Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

30 July 2015

Page No.

1.1 Apologies have been received from Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, and Councillors Gaile Noonan, Luke Acland and Ruth Copeland

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Gordon Dicker - Reimbursement for Water Leaks

Gordon Dicker will speak about reimbursement for water leaks.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 5 May 2015 7 - 14

Document number M1200

Recommendation

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 5 May 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 July 2015 15 - 18

Document number R4598

Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 30 July 2015 (R4598) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

7. Chairperson's Report

Transport and Roading

8. Infrastructure Fees and Charges 19 - 23

Document number R4248

Recommendation

THAT the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges (R4248) and its attachment (A1360990) be received;

AND THAT the proposed charges be approved effective 31 August 2015.

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

9. Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects 24 - 47

Document number R4356

Recommendation

THAT the report Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects (R4356) and its attachments (A1306411, A1306409, A1328492, A1328494, A1328501, and A1378910) be received.

Buildings

10. Earthquake Prone Buildings #5 48 - 60

Document number R4128

Recommendation

THAT the report Earthquake Prone Buildings #5 (R4128) and its attachments (A1252682, A573853, A573921) be received;

AND THAT approval be granted to undertake detailed earthquake assessments on Montgomery Superloo, Nelson Haven Sports Complex and the Tahuna Campground – Function Centre, funded from provision provided in the 2015/16 budget, on the basis that these are of the next highest priority;

AND THAT approval be granted to undertake design and cost estimate for the remedial work to Isel House Chimneys funded from provision provided in the 2015/16 budget;

AND THAT further assessment considering economical and community factors be completed on the following buildings below 34%NBS to enable the Committee to make informed decision and that this is brought back to a future Works and Infrastructure Committee and/or Commercial Sub-Committee;

· Refinery building

· Plant and Food building

· Wood Turners Building

Public Excluded Business

11. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

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:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes - Public Excluded - 5 May 2015	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
2	Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 July 2015	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes - Public Excluded - 5 May 2015

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 July 2015

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

12. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Tuesday 5 May 2015, commencing at 9.03am

Present: Councillor E Davy (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, R Copeland, M Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson), G Noonan, and T Skinner

In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk and M Ward, Nelson Youth Councillors E Ngawhika-Elliott and J Lankshear, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading (R Palmer), Asset Engineer – Transport (C Pawson), Manager Administration (P Langley), and Administration Adviser (S McLean)

Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese for lateness, Councillor L Acland for attendance

1. Apologies

Resolved WI/2015/001

THAT apologies be received and accepted from Councillor Acland for attendance, and Her Worship the Mayor for lateness.

Barker / Noonan Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Public Forum

4.1 David Ayre, Friends of the Maitai

David Ayre and Tom Kennedy tabled a handout on the Maitai Shared Pathway Project: Collingwood Street to Nile Street and presented this to the Committee.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 9.06am.

In response to questions, Mr Ayre spoke about areas along the Maitai walkway having different characteristics and uses. He said wider paths in some areas would change the character of that area and encroach on grassed areas used for leisure activities. Mr Ayre advised that Friends of the Maitai had not been contacted by Council officers about the Maitai Shared Pathway Project.

In response to further questions, Mr Ayre said Friends of the Maitai were not opposed to any change, but were concerned the public were not aware of what was being proposed. He said there was also concern that the proposal was for a path much wider than 2.5 metres in some areas, which was different to what had been described in a recent annual plan.

In response to a question about the intention of the Maitai Shared Path being part of a main arterial network, Mr Ayre said information about that had not been provided to the public.

Attachments

1 Friends of the Maitai Public Forum Handout 5May2015 A1351367

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 26 March 2015

Document number M999, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.

Resolved WI/2015/003

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 26 March 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Lawrey / Barker Carried

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - 5 May 2015

Document number R4202, agenda pages 15 - 16 refer.

In response to questions, Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, advised that the delay in New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidised funding for the Brook Area Walking and Cycling Improvements Project was due to a change to the NZTA funding category after the project scope was reduced. He confirmed the resolution made on 28 November 2013 was after the reduction in project scope.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 9.36am.

In response to a question, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, confirmed that information on discussions held with building owners about enhancing street frontages on Bridge Street would be included in the status report for the 18 June Committee meeting.

There was discussion on the Highland Pipe Band Hall lease and demolition. Mr Louverdis advised that negotiations were ongoing and it was unlikely that the hall would be demolished by the end of June.

In response to a question, Mr Louverdis said it was his understanding the Band had secured a temporary alternative location. He said there was further discussion to be had about long term accommodation, which was linked to vacating the current premises.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 9.39am.

In response to a question, Mr Louverdis offered to provide the completion date of the Haven Road stormwater culvert works through the regular councillors newsletter.

