	3
1. Accommodation	3
2. Air dollars/points	3
3. Airline clubs	3
4. Air Travel	3
5. Carparks	3
6. Communication Technology	3
7. Entertainment & hospitality	4
8. Gifts	4
9. Incidentals	4
10. Meals	4
11. Professional development	4
12. Stationary	4
13. Subscriptions & memberships	4
14. Vehicles	5
15. Childcare Allowance	5
D. The Mayor	5
1. Carparks	5
2. Communications Technology	5
3. Subscriptions & memberships	5
4. Vehicle	5
E. Fees related to Hearings	6
Document version control	6

Policy objective

This policy clarifies payment of elected member salaries, allowances and reimbursements to October 2019.

Elected Members are remunerated in accordance with legislation oversighted by the Remuneration Authority. (See Local Government Members (2019/20) (Local Authorities) Determination 2019) [The Determination]. Determinations also stipulate the parameters around the payment of allowances and other fees. Within these parameters councils can develop their own policies.

Principles

The payment of allowances and expenses is:

· in line with legislation

· related to the conduct of Council business by Elected Members while acting in their role

· payable under clear rules communicated to all claimants

· over sighted by senior management and audit

· adequately documented

· reasonable and conservative in line with public sector norms

· does not extend to any expenses related to electioneering

(Fees related to District Licencing Committee hearings are not included in this policy.)

A. Remuneration – Mayor and Councillors

Role	Annual remuneration
Mayor	$138,500
Deputy Mayor	$60,000
Strategy & Operations Committee Chairperson	$55,000
Portfiolio A Holder	$50,610
Portfolio B Holder	$45,056

B. Remuneration – Community Board Chairs and Members

Board	Chairperson	Member
Ōtaki	$15,250	$7,625
Paekākāriki	$7,947	$3,973
Paraparaumu-Raumati	$19,976	$9,988
Waikanae	$16,325	$8,163

The following sections detail the payment of Elected Member reimbursements and allowances.

C. Elected Member Expenses and Allowances

Accommodation

a) while at conferences or training events or other Council business – Council will pay for accommodation where applicable that balances cost-effectiveness with proximity to the event

b) private/provided by friends/relatives – Council has no involvement

Air Dollars/Points

Air points/air dollars earned on travel, accommodation etc. paid for by the Council are available for the private use of members. Due to the low level of air travel this is insignificant.

Airline Clubs

Council doesn’t pay or reimburse for these memberships.

Air Travel

a) Generally, air travel bookings are made by staff upon approval and in accordance with Council policy.

b) If Elected Members make their own bookings, domestic and international travel taken for Council-related business will be reimbursed up to the level of economy class fares; if the elected member wishes to travel at a different class they must meet the cost of the difference.

Carparks

At the beginning of the triennium, elected members will receive a parking permit which must be displayed in their car when they are attending Council business at the Council Administration building, Paraparaumu. This permit is non-transferable and must be returned at the end of the triennium.

Communications Technology

a) Broadband – All elected members will retrospectively receive a $400 allowance for use of home broadband for Council business for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 20120 in line with the Determination. (Where an elected member has not been a member for the whole for the 2019/20 year the amount paid will be pro-rated).

b) Consumables (ink cartridges/paper) – Council will provide these on request.

c) Email – at the beginning of the triennium Elected Members are provided with a Council email address which is not to be used by members for any personal business.

d) Mobiles – Councillors, Community Board Chairs and Community Board members, who use their own mobile phone for Council-related business, are entitled to a $150 equipment allowance and $400 service allowance for the 2019/20 year. (Where an elected member is not a member for the whole for the 2019/20 year the amount paid will be pro-rated). A member may opt, instead of receiving the $400 service allowance, to provide telephone records and receipts clearly showing which phone calls were made on Council business, in which case they would be reimbursed for the actual costs of the phone calls.

e) Tablets and Printers – Councillors and Community Board Chairs will be provided with tablets at the beginning of the triennium for Council-related use, although a reasonable degree of private use is acceptable. For Community Board Members a communications allowance of $240 shall be paid to each member per annum to cover the use of a personal computer and printer.

Entertainment & hospitality

Reasonable costs will be reimbursed but a claim for reimbursement will need to be put in writing for approval by the Mayor and the Chief Executive.

Gifts

Gifts of any kind (e.g. sports or other event tickets) and value should be declared to the Mayor’s Personal Assistant for entry into the Gift Register.

Incidentals

Reasonable expenses incurred in the pursuit of Council business will be reimbursed on presentation of an expense claim supported with the relevant invoices/receipts.

