Agenda of Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

8.1 Local Government Funding Agency's 2020/21 Statement Of Intent

Author: Ian Clements, Strategy Advisor

Authoriser: Mark de Haast, Group Manager Corporate Services

Purpose of Report

1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Strategy and Operations Committee with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) 2020/21 Statement of Intent (SOI).

Delegation

2 The Council’s Strategy and Operations Committee has authority to consider this report.

Background

3 The LGFA was incorporated on 1 December 2011 with the primary objective of optimising the debt funding terms and conditions for participating local authorities. This includes providing savings in annual interest costs, making longer-term borrowings available and enhancing the certainty of access to debt markets.

4 The LGFA issues bonds to wholesale and retail investors and on-lends the funds raised to participating local authorities with borrowing needs. The quality of the LGFA’s credit rating and the liquidity created by issuing homogenous local authority paper, ensures that participating councils can raise funds on better terms than if they were issuing in their own name.

5 On 30 November 2012, Kāpiti Coast District Council (the Council) became a principal shareholding local authority^{^[1]} in the LGFA. The LGFA meets the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 definition of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) and as a shareholder in a CCO, the Council must regularly undertake performance monitoring of that organisation to evaluate its contribution to the achievement of the Council’s desired outcomes.

6 As a CCO, the LGFA must deliver to its shareholders a draft SOI on or before 1 March each year. The LGFA board must consider any comments from its shareholders in relation to the draft SOI and deliver a final SOI on or before 30 June.

7 The Council’s monitoring obligations are assisted by the Shareholders’ Council whose role is to represent all the shareholders and ensure that all individual shareholder views are heard. The Shareholders’ Council comprises five to ten appointees from the council shareholders, and one from the Crown.

8 Prior to drafting the SOI, the LGFA received a Letter of Expectations (LoE) from the Shareholders Council, apprising them of the areas of focus that they would like to see addressed in the SOI, over and above the usual performance and accountability requirements. The main issues noted were for the LGFA to:

· demonstrate its relevance in relation to the re-introduction of the four well-beings into local government, and to show that it has considered the well-beings and identified opportunities to reflect them where appropriate;

· ensure that shareholders receive full and early disclosure from the LGFA of company policy breaches by Participating Local Authorities (PLAs), given the PLAs potential liability; and

· confirm that the LGFA is constantly monitoring at both parent and group level and also that any direct lending to Council Controlled Organisations be included in quarterly and annual reports to ensure transparency for all stakeholders.

9 The Committee did not receive the LGFA’s draft 2020/21 SOI which was received by Officers in February 2020 as, due to Covid-19 as well as the significant work required to understand the changes to the LGFA borrowing programme and borrowing covenants, Officers did not have capacity to consider the draft SOI.

Issues and Options

Issues

10 The LGFA has finalised the 2020/21 SOI, which includes addressing the Shareholders Council’s specific concerns, as outlined above. The Shareholders Council has engaged with the LGFA over the development of the SOI, the draft and final SOIs have been reviewed by the Shareholders’ Council who support the adoption by Shareholders.

11 The key intentions and expectations of the LGFA remain the same – to optimise debt funding terms and conditions, including the provision of savings in annual interest costs on a relative basis to other sources of financing.

12 The following points regarding the 2020/21 SOI are of note:

· The SOI performance targets are similar to the previous year’s targets except the LGFA has increased the target for both market share and council satisfaction scores to 85% from the previous 80% and 75% targets.

· There remains some uncertainty within the SOI forecasts relating to the amount of both council loans and LGFA bonds outstanding as this depends upon the magnitude and timing of council borrowing. The likely impact of COVID-19 on the financial position of councils and their borrowing requirements is still evolving but the LGFA has increased its estimates of council borrowing (and bonds issued) by $250 million in each of the next three years compared to the draft SOI that was received in February 2020. This reflects the uncertainty that prevails - councils’ reduced revenue might restrict their capital expenditure, and the associated borrowing to finance it while at the same time, infrastructure investment may be accelerated in the interests of creating economic growth.

· The timing and amount of refinancing of council loans maturing in May 2021 and the associated repayment of the LGFA May 2021 bonds might also have an impact on the SOI forecasts.

13 The changes made to the Final SOI compared to the Draft SOI distributed in February 2020 have been to:

· Broaden the objectives to include contributing to the four well-beings and to assist the sector with its response to COVID-19.

· Net interest income has reduced by $200,000 in the 2020/21 year reflecting lower interest rates (approximately 0.75% lower) but has increased by $300,000 and $6.7 million in the subsequent years because of the higher level of assets and increases in the base on-lending margin compared to the starting position.

· Expenses have reduced by $200,000 in the first two years due to a lower expected amount of offshore bondholders reducing our Approved Issuer Levy payments.

14 The LGFA’s financial forecasts compared with those projected in its draft SOI and in last year’s SOI are shown in the tables below:

Net profit before tax	2020/21 $000	2021/22 $000	2022/23 $000
2019/20 SOI	12,600	12,400	-
2020/21 Draft SOI	10,800	12,100	14,400
2020/21 Final SOI	10,900	12,700	21,000

15 Although profitability has increased materially in 2022/23 due to the interest earned on the higher level of assets held, the profit is forecast to be retained by LGFA on its balance sheet to ensure it can maintain its credit rating at the same level as the government.

16 The LGFA final 2020/21 Statement of Intent is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Considerations

Policy considerations

17 In accordance with the LGA 2002, the Council has provided information on all of its CCOs in its draft 2018/38 Long Term Plan.

Legal considerations

18 There are no legal considerations arising from the matters in this report.

Financial considerations

19 There are no financial considerations arising from this report.

Tāngata whenua considerations

20 There are no tāngata whenua considerations arising from this report.

Strategic considerations

21 The prudent use of the LGFA for all the Council’s borrowing requirements contributes to the key 10-year outcome of improved financial position against financial constraints by allowing the Council to achieve lower interest rate costs.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

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

Consultation already undertaken

23 There is no need to consult on the matters discussed in this report.

Engagement planning

24 An engagement plan is not needed for this report to be considered.

Publicity

25 There are no publicity considerations.

Recommendations

26 That the Strategy and Operations Committee notes the contents of the LGFA final 2020/21 Statement of Intent.

Appendices

1. LGFA final 2020/21 Statement of Intent ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

8.2 CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNCIL'S VOTE AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY'S 2020 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Author: Ian Clements, Strategy Advisor

Authoriser: Mark de Haast, Group Manager Corporate Services

Purpose of Report

1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Strategy and Operations Committee of the Agenda items at the coming Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), as well as to update the Committee on the Council’s voting intentions for each Agenda item.