Resolved WI/2015/004

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 5 May 2015 (R4202) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

Lawrey / Skinner Carried

Transport and Roading

7. Beatson Road Trial Closure - Investigation Results

Document number R4112, agenda pages 17 - 24 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, and Asset Engineer – Transport, Chris Pawson, presented the report and displayed the map in Attachment 1 (A1343631) on the screen.

Mr Palmer provided detail on the method of data collection for the Beatson Road trial closure investigation. Concern was raised that the data was not adequate to enable a decision on the matter.

In response to questions, Mr Palmer advised that a previous survey on Beatson Road had not been used to inform the officer’s report provided. He said the budget confirmed at the Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting in October 2014 had proven too low to enable the originally planned data collection to take place.

It was noted that the Turning Movements table in the attachment to the report should say ‘left turn movements to Waimea Road’ instead of ‘right turn...’.

Concern was raised that closing Beatson Road could result in a number of unintended consequences.

In response to a question, Mr Palmer said information from the Southern Link investigation would create a transport model for the area, but funding would still be required to investigate Beatson Road further if required.

In response to concerns about baseline data, Mr Palmer said the nature of the route was variable and he felt the baseline data obtained over two weeks was adequate. He added that officers were aware the dates in November included NCEA leave days for students, and this had minimal impact on the data collected.

It was suggested that officers should have reported back to the Committee if they had required additional resource to undertake the investigation.

Mr Palmer confirmed that officers had not yet assessed options for closing Beatson Road and the impacts of this, as it would involve considerable resource.

Councillor Davy, seconded by Councillor Barker, moved to receive the report:

THAT the report Beatson Road Trial Closure - Investigation Results (R4112) and its attachment (A1343631) be received;

There was discussion on the original intention of the study, which was to gather data before and after a temporary closure of Beatson Road, to determine whether a permanent closure would improve travel time on Waimea Road.

It was suggested that a sign could be installed to deter through traffic coming off the Beatson/Waimea/Whakatu roundabout and using Beatson Road as a shortcut.

There were opposing views on whether the study should or should not be redone, and what the repercussions would be if Beatson Road was closed.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.31am to 10.45am.

An amendment to the motion to receive the report was made with the approval of the mover and seconder.

THAT the report Beatson Road Trial Closure - Investigation Results (R4112) and its attachment (A1343631) be received;

AND THAT a regulatory sign with appropriate wording be installed to prohibit non residential through traffic exiting from the Waimea/Whakatu/Beatson roundabout into Beatson Road between 7am-9am Monday to Friday;

AND THAT a letter be sent to the New Zealand Police urging them to enforce this.

In response to concerns about policing this, and the ability to install a sign of this nature, it was agreed the matter would be reported back to the Committee if it could not be resolved or if there were any issues. Mr Palmer added that discussions would be had with the New Zealand Transport Agency and New Zealand Police regarding the wording of the sign.

The amended motion was put and carried.

Resolved WI/2015/005

THAT the report Beatson Road Trial Closure - Investigation Results (R4112) and its attachment (A1343631) be received;

AND THAT a regulatory sign with appropriate wording be installed to prohibit non residential through traffic exiting from the Waimea/Whakatu/Beatson roundabout into Beatson Road between 7am-9am Monday to Friday;

AND THAT a letter be sent to the New Zealand Police urging them to enforce this.

Davy / Barker Carried

8. Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining

Document number R4132, agenda pages 25 - 33 refer.

Property and Facilities Asset Manager, Michael Homan, presented the report.

In response to questions, Mr Homan advised that going to market for street stall licenses would provide an opportunity to assess the balance of stalls and allow other members of the community to submit applications. He clarified that increasing the number of street stall sites had not been canvassed in the officer report.

In response to further questions, Mr Homan advised that several parts of the officer recommendation enabled the Nelson Parking Strategy 2014-2024 to run its course.

There was support for the removal of the moratorium on using any additional parking spaces for outdoor dining. It was advised that this could not be done at present as there was no policy under which officers could assess new applications.

In response to questions, Mr Homan advised there had been no requests from stall holders to relocate, and there were minimal requests on using parking spaces for outdoor dining. He confirmed that six years ago Council had rolled over the stall holder licenses, creating new licenses for a further six years.

It was suggested that the street stall licenses could be extended for twelve months instead of six months. It was also suggested that the number of stalls and carpark dining spaces be allowed to increase during winter.

Councillor Noonan, seconded by Councillor Lawrey, moved to receive the report:

THAT the report Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining (R4132) and its attachment (A1341408) be received;

There was support for allowing greater flexibility for stall holders, such as being able to transfer the license if they sold their cart.

A suggestion was made that the number of stall holder sites should be increased.

There was support for rolling over the current licenses for six years as the stall holders had proven to be good tenants.

Concern was raised that stall holders had not been made aware of the officer report and its implications.

Attendance: Councillor Barker left the meeting at 11.38am and returned at 11.39am.