Meals

This excludes Council catering for meetings.

Reasonable costs for meals and sustenance are reimbursed when travelling on Council business on presentation of receipt/s.

Professional development

Registration costs for attendance at conferences, seminars and training events will be paid for by the Council, in accordance with the elected members’ induction, training and development programme.

Stationery

Elected members will be supplied with business cards. Any other stationery required for Council business will be considered on request.

Subscriptions & memberships

The costs of these will not be met by the Council.

Vehicles

a) Mileage - Reimbursements apply according to the following conditions:

i. Travel must relate to attendance at Council/Committee meetings, Community Board meetings, conference/seminars relating to local government or attendance at community organisation meetings as an elected member.

ii. The travel must be by the most direct route that is reasonable in the circumstances.

iii. For a petrol or diesel vehicle:

79 cents for the first 14,000 km per annum,

30 cents for travel over 14,000 km per annum.

iv. For a petrol hybrid vehicle:

79 cents for the first 14,000 km per annum,

19 cents for travel over 14,000 km per annum.

v. For an electric vehicle:

79 cents for the first 14,000 km per annum,

9 cents for travel over 14,000 km per annum.

b) Private use of vehicle – Elected members may opt to use their own vehicles to travel to training events or conferences if the reimbursement for mileage would be cheaper than air travel.

c) Rental cars – the Council will not meet the costs of using these.

d) Taxis - the Council will reimburse reasonable costs for the use of taxis associated with training events and Council business.

Childcare allowance

a) Childcare – Reimbursements apply according to the following conditions:

i. The member is a parent or guardian of the child, or is a person who usually has responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child (not on a temporary basis); and

ii. the child is under 14 years of age; and

iii. the childcare is provided by a person who is not a family member and does not ordinarily reside with the member; and

iv. the member provides evidence satisfactory to the authority of the amount paid for child care.

v. Childcare allowance will be paid at a maximum rate of $15 per hour; not exceeding a total amount of $6000 per annum OR

vi. An annual amount of $6000 paid retrospectively for the year.

D. The Mayor

Carparks

The Mayor has a dedicated parking space.

Communications Technology

The Mayor is provided with a mobile phone for the triennium with reasonable private use being acceptable.

Subscriptions & memberships

The subscription for the Mayor’s role as Justice of the Peace will be paid by the Council.

Vehicle

The Mayor is provided with a vehicle for private and business use during the term of office. [A local authority may provide (a) a motor vehicle or (b) a vehicle mileage allowance. If a motor vehicle is provided for private use annual remuneration must be adjusted in accordance with the Determination. The maximum purchase price is also covered by the Determination. ]

E. Fees related to Hearings

Chairperson

A member of a local authority who acts as the chairperson of a hearing is entitled to a fee of up to $100 per hour.

Member

A member of a local authority who is not the chairperson of a hearing is entitled to a fee of up to $80 per hour.

Mayor or Acting Mayor

These fees are not available to the Mayor or to an acting Mayor who is paid the mayor’s remuneration and allowances.

DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL – AMENDMENTS DURING 2016-2019 TRIENNIUM

NO	AMENDMENT/S SUMMARY	ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
1	Policy adopted by the Council	8 August 2019
2	Updates to Mayor and Councillor Remuneration

Signed……………………………………………………………………Date:………………….......

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

Please complete this form and return it together with the completed workbook and brief description for each position of responsibility to info@remauthority.govt.nz .

Information About Important Dates and Positions of Responsibility

Name of Council: _____________________Kāpiti Coast District Council _________________________________________________

Date official result for the Council was declared: ___________21 October 2019 ________________________________

(Note: the remuneration for incoming elected members is effective on and from the day after the date on which the official result of the 2019 election is declared under section 86 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 in relation to the Council.)

Positions of Responsibility (eg: Deputy Mayor, Chair of a Committee)

Name of Position	Date position was adopted/ approved/ confirmed/ resolved by Council
Deputy Mayor	31 October 2019
Chair Strategy and Operations Committee	7 November 2019
Portfolio A Holder	7 November 2019
Portfolio B Holder	7 November 2019

(Note: the additional remuneration for positions of responsibility is effective on and from the day after the date on which the Council confirmed the position.)

A brief description must be provided for each position of responsibility ie: specify the additional responsibilities over and above the base councillor role - covering duties, delegations, deputising and reporting obligations and the extra time involved in carrying out the additional responsibilities.