Delegation

2 While noting that this report is for information, the Strategy and Operations Committee, with its broad role of financial management, including risk mitigation, has the delegation to consider this report.

Background

3 On 30 November 2012, the Council became a Principal Shareholding Local Authority in the LGFA. The LGFA was incorporated on 1 December 2011 with the primary objective of optimising the debt funding terms and conditions for Participating Local Authorities. This includes providing savings in annual interest costs, making longer-term borrowings available and enhancing the certainty of access to debt markets.

4 The LGFA issues bonds to wholesale and retail investors and on-lends the funds raised to participating local authorities with borrowing needs. The quality of the LFGA’s credit rating, and the liquidity created by issuing homogenous local authority paper, ensures that participating councils can raise funds on better terms than if they were issuing in their own name.

5 Since the LGFA was established in 2011, the local authority membership of the Shareholders’ Council has come almost entirely from the ‘tight nine‘ group of Councils’ that promoted and steered the establishment of the LGFA, plus the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, which was also a foundation member. These members also have the largest shareholdings in the LGFA.

6 The LGFA meets the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) definition of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) as one or more local authorities have the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors. As a shareholder in a CCO, the Council must regularly undertake performance monitoring of that organisation to evaluate its contribution to the achievement of the Council’s desired outcomes.

7 The LGFA is holding its AGM on 19 November 2020 in Wellington and the Agenda items include:

· election of directors to the LGFA Board;

· election of Nominating Local Authorities (NLA) to the Shareholders’ Council; and

· approval of minor changes to the LGFA Foundation Policies.

Issues and Options

Voting rights

8 At an AGM, where voting is by show of hands or by voice, every Shareholder of ordinary Shares who is present in person (or represented by proxy), has one vote.

9 However, on a poll, every Shareholder present in person (or represented by proxy), has one vote in respect of each fully paid ordinary Share held by that Shareholder.

10 A poll can be called at an AGM in a number of ways, including by the Chair, by at least five shareholders, or a group of shareholders with a shareholding greater than 10%. The original ‘tight nine’ members each have an 8.3% shareholding which means that only two current members of the Shareholders Council are needed to call for a poll.

11 In the event of a poll, with the greater power exercised by the ‘tight nine’ as a result of their vastly superior shareholdings, a majority vote can be effected by just six of them.

12 In practice, this means that the twenty or so councils’ that aren’t in the Shareholders Council are effectively powerless in bringing about change to either the Board or the Shareholders Council if they are not supported by at least half of the Shareholders Council. To date, neither the Board nor the Shareholders Council have shown much appetite for changing their memberships.

13 Appendix 1 shows the tenure of the LGFA directors and the NLAs since the LGFA was established. While there is a rotation of both directors and NLAs at each AGM, they have resulted in little or no change as, almost without exception, the retiring members are re-elected.

Election of directors

14 The LGFA Shareholders Agreement requires the Board to comprise five independent directors and one non-independent director. Currently, the five independent directors are John Avery, Philip Cory-Wright, Anthony Quirk, Linda Robertson and Craig Stobo and the non-independent director is Mike Timmer.

15 Independent directors are defined in the Shareholders’ Agreement as a director “who is not an employee of any shareholder, employee of a CCO owned (in whole or in part) by any shareholder or a councillor of any Local Authority which is a shareholder and was not such an employee or councillor at any time in the five years prior to the time that person’s appointment as a director. For the avoidance of doubt, a director (or former director) of a CCO shall not by virtue of this reason alone be precluded from being an independent director.”

16 The Shareholders’ Agreement sets out that one of the independent directors and the non-independent director must retire by rotation each year. If they wish, they can offer themselves for re-election. Accordingly, this year Philip Cory-Wright retires by rotation and offers himself for re-election as an independent director.

17 The LGFA has one non-independent director, who by definition is an employee of a shareholder council or council-controlled organisation. The current non-independent director, Mike Timmer, retires by rotation and offers himself for re-election as a non-independent director.

18 On behalf of the Kāpiti Coast District Council and in accordance with paragraph 3.5 of the Shareholders Agreement, the Mayor has formally nominated the Council’s Chief Executive to the LGFA Board as a non-independent director. The Council’s Nomination Letter to the LGFA is attached as Appendix 2 and a brief biography of the Chief Executive is attached as Appendix 3.

19 Both Philip Cory-Wright and Mike Timmer have the support of the Shareholders’ Council and the LGFA Board to continue as directors of LGFA. Officers find no reason to vote against either of the candidates standing for re-election as directors on the LGFA Board because of the effective performance to date of the LGFA and the skills and experience of the nominated directors.

20 However, notwithstanding the above, the Council has on several occasions in the past voiced concern over the lack of ‘refreshment’ of both the LGFA Board and the NLAs.

21 The data on directors’ terms clearly shows lengthy tenures for many of the incumbents, which can support continuity however three of the Board will be entering their tenth consecutive year at the coming AGM. Board refreshment is generally understood to generate creative thinking and promote good governance.

22 New directors can bring a freshness of insight, and changes in the operating climate may require new skill sets. A systematic rotation on and off the board lessens the likelihood that a board becomes tired and loses vitality.

23 As tenures increase, concerns around longevity can be considered in light of the recurring statistic in PwC’s Annual Corporate Directors Survey, which states that 45% of board members feel that someone on their board should be replaced.

Officers’ Recommendation

24 The Council’s Chief Executive has the necessary skills and experience to add value to the LGFA Board. This is no disrespect to any of the incumbents, rather a recognition that there has long been a lack of refreshment on the LGFA Board which could easily be addressed by bringing in new and capable members. Accordingly, the Council will vote for its own Chief Executive.

25 In the absence of independent director alternatives, the Council supports the nomination of Philip Cory-Wright, noting that this will be his tenth year on the Board.

Election of Nominating Local Authorities to the Shareholders’ Council

26 Each NLA may appoint one member of the Shareholders Council, and remove or replace any member that it appoints. Each member appointed by a NLA must be an employee or councillor of that NLA.

27 A Principal Shareholder may be appointed or removed as a NLA (a nominator of membership to the Shareholders' Council) by ordinary resolution, provided that no more than nine NLAs are appointed.

28 In addition, the New Zealand Government (for so long as it is a Shareholder) may appoint or remove one other member of the Shareholders' Council.

29 The Shareholders’ Council comprises between five and 10 members with the current members being the Crown and nine Council members. The current NLAs are:

· Auckland Council;

· Bay of Plenty Regional Council;

· Christchurch City Council;

· Hamilton City Council;

· Tasman District Council;

· Tauranga City Council;

· Wellington City Council;

· Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and

· Whangarei District Council.

