Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 25 November 2020

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 28 October 2020, commencing at 9am.

Members

Present:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (in the Chair) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Apologies:

Councillor Bowen (early departure, Council business)

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 9.51am during consideration of clause 114-20. She entered the meeting again at 12.16pm after the consideration of clause 120-20. She was not present for clauses 114-20 to 120-20 inclusive.

112-20

Apologies

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Billy Meehan.

RESOLVED

1. That the apologies be received from Councillor Bowen (early departure, Council business).

Clause 112-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

113-20	Additional Items
	There were two late items that Council agreed to discuss.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items were received: · Late Item: Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor (clause 121-20). This item was delayed because information was not received until after the agenda report deadline. It needs to be considered because securing appointments in a timely manner ensures that governance roles are filled. · Late Item: By-election consideration (Part II Confidential – Third Party Commercial LGOIMA s7(2)(b)(ii)) (clause 133-20) This item was delayed because the Councillor’s resignation was not received until after the agenda report deadline. In needs to be considered because the Local Electoral Act 2001 sets out the timeline for a by-election, the first date of which is before the next Council meeting.
	Clause 113-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

	Declarations of Interest
	Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared an interest in Item 7 Notice of Motion: Council Housing at Whakarongo (clause 117-20). He took no part in debate or discussion of that item.

114-20

Petition: Complete the Ashhurst to Palmerston North Cycleway

Presentation of a petition, by Johanna Aitchison.

Ms Johanna Aitchison presented her petition on the completion of the riverside pathway from Ashhurst to Palmerston North.

She outlined the background of the project - originally the proposal was for the pathway to be completed by 2014. In 2013 the pathway to Raukawa Road was completed but there is a missing link as landowners refused to give access for the pathway to be completed. Currently cyclists have to ride on the busy Napier Road to get to Palmerston North.

The petition started in August 2020 and is ongoing; when presented it had 2109 signatures but it is now at 2153 signatures.

Officers said they were still working on the project; there are no easy solutions but a future options report will go to the next Infrastructure Committee meeting in December.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

RESOLVED

1. To receive the petition ‘Complete the Ashhurst to Palmerston North Cycleway’ for information.

Clause 114-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

115-20

Acknowledgement of Service - Tangi Utikere

Presentation, by The Mayor (Grant Smith).

Mr Wiremu Te Awe Awe on behalf of Rangitāne acknowledged the service of former Deputy Mayor Tangi Utikere.

The Mayor and Councillors took the opportunity to acknowledge former Deputy Mayor Tangi Utikere. They highlighted his integrity, knowledge of the local government law and processes, amazing leadership and willingness to always offer support and advise them. They thanked him for all his help and contribution to the Council.

In his reply, former Deputy Mayor Utikere acknowledged Rangitāne, Elected Members and Council staff for their support over the last ten years. He noted with pride Council creating the Papaoeia Pasifika Centre, the Youth Space, the Council’s decision on establishing Māori wards, the district plan review, creating the Council’s vision and goals and the de-politicalisation of the community grants scheme.

He said when he was elected to Council in 2010 he became the Council’s first Pasifika and youngest councillor until Councillor Rutherford was elected in 2013. He enjoyed serving as the Deputy Mayor.

He thanked the residents of the Takaro ward, the Chief Executive and the staff, particularly the support given by the Governance and Headquarters teams.

He acknowledged the Mayor, Grant Smith and thanked him for his leadership and his mentorship. He thanked all the councillors – particularly Susan Baty, the former councillors and deputy mayors that were present.

He thanked his family particularly Te Rei for their support.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 9.51 am

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

RESOLVED

To acknowledge the service of former Deputy Mayor Tangi Utikere.

Clause 115-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Meeting adjourned at 10.10am

Meeting resumed at 10.30am

116-20

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 23 September 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 116-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

117-20	Notice of Motion: Council Housing at Whakarongo Councillor Vaughan Dennison declared an interest in this item and took no further part in debate or discussion. The officers’ response was presented by Bryce Hosking - Manager - Property, Julie Macdonald - Strategy and Policy Manager and Michael Duindam - Acting City Planning Manager. Councillor Baty spoke to her Notice of Motion. She stated that the recommendation gives an opportunity for housing providers to deliver housing on the Whakarongo site. No discussions had been had with any housing providers, however, it is possible that one organisation might want to purchase several sections or there might be several smaller proposals.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. RESOLVED 1. That the memorandum titled “Notice of Motion Response – Tamakuku Terrace Subdivision” presented to Council on 28 October 2020 be received for information.
	Clause 117.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. RESOLVED 2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to commence a process that seeks Expressions of Interest relating to potential partnerships and opportunities to enable affordable housing options. Such Expressions of Interest are for the purpose of utilising Council’s Whakarongo development to enable affordable housing and an increased supply of rental accommodation.
	Clause 117.2 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Reports