The pool approach adopted this Triennium provides an ideal opportunity to create a more inclusive governance structure, allowing councillors to be involved in a broad spectrum of key areas of importance for the district. A portfolio approach enables individual councillors to be given responsibility for a particular focus area and enables individual councillors to take an active leadership role within the community.

Some portfolios will be more demanding than others and require more time and effort from the portfolio holder. They may differ for example in:

· degree of complexity

· importance of relationships

· required expertise

· amount of time needed.

	Committees	Subcommittee	Portfolio	Community Boards	Other appointments
Mayor	Council Strategy & Operations Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti	Audit & Risk Grants Appeals			Regional Transport Joint Committee Regional Strategy Joint Committee
Deputy Mayor	Council Strategy & Operations	Audit & Risk Grants Appeals	Cultural wellbeing (including Arts) The Three Waters		Public Art Panel Mahara Gallery Trust LGNZ Policy Advisory Group Regional Strategy Joint Committee
Chair Strategy and Operations	Council Strategy & Operations (Chair) Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti		Transport	Ōtaki Community Board	Regional Transport Joint Committee Road Safety Advisory Group
Portfolio A Holder	Council Strategy & Operations (Deputy Chair)	Audit & Risk	Rural GWRC Economic wellbeing
Portfolio A Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Audit & Risk (Deputy Chair)	Business & Jobs		Cycleway Walkway and Bridleway Advisory Group Friends of the Ōtaki River Older Persons Council Accessibility Advisory Group
Portfolio A Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Grants (Chair)	Waste		Regional Waste Forum Waste Minimisation Task Force
Portfolio A Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Grants	Housing Social wellbeing
Portfolio B Holder	Council Strategy & Operations		Climate Youth	Paekākāriki Community Board	Youth Council Wellington Region Climate Change Working Group
Portfolio B Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Appeals Hearing (Deputy Chair)	Environmental wellbeing	Waikanae Community Board	Cycleway Walkway and Bridleway Advisory Group Friends of the Waikanae River Ecological Restoration Maintenance Trust
Portfolio B Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Grants	Health Seniors	Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board	Older Persons Council Paraparaumu College hall
Portfolio B Holder	Council Strategy & Operations	Grants (Deputy Chair)		Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board	Road Safety Advisory Group Paraparaumu College hall

Portfolio A brief description

· Responsibilities may include those of a Councillor combined with Chair or Deputy Chair of a Subcommittee *and Portfolio responsibilities.

• Ensure progress is made towards the council's strategic priorities and projects within their portfolio responsibilities

• Assisting the council to meet its strategic objectives

• Enhance relationships with key stakeholders

• collaborate with committee chairs and other portfolio leaders where objectives are shared

• work effectively with council officers

• attend any advisory groups or external appointments made and ensure an alternate is available if they cannot attend projects and activities

• as far as possible attend council launches of new activities and projects in their area of responsibility

• Keep the Mayor informed of emerging issues

• maintain a no-surprises approach for elected members and staff

• for the term of the triennium unless amended by a decision of the Council

(*excluding Deputy Chair of Appeals Hearing Subcommittee which did not meet at all last Triennium)

Portfolio B brief description

• Responsibilities may include those of a Councillor, Ward Councillor on Community Board combined with Portfolio responsibilities and /or Chair of Appeals Hearing Subcommittee.

• Ensure progress is made towards the council's strategic priorities and projects within their portfolio responsibilities

• Assisting the council to meet its strategic objectives

• Enhance relationships with key stakeholders

• collaborate with committee chairs and other portfolio leaders where objectives are shared

• work effectively with council officers

• attend any advisory groups or external appointments made and ensure an alternate is available if they cannot attend projects and activities

• as far as possible attend council launches of new activities and projects in their area of responsibility

• Keep the Mayor informed of emerging issues

• maintain a no-surprises approach for elected members and staff

• for the term of the triennium unless amended by a decision of the Council

Deputy Mayor brief description

· the Deputy Mayor will be expected to undertake some of the roles of the Mayor will not be able to attend all functions and events.

· The Deputy Mayor must also be ready to assume the Chairmanship of Council Meetings in the absence of the Mayor.

· Should the Mayor for whatever reason be no longer able to undertake his/her duties it will be the duty of the Deputy Mayor to take over the role until either, the Mayor is able to assume his/her duties.

· Responsibilities will include those of a Councillor combined with Portfolio responsibilities.