30 The Shareholders Agreement requires two NLA members to retire by rotation each year. If they wish, they can offer themselves for re-election. This year Tasman District Council and Wellington City Council will retire and seek re-election and New Plymouth District Council is seeking to be elected to the Shareholders Council for the first time.

31 At the last few year’s AGMs, Council officers have recommended voting for the candidates standing for re-election as there have been no alternatives. However officers have also recommended that the matter of ‘refreshing’ the composition of the Shareholders’ Council also be raised with the LGFA and the Shareholders’ Council.

32 The reasons for seeking to refresh the Shareholders Council composition are:

· because all LGFA shareholders regularly transact with the LGFA and having a greater shareholding (as a result of being a foundation member) does not mean that a council is any better placed to assess the governance or operations of an organisation than other councils with smaller shareholdings;

· other councils, for example, those undertaking more business with the LGFA are as well if not better placed to be considered as NLA appointments. Using the value of loans held at 30 June 2020 as a proxy for the amount of business done with the LGFA, officer’s analysis suggests that the Hutt City Council, Kāpiti Coast District Council and Rotorua District Council are worthy of consideration to become NLAs;

· to facilitate greater representation from the regions given that the majority of the current members of the Shareholders’ Council are large metropolitan councils, whose views may not reflect those of their more provincial counterparts; and

· the uninterrupted membership of the Shareholders Council cannot be considered best practice and has resulted in a two-tier governance system, wherein the top tier exists principally by virtue of its superior shareholding.

Officers’ Recommendation

33 Officers recommend the election of the New Plymouth District Council, as a good way to start refreshing the Shareholders Council. Of the retiring NLAs - Tasman District Council and Wellington City Council - officers recommend the re-election of Tasman District Council to provide regional representation of the South Island.

Changes to Foundation Policies

34 All shareholder councils must comply with the ‘Foundation Policies’ outlined in the Shareholders Agreement. Any changes to the Foundation Policies and the Shareholders Agreement are effected by way of an Ordinary Resolution of the shareholders.

35 There are two proposed changes to the Foundation Policies requiring shareholder approval by Ordinary Resolution:

i. an increase in the size of the liquid assets held on the LGFA balance sheet, requiring greater Treasury Policy limits; and

ii. removing a limit on a council’s loans maturing in a rolling 12-month period.

36 These changes are relatively minor and are set out in Appendix 4 to this report, with additional supporting information in Appendix 5 to this report. The key impacts of the changes are summarised below.

Increase in the Treasury Policy limits

37 The LGFA holds a liquid asset portfolio (LAP) to meet short term liquidity requirements, such as timing mismatches between loans made to councils and bonds issued by the LGFA to fund these loans. The LAP, which had grown to around $1.2 billion as at 30 June 2020, is primarily funded by the excess funds received from the issue of LGFA bonds over the amount needed to source council loans. The LAP comprises mainly securities issued by, or deposits with NZ Government and domestic banks.

38 The LGFA’s business has both grown and changed over the last few years and the size of the LGFA balance sheet has increased significantly, thus requiring a larger LAP. In order to cater for the increasing terms and amounts of council borrowing, the LAP also needs to have as much flexibility as possible, in terms of the range and maturity terms of its investments.

39 These changes are effected by increasing the term of Non-Government holdings in the LAP from three to five years, which will also enhance yield. In addition, allowing the LGFA to hold a small amount of A2 commercial paper, in addition to the A1 and A1+ already permitted, will increase both diversification and yield.

Officers’ Recommendation

40 Officers recommend that both the above Treasury Policy limits be approved to enable the LGFA to meet its short term liquidity requirements.

Removing the limit on borrowings that can mature in a 12-month period

41 This change removes a borrowings limit that previously allowed councils / CCOs to have no more than the greater of $100 million / 33% of total borrowings to mature in a 12-month period. This limit was relevant during the establishment phase but is no longer applicable given the size of the LAP and the diversity and range of maturities of the LGFA loan book.

Officers’ Recommendation

42 Officers support this proposed change because there is little risk of the LGFA not being able to cover short term maturities.

Considerations

Policy considerations

43 There are no policy considerations.

Legal considerations

44 The Council’s voting intentions are to be clearly set out on the Proxy Form which must be delivered to the LGFA not less than 48 hours prior to the AGM, and is attached as Appendix 6 to this report.

Financial considerations

45 There are no financial considerations in addition to those already discussed within this report.

Tāngata whenua considerations

46 There are no issues requiring specific consideration by Tāngata whenua.

Strategic considerations

47 The prudent use of the LGFA for all the Council’s borrowing requirements contributes to the key 10-year outcome of improved financial position against financial constraints by allowing the Council to achieve lower interest rate costs.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

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

Consultation already undertaken

49 No consultation has been undertaken in the development of this report.

Engagement planning

50 An engagement plan is not needed for this report to be considered.

Publicity

51 There are no publicity considerations.

Recommendations

50 That the Strategy and Operations Committee:

i. receives and notes this report, including Appendices 1 to 6 of this report; and

ii. recommends that the Strategy and Operations Committee:

a) notes that the Chief Executive authorises Mark de Haast (Group Manager Corporate Services) to vote on behalf of the Council, at the LGFA’s 2020 AGM on 19 November 2020, in accordance with the Council’s votes on recommendations (aa) to (ee) inclusive, noting Council recommendations in bold;

or, if Council officers were unable to attend the Annual General Meeting:

b) notes that the Chief Executive authorises Mark Butcher (Chief Executive Officer, LGFA) as the Council’s proxy to vote on behalf of the Council, at the LGFA’s 2020 AGM to be held on 19 November 2020, in accordance with the Council’s votes on recommendations (aa) to (ee) inclusive, noting Council recommendations in bold:

(aa) elect Wayne Maxwell as non-independent director of the LGFA - (For/Against); and

(bb) re-elect Philip Cory-Wright as an independent director of the LGFA - (For/Against); and

(cc) elect New Plymouth District Council as a NLA - (For/Against); and

(dd) re-elect Tasman District Council as a NLA - (For/Against);

(ee) approve the amendments to the LGFA Foundation Policies - (For/Against).

Appendices

1. LGFA Board and Shareholders' Council Tenure ⇩

2. Letter to LGFA - Nomination for Board of Directors - Wayne Maxwell ⇩

3. Wayne Maxwell - Biography ⇩

4. Notice of LGFA AGM November 2020 ⇩

5. LGFA Foundation Policies Proposed Tracked Changes - November AGM 2020 ⇩

6. Proxy Form LGFA AGM 2020 ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

8.3 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY 2019/20 ANNUAL REPORT

Author: Ian Clements, Strategy Advisor

Authoriser: Mark de Haast, Group Manager Corporate Services

Purpose of Report

1 The purpose of this report is to update the Strategy and Operations Committee on the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) 2019/20 Annual Report.