118-20	Publication of Voting Division upon Release of Public Excluded Decisions Memorandum, presented by Hannah White - Democracy and Governance Manager and Desiree Harvey - Legal Counsel. An amendment to add “subject to the report being released.” was passed. The rationale being that once a report is released, members are able to explain reasons behind their vote.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. RESOLVED 1. To receive the report titled ‘Publication of Voting Divisions upon Release of Public Excluded decisions’, dated 28 October 2020. 2. That when Part II confidential decisions are released to the public, the voting division also be released, subject to the report being released.
	Clause 118-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. RESOLVED That the amendment: ‘subject to the report being released.’ be added to the end of the recommendation 2.
	The amendment was carried 9 votes to 5, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Renee Dingwall, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

119-20

Agreement to Establish a Joint Climate Action Committee

Memorandum, presented by Grant Smith, The Mayor.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Brent Barrett.

RESOLVED

1. To agree the Climate Action Committee Manawatū-Whanganui Region Agreement and Terms of Reference (Attachment 1).

2. To appoint a Joint Committee (with the Horizons Regional Council and the other Territorial Authorities within the Manawatū – Whanganui Region) to be called the Climate Action Joint Committee pursuant to clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. To adopt the Terms of Reference for the Climate Action Joint Committee set out in the Climate Action Committee Manawatū-Whanganui Region Agreement and Terms of Reference.

4. To appoint Mayor Grant Smith as its representative on the Climate Action Joint Committee.

5. To resolve that resolutions 1 to 4 will take effect when all other councils in the Region confirm that they have appointed the Climate Action Joint Committee.

Clause 119-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

120-20

Council Work Schedule

Council requested that the following changes be made to its work schedule:

· Add Whenua Planting Scheme - TBC

· Add Council and committee meetings calendar 2021 – Nov 2020

· Move Manawatu Residents’ Card to 2021

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive its Work Schedule dated October 2020.

Clause 120-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

121-20	Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager. A correction was made to recommendation 6 of the report (clause 121.3). After section 4.3 the words ‘with amendment of Councillor (with no additional responsibilities) (8)’ were added.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED 1. That Council appoint to internal and external bodies as recommended by the Mayor and listed in Section 3.3 of the report “Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor” of 28 October 2020. 2. That Council adopts the Mayor’s recommendation to appoint Councillor Leonie Hapeta to the Electoral College for the primary role of recommending the Chairperson and Directors to the Central Economic Development Agency Board. 3. That the Council make the recommendations to the Remuneration Authority regarding Elected Member remuneration as listed in Section 4.3 with amendment of “Councillor (with no additional responsibilities) (8)” of the report “Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor” of 28 October 2020, such recommendations to take effect from 01 November 2020 the date the new positions are to be established.
	Clauses 121.1 to 121.3 above were carried 11 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor. Abstained: Councillors Leonie Hapeta and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED 4. To receive the report titled “Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor” of 28 October 2020. 5. That Council notes the Deputy Mayor and committee appointments made by the Mayor under clause 41A(3)(a) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 as listed in Section 3.1 of the report “Appointments at the resignation of the Deputy Mayor” of 28 October 2020 to come into effect 01 November 2020. 6. That the Deputy Mayor assist holistically with all Portfolios.
	Clauses 121.4 to 121.6 above were carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Abstained: Councillor Aleisha Rutherford.

122-20

Adoption of Standing Orders

Memorandum, presented by Standing Orders Working Group.

Mr Tangi Utikere, Chair of the Standing Orders Working Group presented the report.

Officers outlined several minor amendments listed in the table below:

Standing Orders	Currently reads	To be amended
1.5.1b	Reference to SO 1.6	Reference to SO 1.5.2
1.5.3	Reference to SO 1.7	Reference to SO 1.5.3
2.3.7	Reference to SO 2.20	Reference to SO 2.3.9
2.24.2	Reference to SO 2.59	Reference to SO 2.24.1
3.6.1(d)	Repeat phrase	Remove repeat phrase
3.8.4	Reference to SO 3.12	Reference to SO 3.4.5
3.13.2	Reference to SO 3.38	Reference to SO 3.13.1

A number of amendments were considered but did not pass.

Councillor Rachel Bowen returned to the meeting at 12.16pm

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

RESOLVED

1. To receive the report titled Adoption of Standing Orders, dated 28 October 2020.

2. To adopt the Standing Orders 2020 (Attachment 1) with minor amendments listed in the table and for the document to take effect from 1 November 2020.

3. To approve new delegations, clause 192.7 for the Mayor and 192.8 for the Deputy Mayor to grant a leave of absence (Attachment 2).

Clause 122-20 above was carried 13 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Against:

Councillor Karen Naylor.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Karen Naylor.