Her Worship the Mayor highlighted the need to provide assurance to members of the community involved in street stalls.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 11.46am to 11.54am.

An amendment to the motion to receive the report was made with the approval of the mover and seconder:

THAT the report Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining (R4132) and its attachment (A1341408) be received;

AND THAT an extension of the current street stall and outdoor dining licences for six years be offered to licensees from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2021;

AND THAT the policy on Licenses for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining, including the moratorium on public parking spaces, be reviewed by this Committee;

AND THAT a formal review of the rents for both street stall occupations and outdoor dining be undertaken.

The amended motion was put and carried.

Resolved WI/2015/006

THAT the report Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining (R4132) and its attachment (A1341408) be received;

AND THAT an extension of the current street stall and outdoor dining licences for six years be offered to licensees from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2021;

AND THAT the policy on Licenses for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining, including the moratorium on public parking spaces, be reviewed by this Committee;

AND THAT a formal review of the rents for both street stall occupations and outdoor dining be undertaken.

Noonan / Lawrey Carried

9. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved WI/2015/007

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Davy / Lawrey Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Owned Earthquake Prone Building Earthquake Assessment Update #4	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council Owned Earthquake Prone Building Earthquake Assessment Update #4

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Attendance: Councillor Barker left the meeting at 12.10pm.

The meeting went into public excluded session at 12.11pm and resumed in public session at 1.00pm, during which time Councillor Barker returned to the meeting and Councillor Copeland left the meeting.

10. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2015/008

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Davy / Lawrey Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.00pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Works and Infrastructure Committee

30 July 2015

REPORT R4248

Infrastructure Fees and Charges

1. Report

1.1 To advise and approve fees and charges for Utilities (water) , Roading and Solid Waste services for the 2015/16 financial year.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the power to decide on fees and charges relating to infrastructure.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges (R4248) and its attachment (A1360990) be received;

AND THAT the proposed charges be approved effective 31 August 2015.

4. Background

4.1 Fees and charges are reviewed annually and adjusted in line with CPI or to reflect changes in process and/or costs incurred to Council.

4.2 Currently officers have delegated authority to set fees and charges, however officers are of the view that approval via relevant committee is appropriate.

4.3 A report on Fees and Charges relating to Community facilities and reserves was taken to the 2 July 2015 Community Services Committee meeting.

4.4 An increase to Landfill charges was approved by Council in May 2015 effective from 1 June 2015 to June 30 2016 and is not covered in this report.

5. Discussion

5.1 Proposed Fees and Charges for Utilities (water) are listed in Table 1 of Attachment 1.

5.2 Proposed Fees and Charges for Roading are listed in Table 2 of Attachment 1.

5.3 Proposed Fees and Charges for the Transfer station are listed in Table 3 of Attachment 1.

6. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

6.1 The recommendations outlined in the report are not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

7.1 Māori have not been consulted.

8. Conclusion

8.1 This report considers the fees and charges levied by Council for some work carried out in the area of Utilities, Roading and Solid waste.

8.2 The report proposes some increases where justified by CPI adjustment or changes in Council process and cost recovery.

8.3 Subject to approval by this Committee, all users will be given 30 days notice of the proposed changes prior to implementation.

Margaret Parfitt

Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1360990 - Fees & Charges Infrastructure

ATTACHMENT 1

Table 1 Utilities (Water)

Description	Cost 2014-15 (Incl GST)	Cost 2015-16 (Incl GST)	Comment
Special Reading	$25.50	$28.00
Installation of Restrictor	$ 112	$115
Disconnection fee	$214	$220
Connection Application:
-Less than 50mm	$112	$115	CPI 3% cumulative for past 2 years rounded (Inc GST)
-50mm and greater	$214	$220
Hydrant Supply Application	$127	$130
Bulk Filling Registration	$127	$130

Table 2 Roading

Description	Cost 2014-15 (inc GST)	Cost 2015-16 (inc GST)	Comment
Road closures
For Construction	$307	$550	No increases since 2010. Proposed fees reflect the cost of placing notification in newspapers (2 advertisements) as required by law and staff time to process applications
For Event –charitable status	$307	$324	Proposed fees reflect the cost of placing notification in newspapers (2 advertisements) as required by law and staff time to process applications For charitable events it is proposed that the staff time is not charged.
For Event – Commercial	$307	$550	Proposed fees reflect the cost of placing notification in newspapers (2 advertisements) as required by law and staff time to process applications
For Vehicle Crossing applications	$120	No change	Current costs of processing application are fully recovered
Corridor Access Requests	Application fee $75 Multiple openings $25 Length of work charge $40 Out of hours call $300 Late notice fee $200 Further delay fee $25 Extra processing fee$75 Inspection $75 Texturing contribution where applicable $7.50m2	Application fee $75 Multiple openings $25 Inspection $75 Non Approval Penalty $250 Texturing contribution where applicable $7.50m2	Propose to retain existing fees for a CAR application but delete additional charges for lengths of work to simplify charges. Introduce a new penalty notice $250 for not submitting a CAR application on top of the normal costs of that application as a deterrent to carrying out unauthorised work in Councils Road Reserve. (This will replace the late notice fee, delay fee and extra processing fees previously charged)