Delegation

Background

3 The LGFA was established in December 2011 to provide long-dated borrowing, certainty of access to markets and to reduce the borrowing costs for the local government sector. On 30 November 2012, the Council became a Principal Shareholding Local Authority in the LGFA.

4 The LGFA issues bonds to wholesale and retail investors and on-lends the funds raised to participating local authorities with borrowing needs. The quality of the LGFA’s credit rating, and the liquidity created by issuing homogenous local authority paper, ensures that participating councils can raise funds on better terms than if they were issuing in their own name.

5 The LGFA meets the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 definition of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) as one or more local authorities have the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors.

6 As a shareholder in a CCO, the Council must regularly undertake performance monitoring of that organisation to evaluate its contribution to the achievement of the Council’s desired outcomes.

Issues and Options

LGFA performance for the 2019/20 year

7 LGFA recorded a profit of $10.6 million for the year. While this is ahead of the budgeted $10 million profit it is less than the $11.8 million profit recorded in 2017/18, and the $11.2 million in 2018/19 which were both from lower revenue. Lower profitability compared to previous years is due to the lower level of interest rates resulting in less income from the Liquid Assets Portfolio (LAP) as well as many councils refinancing maturing loans with lower margin loans.

8 The LGFA continues to grow, both in terms of its balance sheet with total loans to councils reaching $10.9 billion at 30 June 2020 (2019: $9.31 billion) and participating councils growing from 64 to 67 during the year.

9 Auckland Council is the LGFA’s largest borrower ($2.8 billion), followed by Christchurch City Council ($1.9 billion). As at 30 June 2020, Kāpiti Coast District Council ranked as the 8^th largest borrower with $210.4 million in gross borrowings (including accrued interest). Net borrowings, taking account of cash and term deposits to prefund borrowings, and borrower notes was $155.7 million as at 30 June 2020.

10 The LGFA has a number of primary objectives including making longer-term borrowings available, offering flexible lending and enhancing the certainty of access to debt markets. The table below shows the LGFA’s results against its key performance measures:

2019-20 performance targets	Target	Result for 12 month period to 30 June 2020	Outcome
Net interest income for the period to 30 June 2020	> $17.9 million	$18.2 million	a
LGFA’s annual issuance and operating expenses (excluding AIL) for the period	< $6.30 million	$6.26 million	a
Total lending to Participating Local Authorities	> $9.792 billion	$10.899 billion	a
Conduct an annual survey of councils who borrow from the LGFA	Achieve > 80% satisfaction score for value added by the LGFA	100%	a
Meet all lending requests from Participating Local Authorities, where those requests meet LGFA operational and covenant requirements			a
Achieve 75% market share of all council borrowing in New Zealand		86%	a
Review each Participating Local Authority’s financial position, its headroom under LGFA policies and arrange to meet each Participating Local Authority at least annually			r
No breaches of Treasury Policy, any regulatory or legislative requirements including the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015			r
Successfully refinance existing loans to councils and LGFA bond maturities as they fall due			a
Maintain a credit rating equal to the New Zealand Government rating where both entities are rated by the same credit rating agency.			a

11 As can be seen, the LGFA achieved eight of its 10 performance targets. It’s likely that the most important performance measure for all the LGFA’s borrowers is providing annual interest costs to Participating Local Authorities (PLAs) on a competitive basis compared to other sources of finance. This is no longer included as a performance measure by the LGFA due to the difficulty in accurately assessing the savings.

12 Nevertheless, the LGFA estimates that as at 30 June 2020, it was saving AA-rated councils between -4 and 10 basis points (bps) depending upon the term of the maturity. The Council’s upgraded AA rating means that, based on the LGFA loans of 210.4 million as at June 2020, a 7bps (estimated using the midpoint of -4 and 10bps) saving equates to around $147,000 savings to the Council in 2019/20.

13 Regarding the performance measures not achieved – there were two compliance breaches of the Treasury Policy during the period. There was no financial loss as a consequence, the breaches were fully reported by the LGFA and their controls have been reviewed to mitigate against further breaches. The other performance measure not achieved relates to reviewing and visiting all PLAs at least annually – the LGFA visited 31 of the 67 PLAs. It is reasonable to acknowledge that this measure was impacted to some extent by Covid-19, and the associated travel restrictions.

14 The LGFA undoubtedly provides savings to councils and seeks to incorporate comprehensive risk and financial management systems into its operations. The compliance breach and the lower than perhaps expected profit are not significant concerns but they do highlight the importance of the Council’s ongoing monitoring of the organisation.

15 From the perspective of the Kāpiti Coast District Council, the LGFA has provided borrowing with interest rates and lending terms that have enabled the Council to meet its financial objectives and to stay within its financial targets.

16 The full LGFA 2019/20 Annual Report is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Considerations

Policy considerations

17 In accordance with the LGA 2002, the Council must provide information on all of its CCOs in its Long Term Plan (LTP). Accordingly, the Council’s 2018-38 LTP contains information on the LGFA, including key performance targets and other performance metrics

Legal considerations

18 There are no legal considerations arising from the matters in this report.

Financial considerations

19 On 28 August 2020, the LGFA Directors declared a dividend of $878,500 ($0.03514 per paid up share). This equates to a dividend payment of $3,514 for the Council.

20 Council is one of 31 local authority shareholders of the LGFA and has an obligation in respect of uncalled capital of $100,000.

21 At 30 June 2020, the LGFA had borrowings totalling $12.038 billion (2019: $9.612 billion).

22 Council considers the risk of the LGFA defaulting on repayment of interest or capital to be very low on the basis that:

(a) The only circumstance where LGFA would default on its debt is the event where a council defaulted on a loan obligation that exceeded LGFA’s available liquidity assets. As at 30 June 2020, this would need to be a single council default event that exceeded the sum of:

· cash and deposits of $665.7 million,

· LGFA borrower notes of $182.2 million,

· LGFA credit facility of $700 million, and

· uncalled share capital of $20 million from LGFA shareholders.

(b) In the event of an LGFA default, the call on the guarantee is made on the Council’s proportion of their share of the underlying rate base.

23 In the event of a default exceeding the LGFA’s available liquid assets, the council would be called for 1.1% of the overall call (less than the council’s 2.2% of LGFA’s loan assets).