Note:

On an amendment to recommendation 2 that: Clause 3.14.5 Final sentence, delete “on payment of the prescribed amount (if any)”

The amendment was lost 5 votes to 9, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Karen Naylor.

Note:

On an amendment to recommendation 2 that: Clause 3.15.2 paragraph 2 - amend to “No such resolution is needed for relevant staff and officials contracted to the Council for advice on the matters under consideration.”

The amendment was lost 6 votes to 8, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Karen Naylor.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Karen Naylor.

Note:

On an amendment to recommendation 2 that: Clause 3.16.1 - amend first sentence to “.....no elected member is permitted to disclose to any person, other than another elected member or the Chief Executive, any information….”.

The amendment was tied 7 votes to 7, with 1 abstention.

The chairperson declared the amendment lost, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan and Karen Naylor.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

Note:

On an amendment to recommendation 2: To delete from 2.11.2 the sentence “Questions cannot be asked once a motion has been moved and seconded” and delete 2.13.1 and replace with: “Questions to officers during debate: Questions must be asked through the Chairperson and how the question should be dealt with is at the chairperson’s discretion”.

The amendment was lost 6 votes to 8, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Billy Meehan and Karen Naylor.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

Meeting adjourned at 1.05pm

Councillor Findlay left the meeting at 1.05pm

Meeting resumed at 2.05pm

Recommendations from Committee Meetings

123-20	Planning & Strategy Committee Part I Public - 14 October 2020 Consideration was given to Planning & Strategy Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED To adopt clause 40-20 The Future use of Huia Street Reserve (Corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue), recommendations 1-2 from the Planning & Strategy Committee meeting 14 October 2020.
	Clauses 123.1 and 123.2 above were carried 12 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM. RESOLVED To adopt clause 40-20 The Future use of Huia Street Reserve (Corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Ave), recommendations 4-8 from the Planning & Strategy Committee meeting 14 October 2020.
	Clauses 123.3 – 123.7 above were carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

124-20

Finance & Audit Committee Part I Public - 21 October 2020

Consideration was given to Finance & Audit Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Karen Naylor.

RESOLVED

To adopt:

· Clause 44-20 Palmerston North Airport Limited - Annual Report for 12 months ended 30 June 2020 & instructions relating to Annual Meeting, recommendations 1-3

· Clause 45-20 Massey University Hockey Turf - Agreement for Shared Use, recommendations 1-3

· Clause 47-20 Audit arrangements for small Council Controlled Organisations, recommendations 1-4

· Clause 50-20 Otira Park - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Palmerston North Pony Club Branch, recommendations 1-3

· Clause 51-20 Ashhurst Domain - Proposal to lease area for Scout hall, recommendations 1-3

from the Finance & Audit Committee meeting 21 October.

To revoke the following resolution dated 17 June 2020:

· Clause 23-20 (3): ‘That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back to the October meeting of the Finance & Audit Committee regarding energy and environmental efficiency options for any public housing opportunities’, as this report is no longer required.

Clause 124-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

125-20

Play, Recreation & Sport Committee Part I Public - 21 October 2020

Consideration was given to Play, Recreation & Sport Committee recommendations as appended to these minutes.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Billy Meehan.

RESOLVED

To adopt clause 25-20 - Proposal from Sport Manawatū to use carried-forward unspent Sports Event Partnership Funds, recommendation 1 from the Play, Recreation & Sport Committee meeting 21 October 2020.

Clause 125-20 above was carried 12 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Against:

Councillor Karen Naylor.

Abstained:

Councillor Lorna Johnson.

Exclusion of Public

126-20

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

RESOLVED

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
16.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II and Part IIB Confidential - 23 September 2020	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 23 September 2020, held with public present.
17.	Award of Tender - Tamakuku Terrace Subdivision	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
18.	Presentation of the Part II Confidential Play, Recreation & Sport Committee Recommendations from its 21 October 2020 Meeting	Third Party Commercial	s7(2)(b)(ii)
19.	Presentation of the Part II Confidential Finance & Audit Committee Recommendations from its 21 October 2020 Meeting	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
20.	Award of Tender - Bunnythorpe Community Facility	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
21.	Resource Management Act Commissioner Appointments - 2020-2023	Privacy	s7(2)(a)
Late	By-Election considerations	Third Party Commercial	s7(2)(b)(ii)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Clause 126-20 above was carried 12 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Against:

Councillors Brent Barrett and Lorna Johnson.