Table 3 Transfer Station

Transfer Station - General	14 – 15 price (Inc GST)	15 -16 price (Inc GST)
0.0 – 0.5 m³ (car boot) Minimum charge 0.5m³	$18	$20
0.5 – 1.0 m³	$36	$40
1.0 – 1.5 m³	$54	$60
1.5 – 2.0 m³	$72	$80
Thereafter Per M3	$36	$40
Tyres - Car	$7	No change
Tyres - Truck	$20	No change
Tyres – On rim	$15	No change
Tyres – Tractor or similar, off rim	$70	No change
Hazardous waste – 0 to 2kg (Household only)	Free	No change
Hazardous Waste – Thereafter (Household only)	$2	No change
Commercial Operators dumping hardfill and demolition	$180	No change
Transfer Station - Green Waste	14 – 15 price (Inc GST)	15 -16 price (Inc GST)
0.0 – 0.5 m³ (car boot) Minimum charge 0.5m³	$10	No change
0.5 – 1.0 m³	$20	No change
1.0 – 1.5 m³	$30	No change
1.5 – 2.0 m³	$40	No change
Thereafter Per M3	$20	No change

Works and Infrastructure Committee

30 July 2015

REPORT R4356

Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the outline business cases for selected projects included in the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

2. Delegations

2.1 This is a matter for the Works and Infrastructure Committee as it has powers to decide in performing all functions, powers and duties relating to the provision, operation and maintenance of water, wastewater and storm water, including collection, treatment, reticulation and disposal.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects (R4356) and its attachments (A1306411, A1306409, A1328492, A1328494, A1328501, and A1378910) be received.

4. Background

4.1 Council resolved on 11 June 2015:

THAT the report Business Case Approach for 2015/16 Projects - Revised Projects Listing (R4354) and its attachment (A1331113) be received;

AND THAT the projects highlighted yellow in document A1331113 follow a business case approach.

4.2 This report summarises the projects approved through the Long Term Plan 2015-25, and provides the outline business cases requested for this Committee. Similar reports for the remaining selected projects will be tabled at the relevant Committee. The projects have been previously discussed through Asset Management Plan workshops, and reviewed for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2015-25. The outline agreed business cases for these projects are presented here for information. All projects are now in progress, and do not require further decision at this point in time.

5. Discussion

Hampden Street East – Little Go Stream

5.1 This is a multi year flood protection project which began in 2013-14. Options were considered through the Long Term Plan 2012-22, and the Long Term Plan 2015-25, as part of Council’s commitment to focus work on areas where the flood risk to people and assets is high. This project comprises water supply, sewer, and flood protection components

5.2 The outline business case in attachment 1 summarises the option approved through 2015-25 Long Term Plan process. Following the tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for September 2015.

York Stream

5.3 This is a multi year flood protection project which began in 2012-13. This project upgrades the storm water capacity of York Stream from the detention dam below the landfill through to the inlet of the box culvert in the grounds of Victory school and improves the secondary flow paths from this point to Salt Water Creek.

5.4 The outline business case in attachment 2 summarises the option approved through 2015-25 Long Term Plan process. Following the tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for February 2016.

Orphanage Stream

5.5 This is a multi year flood protection project which began in 2014-15. This project increases the capacity of the Orphanage Stream storm water system, including the culverts on Saxton and Suffolk Roads, upgrades to the stop banks between the two roads, and bunding Saxton Field.

5.6 The outline business case in attachment 3 summarises the option approved through 2015-25 Long Term Plan process. Following the tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for September 2018. The request for award of tender for the 2015-16 bunding works will be reported to the Group Manager, Infrastructure.

Rutherford Stage 1 Girls College Detention Pond

5.7 This is a multi year flood protection project beginning in 2015-16.

5.8 The outline business case in attachment 4 summarises the options. This project is required to counter the remaining storm water issues to be managed as a result of the Little Go Stream flood protection measures. Initial investigations may trigger significant changes to the Little Go Stream project.

5.9 Following the eventual tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Group Manager, Infrastructure with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for November 2017.

Neale Park Pump Station Upgrade

5.10 This is a multi year project beginning in 2015-16. This project renews and upgrades a critical asset in the waste water system.

5.11 The outline business case in attachment 5 summarises the option approved through 2015-25 Long Term Plan process. Following the tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for September 2016.