Tāngata whenua considerations

24 There are no Tāngata whenua considerations.

Strategic considerations

25 The prudent use of the LGFA for all the Council’s borrowing requirements contributes to the key 10-year outcome of improved financial position against financial constraints by allowing the Council to achieve lower interest rate costs.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

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

Consultation already undertaken

27 There is no need to consult on the matters discussed in this report.

Engagement planning

28 An engagement plan is not needed for this report to be considered.

Publicity

29 There are no publicity considerations.

Recommendations

30 That the Strategy and Operations Committee notes the performance of the Local Government Funding Agency as set out in its 2019/20 Annual Report, attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Appendices

1. LGFA 2019/2020 Annual Report ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

PDF Creator

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

8.4 Decision on Proposed District Plan Variation 2 - Waikanae Beach Rezoning and Amendments to the Beach Character Setback Margin Provisions

Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Authoriser: Angela Bell, Acting Group Manager Regulatory Services

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks a decision to adopt the hearing panel’s recommendations on Variation 2 to the Kapiti Coast Proposed District Plan (PDP) as contained in Attachments 1, 2 and 3.

2 The variation has two parts comprising:

a) rezoning of part of Waikanae Beach (known as the ‘Olde Beach’ area) from Residential Zone to Beach Residential Zone, and introduction of amended Beach Residential Zone provisions for subdivision and development within the rezoned area; and

b) deletion of the beach character setback margin front yard provisions which apply to all properties in the existing Beach Residential Zones, replacing these with a minimum 4.5 metre front yard setback standard for all buildings (the same as the operative district plan).

Delegation

3 The Strategy and Operations Committee has delegated authority to make this decision as set out in Section B.1 of the Governance Structure and Delegations for the 2019-2022 triennium. The relevant parts of this delegation are:

This Committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of the Council. Key responsibilities will include:

· …

· Development and/or review of strategies, plans, policies and bylaws

· Preparation of District Plan and Plan Changes…

POWERS

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities except powers that the Council cannot delegate or has retained to itself.

Background

4 The variation has an extensive history which is described in Section 2.0 of the Section 42A report (Attachment 4). The background to each of the two parts of the variation is summarised below:

Rezoning

5 The proposed change of zoning of the ‘Olde Beach’ area from Residential Zone to Beach Residential Zone is consistent with the community vision for Waikanae Beach expressed in the document “Our Future Waikanae Beach – Community vision and action plan for Waikanae Beach 2017”. The concept of a Beach Residential Zone is not new with three existing Beach Residential Zones at Paekākāriki, Raumati and Ōtaki Beach.

6 The “Our Future” document expresses a community desire to protect the relaxed beach character of the settlement and maintain a low density, low rise built form. It was developed by the Waikanae Beach community between 2015 and 2017 with the involvement of Council staff, the Waikanae Community Board and Iwi. It was endorsed by the Waikanae Community Board in March 2017, and noted and acknowledged by the Strategy and Policy Committee on 17 May 2017.

7 To further inform the development of district plan provisions to achieve the community’s stated desires, in late 2017 Urban Perspectives were commissioned to conduct a character assessment of Waikanae Beach. The assessment provided the evidential basis for the spatial extent of the area to be rezoned, and for specific plan change amendments necessary to retain the area’s special character.

Beach Character Setback Margin Provisions

8 The beach character setback margin provisions (shown as struck-through text in Attachment 2) set the front yard setback from the legal road for the primary residential building^{^[2]} on a property within the Beach Residential Zone. The formula for determining the specific setback on a property-by-property basis is complex and does not provide for all circumstances. All other building on properties within the Beach Residential Zone must be set back at least 4.5 metres from the road boundary. These provisions have been in the PDP since its notification in November 2012 but only gained legal effect once decisions on the PDP were released in November 2017.

9 Experience in implementing the beach character setback margin provisions identified significant technical difficulties with the provisions. These can be summarised as:

a) The permitted activity provisions did not anticipate all scenarios, meaning in some cases it was not possible to achieve the beach character setback margin as directed by the definition. This triggered the requirement for resource consent. For example:

(i) Additions to existing dwellings which are not within the beach character setback margin e.g. a dwelling positioned toward the rear of a property, where the neighbouring dwellings are positioned closer to the front boundary (and vice versa);

(ii) Proposed new dwellings which are proposed to be positioned toward the rear of a property, where the neighbouring dwellings are positioned closer to the front boundary (and vice versa);

(iii) Properties which have frontage to two roads will have two beach character setback margins to comply with, however the definition does not anticipate such situations (no alternative yard setback is provided);

In these situations, resource consents were required even though the proposed building or building additions would achieve a generous setback from the front boundary, in keeping with the established character of the area.

b) Calculating the beach character setback margin, in many instances, may require access to neighbouring properties to take measurements. There are practical and legal challenges associated with such an approach. If permission is not obtained from the neighbouring properties it may not be possible to demonstrate compliance with the setback standard.

10 To eliminate these difficulties, Variation 2 deletes the beach character setback margin provisions in their entirety and replaces them with a simple 4.5 metre front yard setback for all buildings. For properties within the Beach Residential Zone this will reinstate the front yard setback from the Operative District Plan 1999.

11 To eliminate these difficulties as soon as practicable the District Planning team sought and obtained approval from the Environment Court to give these amendments immediate legal affect from notification. The Environment Court agreed that the practical difficulties with the provisions were significant and approval was granted in August 2019.

Notification, submissions and hearing

12 Approval to notify the variation was granted by the Strategy and Policy Committee at its meeting on 21 March 2019.

13 The variation was notified in August 2019. Nineteen submissions and four further submissions were received. One submission and one further submission opposed the variation, two submissions and one further submission sought amendments, while all other submissions and further submissions supported the variation and requested it be adopted as notified.

14 No submissions in opposition were received on the beach character setback margin amendments. Consequently, as required by section 86F(1)(a) of the RMA, these amendments have been treated as operative since the closing of submissions on 9 October 2019.

15 In July 2020 a hearings panel was appointed to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Council on the variation and submissions. The hearing panel members were:

a) Robert Schofield – Independent Chair (Boffa Miskell);

b) Councillor Holborow – Hearings Commissioner; and

c) Miria Pomare – Independent Hearings Commissioner with expertise in tikanga Māori.

16 A hearing was held on 3 August 2020 at the Sports Turf Pavilion at Scaife Drive. The hearings panel heard from seven submitters over the one-day hearing.

17 The Council’s Principal Policy Planner then prepared a right of reply to assist the hearings panel in their deliberations.

18 Following receipt of the right of reply the hearings panel retired to deliberate and prepare a recommendation report for the Council’s consideration. The recommendation report makes recommendations on all submissions and the final variation provisions (Attachments 1, 2 and 3).