The public part of the meeting finished at 2.18pm

Confirmed 25 November 2020

Mayor

Council - Part I 28 October 2020

Recommendations from Committee

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 28 October 2020

TITLE: Presentation of the Part I Public Finance & Audit Committee Recommendations from its 21 October 2020 Meeting

Set out below are the recommendations only from the Finance & Audit Committee meeting Part I Public held on 21 October 2020. The Council may resolve to adopt, amend, receive, note or not adopt any such recommendations. (SO 3.18.1)

44-20

Palmerston North Airport Limited - Annual Report for 12 months ended 30 June 2020 & instructions relating to Annual Meeting

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the memorandum entitled ‘Palmerston North Airport Limited - Annual Report for 12 months ended 30 June 2020 & Instructions relating to Annual Meeting’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020, be received.

2. That the Annual Report and Financial Statements of Palmerston North Airport Limited for the year ended 30 June 2020 be received.

3. That the Council shareholder representative be instructed to support the proposed resolutions to be considered at the Annual Meeting of Palmerston North Airport Limited to be conducted by way of resolution in writing.

45-20

Massey University Hockey Turf - Agreement for Shared Use

Report, presented by Kathy-Dever Tod, Manager - Parks & Reserves.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the report entitled ‘Massey University Hockey Turf – Agreement for Shared Use’, presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020, be received.

2. That the Council approves the Agreement for Shared Use for the Massey University Hockey Turf.

3. That the Council decides to appoint a Councillor to the Massey University Hockey Turf Steering Group.

47-20

Audit arrangements for small Council Controlled Organisations

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the memorandum entitled ‘Audit arrangements for small Council Controlled Organisations’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020, be received.

2. That the Council liaise with the Boards of the Caccia Birch Trust and Palmerston North Performing Arts Trust to amend the respective trust deeds to modify the requirements for audited financial statements.

3. That with respect to the Caccia Birch Trust the change be:

a. Option one – require a review rather than an audit

4. That with respect to the Palmerston North Performing Arts Trust the requirement for an audit of the annual financial statements be removed as outlined in Option two.

50-20

Otira Park - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Palmerston North Pony Club Branch

Report, presented by Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property; Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager - Parks and Reserves.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the report entitled ‘Otira Park - Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Palmerston North Pony Club Branch’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020, be received.

2. That the Council approves notifying the public of the proposal to grant a lease at Otira Park, 22 Totara Road to Palmerston North Pony Club Branch Incorporated, in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

3. That the Council notes the land area affected by the lease for Palmerston North Pony Club Branch Incorporated is described as part of Section 1732 TN of Palmerston North, part of Section 1737 TN of Palmerston North, part of Section 1 SO 27741 and Part Lot 1 DP 3063. The lease area is shown in the draft proposal lease contained in Attachment 1 of the report titled ‘Otira Park – Proposal to grant a lease on reserve land to Palmerston North Pony Club Branch’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020.

51-20

Ashhurst Domain - Proposal to lease area for Scout hall

Report, presented by Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager - Parks and Reserves.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the report entitled ‘Ashhurst Domain – Proposal to lease area for Scout hall’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020, be received.

2. That Council approves Option One in the report titled ‘Ashhurst Domain - Proposal to lease area for Scout hall’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020 and proceeds to public notification on the proposal to grant a lease for a Scout hall at the Ashhurst Domain, meeting the requirements of Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

3. That Council notes the recreation reserve on which the lease is proposed is part of Lot 1 DP 52268; the lease area and the draft lease are contained in Attachment One of the report titled ‘Ashhurst Domain – Proposal to lease area for a Scout hall’ presented to the Finance & Audit Committee on 21 October 2020.

52-20

Committee Work Schedule

Elected Members discussed Item 4 on the Work Schedule (‘Energy and environmental efficiency options report for any public housing opportunities’) and noted that as a decision regarding public housing at Whakarongo had not yet been made, this report was no longer required.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

2. That Council revoke the following resolution dated 17 June 2020 (clause 23-20 (3)): ‘That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back to the October meeting of the Finance & Audit Committee regarding energy and environmental efficiency options for any public housing opportunities’, as this report is no longer required.