Capital: Atawhai No 2 Reservoir

5.12 This is a multi year water supply project beginning in 2015-16. This project upgrades the capacity of the emergency water supply.

5.13 The outline business case in attachment 6 summarises the option approved through 2015-25 Long Term Plan process. The land purchase scheduled for 2017 will be approved through the usual Council process. Following the construction tender process, final estimated project costs will be reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee with the request for award of tender. This is scheduled for September 2021.

6. Options

6.1 All projects are approved through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 and underway. Decision points are incorporated for each project at significant milestones.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 This matter is not in contradiction to any Council policy or strategic document.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 This matter is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 The public have not been consulted on this matter.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The projects discussed in this report are approved through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 and underway; this report and its attachments confirms in more detail the agreed business case justification and benefits of each project.

Arlene Akhlaq

Senior Projects Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: Outline business case for Hampden Street East Little Go Stream project 2865 (A1306411)

Attachment 2: Outline business case for York Stream Channel Upgrade project 1100 (A1306409)

Attachment 3: Outline business case for Orphanage Stream Upgrade project 2688 (A1328492)

Attachment 4: Outline business case for Rutherford - Stage 1 - Girls College project 2850 (A1328494)

Attachment 5: Outline business case for Neale Park Pump Station Upgrade project 1187 (A1328501)

Attachment 6: outline business case for Capital: Atawhai No. 2 Reservoir project 2314 (A1378910)

Outline Business Case for York Stream Channel Upgrade

Prepared by: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities; and Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser

SUMMARY

The full project upgrades the storm water capacity of York Stream from the detention dam below the landfill through to the inlet of the box culvert in the grounds of Victory school and improves the secondary flow paths from this point to Salt Water Creek (see map at end of this business case). Sections of the channel have been upgraded in earlier years by the installation of timber retaining walls and concrete box culverts (these sections predate the climate change rainfall design parameters and may need to be reviewed).

The current section of the work upgrades the intake structure at Bishopdale Reserve, constructs a larger bypass pipe under Waimea Road, along Boundary Road and Kawai Street to the mixing box in the intersection of Tipahi Street and Kawai Street South and finally carries out work on Bishopdale Reserve/Bishopdale Avenue to capture secondary flows to direct to the new intake structure.

The construction across Waimea Road has been programmed to begin first to allow the resurfacing of the intersection to be completed in the same year. This allows Council to complete the separate Waimea Road resurfacing project.

On completion, the majority of flood flows will be diverted through the piped storm water system. The existing open channel will remain in place to absorb any remaining flood flow down through Market Road and Waimea Road.

This is a multi-year project currently in progress. The project began in 2012-13 with original completion planned for 2014-15. Cost estimates were revised following the initial investigation phase, and subsequently a slower, staged approach was signalled through the Annual Plan 2014-15, with the project re-planned over a longer timeframe.

REASONS

Currently, a Q₂₀ event blocks the intake structure and causes surface flooding, and modelling shows that events rated Q₅₀ or above will result in surface flooding across Waimea Road.

The NCC Land Development Manual sets performance criteria for the design of storm water systems so that storm water generated by a Q₅₀ storm event can be accommodated within the primary and secondary storm water management system in a way that does not cause any significant damage to people and property.

BUSINESS OPTION 1 – DO NOTHING

Considered through the Long Term Plans 2015-25, and 2012-22. Not being pursued due to: known impact on major arterial traffic route and inner city; potential impact on the lower commercial and industrial zone in Vanguard Street and St Vincent Street; and risks to the Nelson Electricity sub-station during flooding events

BUSINESS OPTION 2 (APPROVED OPTION) – upgrade the storm water capacity of York Stream and improve secondary flow paths.

Upgrade the storm water pipe to Q₅₀ capacity from Bishopdale Reserve/ Avenue to the intersection of Kawai Street South and Tipahi Street

Benefits

Note that the chosen solution will accommodate Q₁₀₀ and above flows due to the available pipe size adding approx 40% extra capacity. The next smallest available pipe size does not fully meet Q_50.The cost difference between the two pipe sizes is considered small in relation to the additional benefits achieved

Protect significant major roadway (Waimea Road) from flooding up to at least Q₁₀₀ events

Eliminate flooding on to properties from this section of the York Stream channel for up to at least Q₁₀₀ , once the work is completed, by diverting the majority of flood flows through the piped storm water system

Meet Land Development Manual objective to design to Q₅₀capacity

Cost avoidance – for flooding events, NCC typically incurs costs for inspections, road closures, cleaning up the road, and cleaning up the intake structure

Meet responsibilities of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, regarding risk reduction activities relating to hazards

Dis-benefits

Disruption to traffic flows, road users, and some adjacent residents during construction

Some impact on Bishopdale reserve as will need to remove some trees to build the intake structure

Costs

Cost of doing the project:

· 2012-13 - $79,000

· 2013-14 - $464,700

· 2014-15 – $0

· 2015-16 – $750,000

· 2016-17 - $769,575

· 2017-18 - $526,595

· 2018-19 – $540,655

Total cost $3,130,525

Cost to operate and maintain the project’s products:

As currently budgeted, no additional costs. Gravel and trash will need to be cleared from the intake structure during and after storm events, as per current

The existing open channels will be retained, and maintained as per current costs. No additional costs to operate and maintain the upgraded system

Timescale

Construction of the remaining stages from Bishopdale Reserve/Bishopdale Avenue to the intersection of Kawai Street South and Tipahi Street is due to begin in 2015-16

2012-13 – initial investigation and design

2013-14 – construction stage 1 upper section of York Stream

2014-15 – project on hold pending further flood modelling

2015-16 – Waimea Road intersection

2016-17 – Boundary Road and Kawai Street

2017-18 – Boundary Road and Kawai Street

2018-19 - Bishopdale Reserve and adjacent streets

Benefits will be realised during the first flood event after the construction has been completed

Disbenefits will likely occur when construction commences on the Waimea Road intersection in 2015-16

Risks

Risk of flood events during the construction of the intake structure and site works on Bishopdale Reserve and Bishopdale Avenue prior to the completion of the work. Such events have the potential to damage work that is partially completed, and will need additional budget to remediate. Mitigate by estimating best timing for the work

Outline Business Case for Orphanage Stream upgrade project 2688

Prepared by: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities; and Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser

SUMMARY

Significant flood damage and loss of property occurred in Whakatu estate as a result of the 2013 flood event which overwhelmed the existing storm water channel. Discussion with Councillors on a solution including a detention dam took place through the workshop held during 2014-15 for the draft Storm Water and Flood Protection Asset Management Plan 2015-2025. The area where works will take place is shown on the map at the end of this business case.

This is a multi-year project which is currently in progress.

REASONS

The existing capacity for Orphanage Stream reliably copes with a Q₂₀ event, however the event in 2013, though short, was an intense rainstorm and statistically would be classified as a Q₅₀₀. The culvert size was the weak link in this area of the storm water system, and as such the risk of flooding is enhanced for events over Q₂₀.

BUSINESS OPTION 1 - do nothing different

Considered through the Long Term Plan 2015-25. Not being pursued due to the known impact on Whakatu Industrial Estate and the adjacent residential areas.

BUSINESS OPTION 2 – upgrade the capacity of the storm water system

Increase the capacity of storm water culverts on Saxton Road and Suffolk Road, upgrade the stop banks between the two roads, and bund Saxton Field.

Benefits

Considerably enhanced protection from flooding to the properties in the Whakatu Industrial Estate and the adjacent residential areas.

Capacity to cope with up to Q₁₀₀ storm events

Protection of important transport corridor during storm events

Reduced reinstatement costs for storm events less than Q₁₀₀

Protect emergency access to the TDC water supply

Dis-benefits

Construction works on Main Road Stoke during 2015-16, Saxton Road and Suffolk Road in subsequent years will cause traffic delays

The cycleway under Main Road, Stoke will need to be closed for a period during construction

Construction work on Saxton Field is not significant and is outside of the active sports areas

Costs

Cost of doing the project:

2014-15 - $538,047

2015-16 - $250,000

2016-17 - $150,000

2017-18 - $750,000

2018-19 - $750,000

2019-20 - $750,000

Total cost: $3,188,047

Note that some of the 2014-15 budget and associated work has been approved for carry over into 2015-16, to accommodate a reschedule of the project stages

Cost to operate and maintain the project’s products:

As currently budgeted, no additional costs

Timescale

2014-15 – Design Saxton Road (brought forward from 15-16)

2015-16 – Bunding (rescheduled from 14-15) on Saxton Field to create detention pond, some stop bank protection upstream of Saxton Road. Design of Suffolk Road culvert upgrade

2016-17 – Resource Consent for Suffolk Road culvert

2017-18 – Construction Saxton Road culvert

2018-19 – Complete construction Saxton Road culvert. Start construction Suffolk Road culvert

2019-20 – Complete construction Suffolk Road culvert

Risks

Risk of one or more flood events during the construction prior to the completion of the work. These events have the potential to damage work that is partially completed, and will need additional budget to remediate. Mitigate by estimating best timing for the work.

Lower level risks exist around the ability to secure the resource consent as planned.

Outline Business Case for Rutherford - Stage 1 - Girls College project 2850

Prepared by: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities; and Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser

SUMMARY

The Little Go Stream project, once completed, will have diverted flooding for Q₁₀₀ events. Some further works are required to address this. The potential to use the playing field at Nelson College for Girls as a detention pond for Little Go Stream is to be investigated.