Issues and Options

Issues

19 The following submitters attended the hearing to present to the hearings panel:

· Penelope Eames

· William & Kay Wiggs

· John Valentine

· Karen Tate

· Andrew Hazelton, with Sarah Poff providing expert landscape and urban design evidence

· Quentin Poole

· Gerald Rys.

20 In their recommendation report, the Hearings panel address the following key matters raised by submitters:

a) Issue 1: Should the Variation proceed or be discarded

b) Issue 2: Name of area to be rezoned

c) Issue 3: Extent of area to be rezoned

d) Issue 4: Proposed Policy 5.5A

e) Issue 5: Fences

f) Issue 6: Site coverage and floor area ratio

g) Issue 7: Maximum access width.

21 A summary of the panel’s findings is provided below. Reference must be made to the hearing panel’s recommendation report for the full details of these issues and the reasoning for the hearing panel’s recommendations.

Issue 1: Should the Variation proceed or be discarded

22 The hearings panel heard from Mr Valentine who opposes the rezoning variation and requests it be withdrawn so the status quo remains. The submitter considered there is no evidence proving a need for the rezoning and rule changes. The submitter also considered that:

a) the eclectic character of the ‘Olde Beach Waikanae’ has evolved over time under the present zoning rules;

b) the proposed zoning changes would place an unnecessary restriction on the property rights of residents; and

c) the proposed changes, rather than preserve the character of ‘Olde Beach Waikanae’, would force negative change.

23 The Council’s Principal Policy Planner (the Policy Planner) outlined the evidential basis underpinning the proposed changes and addressed the other matters raised by the submitter. The Policy Planner noted existing use rights would protect the rights of property owners who have lawfully-established buildings and fences that do not meet the requirements of the variation. The Policy Planner also highlighted the community support for the variation demonstrated by the other submissions.

24 The hearings panel agreed that the variation should proceed.

Issue 2: Name of area to be rezoned

25 The hearings panel heard a range of submitter views on the proposed naming of area to be rezoned. The hearings panel heard from Mr Poole who requested the name be amended to refer to the ‘old’ beach area rather than the proposed ‘olde’ beach area.

26 The Council’s Policy Planner noted the term ‘olde beach area’ only appears in the character study which identifies the area and its special characteristics. In the PDP itself, the intended name of the area to be rezoned was the “Beach Residential Area at Waikanae Beach”. This ensures consistency of terminology with the other existing beach residential zones in the District.

27 The hearings panel agreed that the PDP refer to the area as the “Beach Residential Area at Waikanae Beach”.

Issue 3: Extent of area to be rezoned

28 The hearings panel heard from Mr Poole who considered the variation should include another area which was not included in the proposed area to be rezoned.

29 The Council’s Policy Planner noted the area requested by Mr Poole to be rezoned had been previously checked by the Council’s independent urban design expert in response to consultation with affected property owners on the draft variation. The urban design expert did not recommend the inclusion of the area Mr Poole requested be included.

30 The hearings panel agreed that the extent of area initially proposed to be rezoned was appropriate.

Issue 4: Proposed Policy 5.5A

31 The variation proposes to add a new policy to be considered during the resource consent process. The proposed policy, which was developed in partnership with iwi, is as follows:

Policy 5.5A – Waikanae Beach

Subdivision, use and development in the Beach residential zone at Waikanae Beach will be undertaken in a manner that respects and recognises the cultural context and history of the area, including through:

a) limiting subdivision, use and development that affects the dune system in the area;

b) limiting the density of subdivision in the area; and

c) maintaining the natural character of vegetation in the area.

32 The hearings panel heard from Mr Poole who requested additional text be added to proposed Policy 5.5A to include the following additional matters:

a) Specified roads will not have constructed kerbs, channelling and footpaths;

b) Specified roads will only have one constructed footpath;

c) Angle parking will be retained on Tūtere Street; and

d) Institutional knowledge is retained and is obvious to both KCDC staff and resident/clients.

33 The Council’s Policy Planner considered the requested amendments are not appropriate for a district plan. Matters relating to kerbs, channelling, footpaths, and parking are best addressed through other local government instruments, while the retention of institutional knowledge within the Kapiti Coast District Council is not a Resource Management Act (RMA) matter.

34 The hearings panel agreed that those additional matters not be added to the policy.

Issue 5: Fences

35 The variation proposes to require at least 50% visual permeability of front boundary fences if over 1.2 metres in height. The character study of the area^{^[3]} notes:

Many frontages have no or low height fences. Where they are built to the 1.8m height, they present a barrier to the street. A lower height limit is recommended to avoid properties ‘fencing themselves’ off from the community and promote informal surveillance. Privacy can be attained through planting.

36 The hearings panel heard from Mr Poole and Mr Valentine who both seek to retain the status quo for fences along a front boundary. The status quo for front boundary fence is 1.8 metres high, which may be solid.

37 The Policy Planner pointed to the reasons given in the character study for the recommended fence provisions and also noted a 1.2 metre high fence complies with the minimum requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987^{^[4]}. On this basis the Policy Planner recommended the submissions be rejected.

38 The hearings panel considered the proposed fence provisions strike an appropriate balance between achieving safety and the rights of property owners, and recognising the social and physical character of the Waikanae Beach area. They also noted that:

a) Privacy screening can be achieved by planting as noted in the character study; and

b) Existing fences that do not meet the recommended new front fence standard benefit from existing use rights under section 10 of the RMA.

39 Accordingly, the hearings panel agreed that the proposed fencing requirements were appropriate.

Issue 6: Site coverage and floor area ratio

40 All three of the current Beach Residential zones in the district have a reduced site coverage standard compared to other residential areas. They are also subject to a floor area ratio standard, which is the relationship derived from dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on a property by the total property area, expressed as a ratio.

41 The intent of the floor area ratio is to limit the bulk of a building, particularly if a second storey is proposed. This is a tool to help maintain the special character of the Beach Residential zones. Together, the floor area ratio works in conjunction with the site coverage standard as a means of reducing the bulky appearance of buildings. This is intended to help maintain the low density and low-rise character of settlements at the beach.

42 The notified variation proposed a site coverage of 35% and a floor area ratio of 0.6:1.0 for the Waikanae Beach area. These standards are the same as those that apply to the existing Beach Residential zones.

43 The hearings panel heard from Sarah Poff, and expert landscape architect who presented evidence on behalf of the submission of Mr Hazleton. Ms Poff considered the 35% site coverage to be the most beneficial for maintaining the special character of the area, but this must be in conjunction with a floor area ratio as low as possible, preferably 0.4:1.0.