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 25 November 2020

TITLE: Recycling - Proposed Change to Range of Materials Accepted

PRESENTED BY: Mike Monaghan, Water and Waste Operations Manager

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. To agree in principle to reduce the range of plastics accepted for recycling in Palmerston North to plastics PET (“1”), HDPE (“2”) and PP (“5”) subject to undertaking consultation with the community on this change.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Plastics “3”,”4”,”6” and “7” which are currently accepted into the recycling service and baled as ‘mixed plastics’ and had been sent offshore for recycling, have become difficult to find a market for. Council has been unable to secure a market for the mixed plastics since July 2019, with previous sales at low to negative commodity value. Additionally, mixed grades plastics will soon be subject to additional restrictions and costs under the Basel Convention to continue to ship them offshore for recycling. There are also increasing signals from central government that some of these grades of plastics may be phased out of use for single use packaging. Council needs to decide whether it will continue to accept these plastics in the recycling service.
OPTION 1:	Change the range of plastics accepted to PET (“1”), HDPE (“2”) and PP (“5”), landfill the current stockpile of mixed plastics and landfill mixed plastics where these are presented for recycling (recommended option)
Community Views	Community views have not yet been sought on this option. If this option is selected, community views will be sought and reported back to Council in February 2021.
Benefits	This option continues to provide recycling for approximately 61% of all household plastic containers, whilst reducing the range of plastics accepted in the recycling service to those that can be feasibly recycled onshore.
Risks	Reputational risk with increased waste to landfill.
Financial	With this option there would be a cost of $55,000 - $65,000 to dispose of the current stockpile of mixed plastics, and future costs to landfill mixed plastics when these are presented (as contamination) for recycling. These future costs are expected to reduce over time through Council providing information of what can be accepted into the recycling and, if these are phased out for single use packaging as currently being proposed. The cost of disposal will be met within existing budgets over the next two to three financial years, utilising funds set aside for offshore recycling options. Budgets have been set for a negative commodity value for the mixed plastics.
OPTION 2:	Continue to accept all types of plastics (“1” through to “7”), landfill the current stockpile of mixed plastics and any future mixed plastics until there is a market (export or local) for the mixed plastics.
Community Views	Community views have not yet been sought on this option. Under this option Council would need to communicate to the community that the current stockpile of mixed plastics, and future collections of mixed plastics will need to be sent to landfill until a market is found.
Benefits	No change to the current recycling service.
Risks	The community may feel misled that these plastics are recyclable and is also less likely to lead to a change in purchasing decisions.
Financial	With this option there would be a cost of $55,000 - $65,000 to dispose of the current stockpile of mixed plastics, and future potential costs of up to $40,000 - $45,000 per year if no markets are found. These future costs are expected to reduce over time if these are phased out for single use packaging as currently being proposed. The cost of disposal will be met within existing budgets over the next two to three financial years, utilising funds set aside for offshore recycling options. Budgets have been set for a negative commodity value for the mixed plastics.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Plastics are generally manufactured from one of six types of plastic and are often identified by a plastic resin code – a number between 1 and 7 inside a triangle, normally on the base of the container. Appendix 1 provides detail on the grades of plastics and how they are sorted at Council’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

1.2 The range of plastics that can be recycled in New Zealand makes up approximately 61% of plastic containers accepted into Council’s recycling service (kerbside and/or at the Recycling Drop Off Points (RDOPs)).

1.3 The balance of plastic containers (that can’t be recycled in New Zealand) have historically been exported offshore for recycling. Low (sometimes nil or negative) commodity prices and limited buyers have made it increasingly difficult to recycle these plastics in the last 18 – 24 months. Since July 2019 staff have been unable to secure a market for these materials; therefore, they are currently being stockpiled.

1.4 In July 2019 Council sold 335T of mixed plastic at a negative commodity price resulting in a cost to Council. Since July 2019 two attempts have been made to secure a market for the mixed grade plastics, without success.

1.5 There are currently 1291 bales of mixed grade plastics (at an approximate weight of 371T) stored at our MRF. This large stockpile is creating significant space constraints at the MRF. While in theory we could continue to stockpile, this is not a viable option due to space constraints, additionally there is environmental, health and safety implications of storing this material long term.

1.6 The last 18 – 24 months has seen a significant downward trend in the value of all recovered commodity products, with the lower grade plastics being the most affected.

1.7 Recent research, reports, projects and likely changes in regulation (listed below), supports Council reducing the range of plastics it will accept, including:

· National Plastics Action Plan – Final plan expected in early 2021 which takes forward the recommendations in “Rethinking Plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand”

· Implementing an amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

· Regulated Product Stewardship for problematic waste materials (including plastic packaging)

· Design of a Container Return Scheme (CRS) for beverage containers

· New Zealand Plastic Packaging Declaration (NZPPD)

· Expanding and increasing the Waste Disposal Levy

· Kerbside standardisation and labelling

· Recent Government Consultation Document “Reducing the impact of plastic on our environment” – moving away from hard-to-recycle and single-use items.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council provides a kerbside recycling collection service to approximately 28,800 rating units in the City. The Council also provides facilities to drop off recycling at three RDOP’s.

2.2 The kerbside service includes the collection of glass bottles and jars, paper, cardboard, aluminium and steel cans and plastic containers (plastics “1” through to “7”).

2.3 Recycling is collected weekly (alternating between the Wheelie Bin and Glass Crate). Collected material is transported to Awapuni Resource Recovery Park, where it is sorted and prepared for sale and dispatch. Glass is collected in a 45L crate and colour sorted at the kerbside, then held in storage bunkers on site. The remaining co-mingled recycling is collected in 240L wheelie bins and processed at the MRF.

2.4 The chart below shows the composition of materials in the recycling (expressed as a percentage by weight) presented to the MRF for sorting and processing.