REASONS

Reduce impact of overflows from the storm water system on the west inner city and city fringe area. Current the majority of the storm water volume from Little Go Stream is generated at Franklyn Street, and this is being addressed through the Hampden Street – Little Go Stream project. When this intake structure is fully upgraded there will be throttle point at Rutherford Street for Q₁₀₀ events, likely causing the excess storm water to come out of kerb and channel, or on private property. This project is to investigate the feasibility of forcing the excess storm water through an alternate route into a detention dam.

The investigation will look at the feasibility of a detention pond, with options to site at either the Nelson College for Girls, or the Nelson College. This initial feasibility, including land owner agreement in principle, will determine whether a detention pond solution in either one or both of these locations proceeds.

BUSINESS OPTION 1 - do nothing different

Considered through the Long Term Plan 2015-25, and not being pursued further at this point

BUSINESS OPTION 2 – create a detention pond to detain storm water

Options being investigated for the feasibility and effectiveness of creating a detention pond at Nelson College for Girls, or at Nelson College, or a detention pond at both colleges

Benefits

Ability to retain excess storm water resulting from a Q₁₀₀ event. A detention pond at Nelson College for Girls would reduce the storm water impact on the inner city and city fringe; a detention pond at Nelson College would provide a greater reduction; a detention pond in both locations would provide even great protection.

Takes the pressure off the Rutherford Street box culvert.

Meet responsibilities of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, regarding risk reduction activities relating to hazards.

Dis-benefits

College students would not be able to use, or would have reduced use of the playing field at the location(s) during a Q₁₀₀ event. This would be investigated in more detail during design.

Costs

Cost of doing the project:

2015-16: $80,000

2016-17: $51,305

2017-18: $263,298

Total cost: $394,603

Cost to operate and maintain the project’s products:

To be investigated during the initial feasibility stage.

Timescale

2015-16: Feasibility investigation and initial design

2016-17: Design completion and resource consent

2017-18: Construction

Risks

Project comes to premature close due to not being able to secure landowner agreement. Council will need to then review option 1, or option 3, as alternatives.

If a particular configuration and location of the detention pond is feasible, storm water modelling may negate some, or all of the need for related flood protection work on Little Go Stream. The positive impact of this risk is that significant financial savings can be made; the initial feasibility investigation is therefore being conducted as a priority, to appropriately merge with staging of the Little Go Stream project.

BUSINESS OPTION 3 – upgrade the storm water network in Rutherford Street out to the Haven

Not currently being investigated further as costs are estimated in the region of $5 to $7m. Initial costs for this option totalling $1,886,444 have been included in the Long Term Plan 2015-25 in years 4, 7, 8, and 10, for design and to begin construction.

Nelson College for Girls

Nelson College Top Field

Outline Business Case for Neale Park Pump Station upgrade project 1187

Prepared by: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities; and Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser

SUMMARY

This is a multi-year project which is currently in progress. This project is noted in the Long Term Plan 2015-25 as being part of critical Council functions, protecting the health of the community and environment.

Sewerage from Bishopdale eastwards is piped to the Neale Park pump station and then pumped to the Nelson Wastewater Treatment Plant along the state highway north of the city. The pump station was constructed in the 1960s. Parts for the original pumps are no longer available, and so over time all the original pumps have been replaced, rather than repaired. A new pump station is proposed for the site (refer to maps at the end of this business case), incorporating modern odour control and some wastewater pre-treatment.

REASONS

Current problems include:

· The two existing pumps – one dry weather pump and one wet weather pump - were installed as a temporary measure pending the full pump station upgrade, replacing three older pumps. There is no standby capacity, resulting in an increased risk of sewage overflow if one of the pumps fails.

· Fat, oil and grease in the waste water coagulates and deposits as a coating the inside of the rising main pipes, in turn causing a reduction in the pipe capacity.

· Wastewater including fat, oil and grease are broken down by anaerobic bacteria leading to the creation of hydrogen sulphide gas that forms a dilute sulphuric acid inside the pipes. This eats away concrete pipes and has caused the majority of pipe failures in the rising main over the last ten years.

· There is insufficient storm pump capacity to pump out infiltration of storm water from storm events. Currently the overflow chamber is used to reduce the discharge of wastewater into the Haven, but cannot cope with very high volumes or serious mechanical failures.

· Elevated pressures in the pipe from the pump station to the Nelson Wastewater Treatment Plant, leading to pipe failures and sewage overflow into the Haven.

· Grit and gravel get into the system and wears out pump components, causing additional maintenance costs and the need for more frequent renewals

· The pump house building is earthquake prone and requires strengthening to protect the control system for the pump station, and related equipment operating the adjacent Wood storm water pump station on Neale Park.

· A lack of odour control, resulting in an unpleasant smell mainly affecting users of the nearby shared path and passengers riding the train from Founders Heritage Park, as it stops at Grove Station.