44 Having carefully considered all these factors the hearings panel recommended a site coverage of 35% and a floor area ratio of 0.5:1.0 (being the lowest possible within the scope provided by submissions).

Issue 7: Maximum access width

45 The variation proposes to reduce the maximum access width for vehicles to a property within the area from 9 metres to 6 metres. This is intended to help maintain the special character of the area.

46 The hearings panel heard from Mr Poole who requested the maximum access width be retained as 9 metres, citing practical difficulties such as parking boats and vehicles.

47 The Policy Planner informed the hearings panel that a 6-metre-wide access is considered the minimum width necessary for two-way heavy vehicle access such as service stations. This suggests a 6-metre-wide limit in a residential setting would not present any practical difficulties in parking boats and vehicles.

48 The hearings panel heard from two other submitters supporting the 6-metre-wide access standard, who considered it would help protect the character of the area.

49 The hearings panel agreed the proposed 6-metre-wide access would not present any practical difficulties, and accordingly recommended it be retained.

Option 1 – Adopt Hearing Panel’s Recommendations (Recommended)

50 It is recommended that the Strategy and Operations Committee adopt the recommendations of the hearings panel that the variation be finalised as set out in Attachment 2, and all submissions be accepted, accepted in part or rejected for the reasons set out in Attachment 3.

51 The Hearing Panel’s recommendation report will then become the Council decision and Council must give notice of its decision under Clause 10 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

52 Following notification of the Council’s decision, those persons who made a submission on the variation may lodge an appeal to the Environment Court within 30 working days.

Option 2 – Council Rejects the Hearing Panel’s Recommendations (Not Recommended)

53 Should the Strategy and Operations Committee reject one or more of the proposed changes and recommendations made by the hearings panel, the hearing process would need to be re-commenced.

Option 3 – Council Withdraws the Variation (Not Recommended)

54 The Strategy and Operations Committee has the ability to withdraw the variation under Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

55 A considerable amount of resources has been put into the preparation and processing of the variation to get it to this stage. Taking into account the support for the variation from the community, and the benefits to property owners resulting from the replacement of Beach Residential Zone front yard provisions, this option is not recommended.

56 It is noted the Council is able to withdraw the variation at any time before an Environment Court appeal hearing commences (if any appeals are made). If no appeals are made the Council may still withdraw the appeal at any time before the variation is made operative (making a variation operative requires a resolution of Council).

Considerations

Policy considerations

Policy considerations

57 The Hearing Panel’s report summarises its recommendations following the hearing, which confirmed that the variation will implement the relevant objectives and policies of the PDP for the affected areas. The report notes that the variation involves the establishment of one new policy and a new management method, through the amendment of the existing rule framework for residential development in the subject area. This will assist the Council to carry out its functions by enabling better management of development upon the unique and specially identified character of the Waikanae Beach area proposed to be rezoned.

58 The variation has been assessed on its merits under the legislative requirements of the RMA, and has been determined to have no further policy implications beyond the geographic areas affected.

Legal considerations

59 The variation process must strictly follow the procedural steps set out by Schedule 1 of the RMA. The Hearing Panel’s recommendations have been undertaken in accordance with these legal processes and statutory tests.

60 The variation is the final legal matter that must be completed before the PDP can be made operative by resolution of Council.

Financial considerations

61 A decision to adopt the hearing panel’s recommendations will initially incur minor costs associated with public notification of that decision. Additional costs would be incurred should any appeals be lodged with the Environment Court. These costs will be met from existing budgets.

62 A decision to reject the hearing panel’s recommendations would incur substantial additional costs, including (but not restricted to) the costs of a re-hearing. These additional costs would also need to be met from existing budgets, and may have implications for Council’s ability to progress other district plan-related work (for example, in response to national direction on urban development).

Tāngata whenua considerations

63 The beach character setback margin provisions in the variation affects areas from Paekakariki to Otaki Beach, therefore consultation was undertaken with all three local Iwi.

64 Te āti Awa ki Whakarongotai provided specific policy wording which they would like to see included for the Waikanae Beach rezoning and which is included in the proposed variation:

Policy 5.5A – Waikanae Beach

Subdivision, use and development in the Beach Residential Zone at Waikanae Beach will be undertaken in a manner that respects and recognises the cultural context and history of the area, including through:

a) limiting subdivision, use and development that affects the dune system in the area;

b) limiting the density of subdivision in the area; and

c) maintaining the natural character of vegetation in the area.

65 No amendments are recommended to this proposed policy following the hearing.

Strategic considerations

Strategic considerations

66 The variation contributes to the following 10-year outcome of the Long Term Plan:

i. 10-year outcome: A community better supported to lead initiatives in response to agreed community priorities.

67 The variation delivers on part of the Our Future Waikanae Beach document which records agreed community priorities.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

68 Consultation, submissions or other engagement processes required under the RMA have their own special rules and are excluded from the Significance and Engagement Policy.

69 Officers will notify Council’s decision in accordance with Clauses 10 and 11 of Schedule 1 of the RMA (officers have delegations to do this). Appeals to the Environment Court are provided for through Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Consultation already undertaken

70 The consultation requirements for variations are prescribed by the RMA (Schedule 1). These requirements have been met.

71 The variation has been subject to a considerable amount of consultation with affected property owners during the draft process which is set out in detail in section 2.0 of the section 42A report (Attachment 4).

72 As previously noted, specific consultation with all three iwi in District also occurred during the draft variation development process resulting in the development of proposed Policy 5.5A.

Recommendations

(a) That the provisions of Variation 2 be accepted as recommended by the hearing panel (set out in Attachment [2]) and that all submissions on the variation be accepted, accepted in part or rejected to the extent set out in the hearing panel’s recommendations [Attachment 3]; and

(b) Council give notice of its decision on submissions to Variation 2 under Clause 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Appendices

1. Attachment 1 - Heaning Panel's recommendation report (under separate cover)

2. Attachment 2 - Hearing Panel's recommended provisions (under separate cover)

3. Attachment 3 - Hearing Panel's recommendations on submissions (under separate cover)

4. Attachment 4 - Section 42A report (under separate cover)

5. Attachment 4 - Addendum to S.42A report - NPS-UD (under separate cover)

6. Attachment 4 - Right of Reply (under separate cover)

7. Attachment 5 - Section 32 evaluation (under separate cover)

8. Attachment 6 - Waikanae Beach Character Study Oct. 2017 (under separate cover)

9. Attachment 7 - Our Future Waikanae Beach (under separate cover)

10. Attachment 8 - Submissions 1-14 (under separate cover)

11. Attachment 8 - Submissions 15-19 (under separate cover)

12. Attachment 9 - Further Submissions (under separate cover)

13. Attachment 10 - National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (under separate cover)

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

5 November 2020

MINUTES OF Kapiti Coast District Council
Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road, Paraparaumu
ON Thursday, 24 September 2020 AT 9.30am

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Community Board Member Guy Burns

Community Board Member Chris Papps

Community Board Member James Westbury

Wayne Maxwell, Sean Mallon, Mark de Haast, Janice McDougall, Natasha Tod, Darryn Grant, Hamish McGillvray, Leeza Boyd, Jacquie Muir, Nicola Tutt,

APOLOGIES: Nil

LEAVE OF Nil

ABSENCE:

1 Welcome

2 Council Blessing

Cr Cootes welcomed everyone to the meeting and read the Council blessing.