* April 2020 data excluded as MRF not processing recycling due to COIVID 19

2.5 At the MRF, co-mingled recycling is sorted into paper and cardboard (fibre), aluminium cans, steel cans and the grades of plastics.

2.6 The separation process at the MRF includes a range of mechanical and manual sorting processes. After sorting, the materials are stored onsite for sale and dispatch.

2.7 Glass is dispatched to O-I in Auckland, aluminium cans and steel cans are dispatched to Macaulay Metals (located at Awapuni) for export. Fibre (Paper and Cardboard) is transferred to OJI (located at Awapuni), for baling and dispatch for both onshore and offshore processing. While there are several fibre recycling plants in New Zealand, they only have capacity for approximately 50% of New Zealand Fibre.

2.8 Plastics are sorted, graded and baled as follows:

Grade	Resin Code	% of Plastics	Tonnes Per Year
PET (Clear Bottles)	“1”	31 %	237 T
HDPE (Natural Bottles)	“2”	13 %	97 T
HDPE (Janitorial “Coloured” Bottles)	“2”	13 %	103 T
PP	“5”	3 %	24 T
Mixed Plastics	Coloured “1” Clear Trays “1” “3”, “4”, “6” & “7”	39 %	301 T

2.9 PET Clear Bottles (eg. soft drink bottles) are sorted and baled as a product; this is dispatched to Flight Plastics in Wellington. These are washed, chipped and remanufactured back into plastic containers (such as fruit punnets and clamshells).

2.10 Council’s MRF is currently unable to include other clear PET products (such as trays) with the PET Clear Bottles to Flight Plastics. This is because clear trays coming into the MRF can be produced from multiple grades of plastic such as PVC (“3”), PP (“5”) and PS (“6”). Flight Plastics are unable to accept these grades into their process.

2.11 PET Clear Trays and other grades of clear trays are virtually indistinguishable by the human eye, therefore, to guarantee the quality of PET Clear to Flight Plastics, the MRF only directs PET Clear Bottles to the grade destined for Flight Plastics.

2.12 HDPE Natural, HDPE Janitorial (Coloured) and PP are sorted and baled as three different grades. These are dispatched to a local processor where they are washed, chipped and pelletised. These pellets are then sold to plastic manufacturers.

2.13 The balance of the plastics remaining are referred to as “mixed plastics”. These are baled and stored on site at the Awapuni Resource Recovery Park while markets are sought. The current stockpile has been growing since our last export in July 2019. There are currently approximately 371 tonnes of mixed plastics stored at Awapuni.

2.14 The revenue (sales) from the recovered materials (recycling commodities) has traditionally partially offset the costs involved in collecting and processing the recycling, leaving a net deficit in providing the recycling service. In the last 18-24 months commodity prices for fibre and plastics have fallen significantly, resulting in an increasing cost to provide the recycling service.

3. Description of options

3.1 In considering the range of plastics accepted for recycling, staff have considered two options, these are described below.

3.2 Option 1 – Change the range of plastics accepted to PET (“1”), HDPE (“2”) and PP (“5”), landfill the current stockpile of mixed plastics and landfill mixed plastics where these are presented for recycling. This option is recommended.

3.3 Option 2 – Continue to accept all types of plastics (“1” through to “7”), landfill the current stockpile and any future mixed plastics until there is a market (export or local) for the mixed plastics.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1 – Change the range of plastics accepted to PET (“1”), HDPE (“2”) and PP (“5”), landfill the current stockpile of mixed plastics and landfill mixed plastics where these are presented for recycling (as contamination).

4.2 This option reduces the collection of plastics to a range that can be feasibly recycled onshore and informs the community of the recyclability of products. Approximately 61% of all household plastic containers would continue to be recycled, and this approach retains the creditability of the recycling service provided by Council.

4.3 Option 1 includes additional costs for communicating and implementing the change, and an estimated $55,000 - $65,000 to dispose of the existing stockpile of mixed plastics at the MRF. There will be ongoing costs in the short to medium term for disposing of mixed plastics to landfill that are still placed into the recycling collection. However, indication from recent government announcements suggests that some of these grades of plastic packaging will be phased out over time, which should reduce the ongoing costs to landfill these mixed plastics.

4.4 Individual households may face some increased costs by placing the mixed grades of plastics into their rubbish bags instead of the recycling collection.

4.5 This option would also avoid some future costs likely under the Basel Convention changes effective 1 January 2021 for plastics sent offshore for processing. If Council continued to export these grades of plastics (assuming a market can be found), then there would be additional export costs. By landfilling these plastics (and excluding them from recycling collections), the additional export costs imposed by the Basel Convention would be avoided.

4.6 If Council accepted Option 1, they would be joining a growing number of Councils that have stopped accepting these grades of plastic in their recycling collections. Since January 2020, approximately 20 Councils have stopped accepting PVC (“3”), LDPE (”4”), PS (”6”) and Other (“7”) into their recycling services.