• Ensure progress is made towards the council's strategic priorities and projects within their portfolio responsibilities

• Assisting the council to meet its strategic objectives

• Enhance relationships with key stakeholders

• collaborate with committee chairs and other portfolio leaders where objectives are shared

• work effectively with council officers

• attend any advisory groups or external appointments made and ensure an alternate is available if they cannot attend projects and activities

• as far as possible attend council launches of new activities and projects in their area of responsibility

• Keep the Mayor informed of emerging issues

• maintain a no-surprises approach for elected members and staff

• for the term of the triennium unless amended by a decision of the Council

Chair Strategy and Operations Committee brief description

• Responsible for making sure that each meeting is planned effectively, conducted according to the Standing Orders and that matters are dealt with in an orderly, efficient manner.

• The Chairperson must make the most of all his/her committee members, building and leading the team.

· Responsibilities may include those of a Councillor and Portfolio responsibilities.

• Ensure progress is made towards the council's strategic priorities and projects within their portfolio responsibilities

• Assisting the council to meet its strategic objectives

• Enhance relationships with key stakeholders

• collaborate with committee chairs and other portfolio leaders where objectives are shared

• work effectively with council officers

• attend any advisory groups or external appointments made and ensure an alternate is available if they cannot attend projects and activities

• as far as possible attend council launches of new activities and projects in their area of responsibility

• Keep the Mayor informed of emerging issues

• maintain a no-surprises approach for elected members and staff

• for the term of the triennium unless amended by a decision of the Council

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2020

8.6 Reports and Recommendations from Standing Committees and Community Boards

Author: Tanicka Mason, Democracy Services Advisor

Authoriser: Janice McDougall, Group Manager

Purpose of Report

1 This report presents reports and recommendations considered by Standing Committees and Community Boards from 11 November 2019 to 12 December 2019.

Background

2 Meetings took place on the following dates:

Ōtaki Community Board	12 November 2019
Waikanae Community Board	19 November 2019
Paekākāriki Community Board	3 December 2019
Strategy & Operations Committee	5 December 2019
Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board	10 December 2019
Grants Allocation Subcommittee (Waste Levy)	12 December 2019

3 In addition, the following meetings took place:

Kāpiti Coast Youth Council 11 November 2019, 9 December 2019

Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti 26 November 2019

Older Persons’ Council 27 November 2019

Kāpiti Coast Youth Council

4 The Kāpiti Coast Youth Council met on 11 November 2019 to discuss the following:

· Zeal Update

· Councillors Update

· Te Anamata Update

· Youth Council Member of the Month

· Economic Development Team Feedback

· Youth Council Member Farewell

· Christmas Party

· Secrets of Kāpiti Update

· Consultation/Youth Week Update

· Work Ready Kāpiti Discussion

· Youthoween Update

Ōtaki Community Board

5 The Community Board met on the 12 November 2019 to discuss the following:

· Explanation of legislation for new elected members 2019-2022 triennium

· Election of Community Board Chair and Deputy Chair for 2019-2022 triennium

· Appointment of board member to external organisations

· Consideration of applications for funding

· Community Board remuneration 2019-2020

Waikanae Community Board

6 The Community Board met on the 19 November 2019 to discuss the following:

· Explanation of legislation for new elected members 2019-2022 triennium

· Election of Community Board Chair and Deputy Chair for 2019-2022 triennium

· Appointment of board member to external organisations

· Community Board remuneration 2019-2020

· Waikanae Community Board – Draft Calendar of Meetings 2020

· Consideration of Applications for Funding

Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti

7 Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti met on the 26 November 2019 to discuss the following:

· Appointment of Chair and Confirmation of Tāngata Whenua Membership

· Governance Structure and Appointments

· Meeting dates for confirmation (Tuesdays 9:30am) 4 February, 24 March, 5 May, 23 June, 11 August, 29 September, 24 November 2020

· Venue for Citizenship Ceremony

· Waitangi Day 2020

· Upcoming projects for Iwi engagement

· Community - led Coastal Adaptation Project.

· Iwi Updates

· Treaty settlements – overview from each Iwi

· Council Update

· Correspondence

· Future Agenda Requests

The Older Persons’ Council

8 The Older Persons’ Council met on the 27 November 2019 to discuss the following:

· Welcome and safety briefing

· Apologies

· Previous Minutes

· Guest speaker: Workgroups and discussion for potential briefing to new Council, what is of importance to the group, what direction does the OPC want to go?