3 Apologies

There were none.

4 Declarations of Interest Relating to Items on the Agenda

5 Public Speaking Time for Items Relating to the Agenda

Martin Bayton spoke to item 8.2. Martin represents the Te Horo Beach and Peka Peka communities and was concerned about vehicle usage of the beach and the safety of beach users.

Jan McPherson spoke to item 8.2 representing the Waitohu Dune Care Group. Jan expressed concern about the impact of vehicles on the beach, both social and environmental.

Jake Roos spoke to item 8.2 on behalf of Low Carbon Kapiti. He is in full support of Jan and the Waitohu Dune Care Group.

Jim Simons spoke to item 8.2. Jim is the Chairman of the Waikanae Estuary White Baiters Network. He is concerned with access to the beaches for older people with infirmities and disabilities.

Ian Redward spoke to item 8.2, in particular the beach access at Manly street north. Ian understands that the bylaw proposes to close the access to vehicles. He would like to see beach patrols instated and a system to keep the access open for boat launch and retrieval.

Trevor Garrett spoke to item 8.2 regarding the Manly north beach access ramp. Closing the ramp would be detrimental, but creating some control around access would be a more positive move from an ecological standpoint.

Dennis Grant spoke to item 8.2. Dennis is a resident of the north end of Manly Street and does not want that access closed.

Grahame Trask spoke to item 8.2. Grahame resides in the north beach area. Supports the status quo. Suggested having groins on the beach.

Guy Burns spoke to item 8.2, specifically on the Statement of Proposal of the beach bylaw.

6 Members’ Business

(a) Public Speaking Time Responses

(b) Leave of Absence

Leave of absence

Committee Resolution 2020/33

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

That a request from Deputy Mayor Janet Holoborow for a leave of absence from 22 October to 4 November 2020 be accepted and the leave of absence be granted

Carried

7 Updates

Nil

8 Reports

8.1 Zeal Kāpiti Report Back

Tania Parata, Manager Connected Communities introduced the Zeal team.

Hamish Campbell, Zeal Manager introduced his team further and gave some background to the early development of Zeal.

Hamish spoke to his presentation.

Committee Resolution 2020/34

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Cr Jackie Elliott

That the Strategy and Operations Committee notes the outcomes and results achieved for year Four and Five of the Youth Development Centre contract with Zeal Education Trust.

That the Strategy and Operations Committee notes the partially achieved responses particularly in regards to Ōtaki and requests that staff works with Zeal ongoing to ensure outcomes are achieved.

Carried

Cr Bernie Randall left the meeting at 10:41 am.

Cr Bernie Randall returned to the meeting at 10:43 am.

Meeting adjourned at 11.42am and reconveined at 11.49am

8.2 Draft Beach Bylaw 2021 - Approval for public consultation

Mark de Haast, Group Manager Corporate Services briefly introduced the report and the purpose of the Statement of Proposal. He acknowledged the attendance of Nicola Tutt, legal counsel. Leeza Boyd took members through the presentation and answered questions

Committee Resolution 2020/35

Moved: Cr Jackie Elliott

Seconder: Cr Angela Buswell

That the Committee receives and notes this report, including Appendices 1 and 2 to this report.

Carried

Committee Resolution 2020/36

Moved: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

Seconder: Mayor K Gurunathan

That the Committee approves the Statement of Proposal and the Draft Kāpiti Coast District Council Beach Bylaw 2021 for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure as set out by the Local Government Act 2020

For: Crs James Cootes, Gwynn Compton, K Gurunathan, Janet Holborow, Angela Buswell, Jackie Elliott, Martin Halliday, Sophie Handford and Robert McCann

Against: Crs Jocelyn Prvanov and Bernie Randall

carried 9/2

Carried

Committee Resolution 2020/37

Moved: Cr Jackie Elliott

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair of the Strategy and Operations Committee and the Chief Executive to approve minor and technical changes required (if any) to the consultation documents before they are publicly released on 13 October 2020.

Carried

8.3 Economic Development Kotahitanga Board

Darryn Grant, Economic Development Manager spoke to the paper. Neil McKay, Darryn and Leanna answered members questions.

Committee Resolution 2020/38

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

That the Strategy and Operations Committee approves the Terms of Reference and the Position Description for the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board.

That the Strategy and Operations Committee delegates authority to the Chief Executive to make minor amendments to the Terms of Reference and the Position Description based on any further feedback received from Iwi

That the Strategy and Operations Committee approves Councillor Angela Buswell as the ex officio representative of Council on the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board.

That the Strategy and Operations Committee approves the commencement of the recruitment process for the independent members of the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board.

Carried

9 Confirmation of Minutes

9.1 Confirmation of minutes

Committee Resolution 2020/39

Moved: Cr Bernie Randall

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

That the minutes of the Strategy and Operations Committee meeting on 3 September 2020 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

10 Public Speaking Time

· For items not on the agenda

11 Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes

That the Strategy and Operations Committee went into a public excluded session at 1.40pm

Committee Resolution 2020/40

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

That the Strategy and Operations Committee moves into a public excluded meeting.

Carried

The Strategy and Operations Committee came out of a public excluded meeting at 1.44pm

The Strategy and Operations Committee meeting closed at 1.45pm.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

[1] principal shareholding local authorities are those which invest capital in the LGFA and are expected to receive a return on that capital.

[2] This means the largest building on a property where people can live e.g. a house, minor flat, mobile home etc. The PDP definition for Primary Residential Building is:

Primary Residential Building means the largest residential building on a property.

Note: For further clarification refer to the definition of residential building.

[4] Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 – Schedule, Means of Compliance for Fences Under This Act, Clause 1(1): http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0178/latest/DLM124497.html


AGENDA Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Strategy and Operations Committee will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 5 November 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
James Jefferson Group Manager Place and Space

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