4.7 It is important to note that under this option some PET (“1”) accepted into the recycling service will be diverted to landfill at Council’s MRF in the short to medium term. These items include coloured PET and PET Clear Trays.

4.8 We are aware that some manufacturers of the PET Coloured Soft Drink Bottles have pledged to switch to PET Clear.

4.9 Option 2 – Continue to accept all types of plastics (“1” through to “7”), landfill the current stockpile and any future mixed plastics until there is a market (export or local) for the mixed plastics.

4.10 This option presents an opportunity to recycle mixed grade plastics if/when markets are found. There would be no change in expectations for households, but it would be advisable to communicate that some plastics are being landfilled and encourage households to keep those plastics out of the recycling service.

4.11 The costs for Option 2 include approximately $55,000 - $65,000 to dispose of the existing stockpile of mixed plastics at the MRF. There would be ongoing costs of $40,000 - $45,000 per year to landfill mixed plastics if a market cannot be found. These landfill costs would be met by utilising funds set aside for offshore recycling options.

4.12 This option has the potential to undermine the creditability of the entire recycling service provided by Council if we continue to collect these grades and ultimately send them to landfill if we can’t find a market for them.

4.13 If an export market was found for the grades of plastics that cannot be processed onshore, then there would also be additional export costs from 1 January 2021 under the Basel Convention. These costs are currently unknown.

5. recommended option

5.1 The recommended option is Option 1. The lack of a suitable domestic market for processing these grades of plastic, difficulty in finding a viable export market, coupled with forthcoming additional export costs under the Basel Convention, makes continuing to accept these grades of plastic in our recycling service unviable. While disposing these plastics to landfill is not a desirable environmental outcome, the Government has signalled changes in policy (such as product stewardship schemes, container return schemes, and regulating the use of certain plastics in packaging) that will likely reduce the presence of these types of plastic at the point of manufacture.

5.2 Continuing to receive these grades of plastic but disposing of them to landfill regardless or stockpiling them in the hope of finding a market in the future, is not recommended. The costs are the same or greater, and they potentially increase risks where these materials are stockpiled at the MRF.

5.3 Therefore, the recommendation is to reduce the range of plastics accepted to PET (“1”), HDPE (“2”) and PP (“5”) as these plastics have reliable domestic markets.

6. Next actions

6.1 If Council agrees to remove plastics PVC (“3”), LDPE (”4”), PS (”6”) and Other (“7”) from the approved diverted materials list for recycling collections, then the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Administration Manual needs to be amended. The Council can do this by resolution; however, the Council must consult in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.2 If the Council agrees to the recommended action, officers will undertake consultation as set out in Section 7 of this report. The feedback from that consultation will be reported back to the Council meeting in February 2021, with a recommendation on any changes to be made to the proposal as result of the consultation.

7. Outline of community consultation process

7.1 Almost everyone in the City is affected by the proposal concerning what can be accepted into the recycling service. The consultation therefore needs to be widely communicated to give anyone who has an interest in the proposed changes the opportunity to comment.

7.2 A consultation document will be prepared that outlines what the Council is proposing to change about recycling service, the reasons for the proposed changes, and when they would likely come into effect, and invite the community to send any feedback by a given time.

7.3 The nature of the feedback response will be largely informal, without a prescribed response form or an oral submission process. Given the very specific scope of changes proposed, and the limited alternatives, a formal hearings process is not deemed necessary. All written feedback will be collated and presented to the Council, together with analysis and a recommendation on the way forward based on that feedback.

7.4 The mode of communicating and collecting feedback will be a mixture of social media posts, a press release, print advertising and information on the Council website. The community will be invited to give their feedback on a webpage or by writing to the Council. There is no statutory period for engaging with the community on a proposal such as this, however having regard for the timing of the Christmas and New Year Holiday period, it is suggested the consultation will begin in early December with feedback accepted through to late January 2021. Allowing time for a report to prepared for presentation to the February 2021 Council meeting.

8. Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual:		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		Yes
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Waste Plan The actions are: Provide a kerbside recycling collection service fully funded through rates Provide recycling drop-off points at Ashhurst, Ferguson St, and Awapuni, including solid waste at Ashhurst
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A reduction in the range of materials collected in the recycling is not consistent with the Council’s Waste Plan, which seeks a reduction in the gross volume of waste produced citywide, and a greater proportion of waste being diverted from landfill and instead recycled or composted as appropriate. However, as discussed in the report, there are no viable mechanisms to recycle these range of plastics. Council should acknowledge, when engaging with the community, that the recommendation is not consistent with Council’s strategic direction. The Waste Plan is currently under review as part of the wider strategic review informing the 10 Year Plan. This inconsistency with the current strategic direction will be acknowledged through the review of the Waste Plan.