· Road Safety Advisory Group Update: every second month and items to take to group every other month

· CWB Advisory Group Update: every second month and items to take to group every other month

· Report back from workgroups: Age Friendly, Events, Policy & Submission

· Round the table discussion

Paekākāriki Community Board

9 The Community Board met on the 3 December 2019 to discuss the following:

· Explanation of legislation for new elected members 2019-2022 triennium

· Election of Community Board Chair and Deputy Chair for 2019-2022 triennium

· Update – Wainuiwhenua; Update from NZTA

· Consideration of Funding applications

· Community Board draft calendar of meetings 2020

· Community Board remuneration 2019-2020

Strategy & Operations Committee

10 The Committee met on the 5 December 2019 to discuss the following:

· The 2009 Beach Bylaw Review Project

· 2018-2021 Policy Work Programme Update

· NPS-UDC Quarterly Monitoring Report with Annual Update

· The Local Government Funding Agency 2018/19 Annual Report

· Confirmation of the Council’s vote at the Local Government Funding Agency’s 2019 Annual General Meeting

· Activity Report: 1 July to 30 September 2019

· Finance Report as at 30 September 2019

· Recent submissions to Ministry for the Environment, Department of Internal Affairs, and Parliament’s Social Services and Community Committee

· Contracts Under Delegated Authority

Kāpiti Coast Youth Council

11 The Kāpiti Coast Youth Council met on 9 December 2019 to discuss the following:

· Zeal Update

· Councillors Update

· Te Anamata Update

· Sustainable Communities

· Work Ready Kāpiti Update

· Creative Communities Scheme Youth Representative

· Youth Council General Update

· Mental Health Bill

· Secrets of Kāpiti Update

· Youthoween Debrief Update

· Kāpiti Youth Enviro Summit Discussion

· Youth Survey Project Update

· Intergenerational Meeting update

· Youth Council Member Farewell

Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board

12 The Community Board met on 3 December 2019 to discuss the following:

· Explanation of legislation for new elected members 2019-2022 triennium

· Election of Community Board Chair and Deputy Chair for 2019-2022 triennium

· Consideration of Applications for Funding

· Appointment of Community Board Members to other bodies 2019-2022 triennium

· Draft calendar of Community Board Meetings 2020

· Community Board remuneration 2019-2020

· Notice of Motion – That the Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board request the Council to restore the reduction in the book budget for the Paraparaumu library made in the last Annual Plan.

· Notice of Motion - That the Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board request the Major Events Fund that had been allocated to the horticultural festival FFFLAIR be reallocated for a Feasibility Study for an indoor sports and community centre to be developed on the Kāpiti Coast.

Grants Allocation Subcommittee (Waste Levy)

13 The Subcommittee met on 12 December 2019 to discuss the following:

· Recommendations on Waste Levy Grant applications

The Subcommittee moved in to Public Excluded session to discuss the following:

· Expressions of Interest as appendix for report “Recommendations on Waste Levy Grant applications”

Recommendations

14 That the Council notes the following recommendations:

That Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti gives in-principle approval to the appointment of a Māori representative to the Council’s Strategy and Operations Committee, and agrees to convene a recruitment panel to manage the initial phase of the recruitment process.

That the Paekākāriki Community Board actively encourages the Kāpiti Coast District Council to join with the Wainuiwhenua working group in the next stage of investigating the feasibility of this project and that this relationship be formalised with a Memorandum of Understanding.

That the Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board requests the Council to restore the reduction in the book budget for the Paraparaumu Library made in the last Annual Plan.

That the Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board requests that the Council funds a feasibility study for an Indoor Sports Stadium and Community Centre to be developed on the Kapiti Coast; and that the matter be left to lie on the table for further discussion.

Appendices

Nil

[1] For example, in an April 2019 report by Radio New Zealand, climate economist Belinda Storey stated that insurers are well aware of the risk posed by coastal hazards, and are already signalling those risks by increasing premiums or retreating from insurance altogether. See: Mulligan, Jesse. “Oceans advance, insurers retreat.” Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan, 30 April 2019. Retrieved from https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018692923/coastline-concern-insurance-costs.

[2] The LGNZ submission refers to this as “generic public benefit”.

[3] Kapiti Coast District Council discussed the issues of rates affordability and council debt limits at length in our submissions to the Productivity Commission’s Local Government Funding and Financing Inquiry. Those two submissions can be found online at https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/media/36433/kcdc-submission-on-lg-funding-and-financing_26-sept.pdf, and https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/media/29909/190315-submission-to-productivity-commission-on-local-government-funding.pdf.

[4]Panel members details can be viewed at https://www.mfe.govt.nz/rmreview


AGENDA Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kapiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 30 January 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Wayne Maxwell Chief Executive

Mayor K Gurunathan	Chair
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Deputy
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr James Cootes	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Gwynn Compton	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member