Attachments

Plastic Grades ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 25 November 2020

TITLE: Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents

DATE: 13 November 2020

PRESENTED BY: Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Acting General Manager - Strategy and Planning

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That, pursuant to Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, the Council decide which one of the following options will be used for arranging the names of candidates on voting documents for Palmerston North City Council:

(a) alphabetical order of surname; or

(b) pseudo-random order; or

(c) random order.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	How should candidates’ names be arranged on voting documents?
OPTION 1:	Alphabetical Order of Surname
Community Views	Community views have not been specifically requested
Benefits	Easier to locate candidates’ names on voting documents.
Risks	Has been suggested that candidates with surnames starting with the letters late in the alphabet are disadvantaged.
Financial	No difference in cost for any of the options.
OPTION 2:	Pseudo-random order, with the order of names of candidates on voting documents to be the same for all documents but determined by ballot.
Community Views	Community views have not been specifically requested.
Benefits	The order of names is the same on all documents.
Risks	Has been suggested that those candidates whose names are drawn first will be advantaged.
Financial	No difference in cost for any of the options.
OPTION 3:	Random Order, in which the order of names of candidates varies from one voting document to another.
Community Views	Community views have not been specifically requested.
Benefits	Fairer to all candidates because the order of names varies from one voting document to another.
Risks	Not so user-friendly for electors, particularly if referring to the candidate profile booklet which lists candidates alphabetically.
Financial	No difference in cost for any of the options.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Council has an opportunity to make a decision on whether the name of candidates on voting documents are to be arranged in alphabetical order by surname, pseudo-random or random order.

1.2 The opportunity for the Council to determine the order of candidates’ names on voting documents is provided by Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001. In the absence of any determination being made by the Council, the names of candidates’ names will be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Up until the 2001 elections, candidates’ names on voting documents were required to be listed in alphabetical order, by surname. Since 2004, the Local Electoral Regulations allowed the Council to determine the manner of listing Councillors’ names.

2.2 For elections held from 2004 to 2013, the Council decided that names should continue to be listed in alphabetical order by surname. However, for the Mayoral and Councillor by-elections, both held in 2015, and for the 2016 and 2019 local government elections, the Council decided that names of candidates for those elections would be listed in random order.

3. Description of options

3.1 Under the alphabetical order of surname option, candidates’ names are listed in alphabetical order by surname. This is the order that was used for Council elections until 2013, and is also the system used at general elections.

3.2 Under the pseudo-random order option, the names of candidates are listed in random order, and all voting documents use the same order. If this option is used, the names of candidates for each election will be placed in a suitable container, mixed together, then drawn out of the container, with the candidates’ names being placed on all voting documents for each election in the order in which they are drawn. If the Council decides to use the pseudo-random order, any person is entitled to attend at the place where the order of candidates’ names will be arranged, and public notice is required to be given of this.

3.3 Under the random order option, the order of names of the candidates are determined randomly for each voting document so the order of names of candidates will vary from one voting document to another. This is undertaken as the voting forms are printed. This option has been used for Council by-elections and elections held from 2015 onwards.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 For the alphabetical order of surname option, the use of alphabetical order makes it easier to locate candidates’ names on a voting document. However, it has been suggested that candidates’ surname starting with a letter late in the alphabet are disadvantaged under this option.

4.2 For the pseudo-random order, it has been suggested that those candidates whose names are drawn first will be advantaged under this method, as their names will appear near the top of all voting documents.

4.3 Under the random order option, it has been suggested that this is possibly fairer to all candidates, but probably not so user-friendly for electors. This is because it will be harder for electors to locate the names of their preferred candidates on voting documents, particularly if working off information set out in the candidate profile booklet which will list candidates in alphabetical order.

4.4 Rangitāne are comfortable with random order.

4.5 The cost for the production of voting documents has been included in the costs of the associated election. There is no difference in cost, regardless of which order the names of candidates are arranged.

5. Conclusion

5.1 It is recommended that the Council make a decision on whether the names of candidates on voting documents are to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random or random order.

5.2 Without such decision, candidates’ names will be listed in alphabetical order.

6. Next actions

6.1 To proceed with arrangements for the 2021 by-election, including printing the voting documents in the format set by Council after nominations have closed.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Community views have not been specifically sought with regard to the issue covered in this report.

Compliance and administration

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?	Yes
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy and the Connected Community Strategy.
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Citizenship Plan. The action is: Encourage participation in local body elections.
Contribution to strategic direction	To encourage people to participate in the Council elections.

Attachments

NIL

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Patrick Handcock ONZM
Susan Baty	Leonie Hapeta
Rachel Bowen	Lorna Johnson
Zulfiqar Butt	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Karen Naylor
Renee Dingwall	Bruno Petrenas
Lew Findlay QSM