BUSINESS OPTION 1 - do nothing different

Considered through the Long Term Plans 2015-25 and 2012-22. Not being pursued due to the known requirement to replace this critical asset.

BUSINESS OPTION 2 – Install a modern pump station system at the existing location, to include:

· an ozone system to neutralise the hydrogen sulphide gas natural by-product

· A 100% standby system consisting of one new wet weather pump, re-use of the existing wet weather pump, two new dry weather pumps

· improved preventative screening for gravel, grit, fat, oil and grease

· earthquake strengthening of the existing pump house building

Benefits

Eliminate the odour problem

Significantly reduced risk of sewage overflow into the Haven

Ability to manage expected storm flows through the pump system, reserving the overflow chamber for very high volume storm events or serious pump failures

Maintain four hours of storage in the event of a very high volume storm event or a serious pump failure

Reduce maintenance and renewal costs for pump components

Protect the generator for the Wood storm water system in the event of an earthquake

Retain one existing dry weather pump for future use or re-sale

Will have capacity for waste water generated by the maximum probable development in the Nelson city catchment, including Port Nelson, based on current zoning

Dis-benefits

Issues affecting the location such as the flood impact shown in the 2013 Maitai flood model, and predicted sea level rise are being designed in, however physical access to the pump station in extreme storm events will be challenging.

Costs

Cost of doing the project:

2014-15: $121,990

2015-16: $250,000

2016-17: $3,078,300

2017-18: $3,159,570

Total cost: $6,609,860

Cost to operate and maintain the project’s products:

Some additional costs for regular cleaning of the wet well system (compared to dry well system) however wet well system is industry standard

Less costs associated with repair, replacement of the impeller components

Less failures of the rising main and concrete pipe failures and associated costs

Less incidence of overflow discharge into the Haven, associated costs, and inconvenience to the public

Timescale

2014-15: detailed design

2015-16: detailed design and resource consent

2016-17: construction

2017-18: construction

Risks

Risks relating to ground conditions and HAIL are being investigated

Neale Park Pump Station - Sovereign Street

Outline Business Case for Capital: Atawhai No. 2 Reservoir project 2314

Prepared by: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities; and Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser

SUMMARY

A number of risk mitigation measures are, or have been, put in place to secure the continued supply of Nelson’s water. To allow time for repairs in the event of damage to critical components of the water supply network, reservoirs in the city hold sufficient water for approximately eight hours’ daytime consumption. This project is to construct an additional reservoir for the Atawhai area (approximately the area from Walters Bluff to Hillwood Drive).

This is a multi-year project currently in progress. The project began in 2014-15, with completion planned for 2022-23.

REASONS

Currently there is one large reservoir (2500m³) and multiple small tanks (25m³ -100m³) providing emergency water supply to the Atawhai area, for example in the event of a break in the single trunk main, or if there is significant damage to the Water Treatment Plant. Growth is a secondary driver and though storage capacity is currently adequate, an additional reservoir would accommodate future growth, and allow subdivision to continue in the area. However it should be noted that Council does not have an obligation to provide a continual, non-interrupted water supply.

BUSINESS OPTION 1 - do nothing different

Considered through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 and the previous Long Term Plan 2012-22. Not being pursued due to agreed requirement to increase reservoir capacity.

BUSINESS OPTION 2 - Construct a second reservoir servicing the Atawhai area, location not yet selected

Benefits

Increase reservoir capacity by 10% of the total city supply

Double the reservoir capacity for residents within the Atawhai area, resulting in an increase in the length of time this emergency source of water can be used

Provide for future growth

Enhance the amount of water stored close to urban areas in event of emergencies resulting in increased ability to accommodate displaced residents

Dis-benefits

Additional traffic during construction will cause minor disruption or inconvenience to local residents

During construction, some erosion and runoff associated with earthworks will affect local roads

Costs

Cost of doing the project

· 2014-15: $3,000

· 2015-16: 87,000

· 2016-17: 100,000

· 2017-18: 285,000

· 2021-22: 1,000,000

· 2022-23: 2,500,000

Total cost: $3,975,000

Cost to operate and maintain the project’s products

To be confirmed during the initial design stage

Timescale

· 2014-15: identify potential sites

· 2015-16: investigation

· 2016-17: initial design/consents/approvals

· 2017-18: purchase site

· 2018-19: gap year to smooth expenditure profile

· 2019-20: gap year to smooth expenditure profile

· 2021-22: construction

· 2022-23: construction

Risks

Unable to assess the HAIL risk in detail, as the location has not yet been chosen

Residents living near to the location of the reservoir may be dissatisfied with choice of location, or size of the reservoir

Works and Infrastructure Committee

30 July 2015

REPORT R4128

Earthquake Prone Buildings #5

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a comprehensive update on:

1.1.1 Detailed seismic assessments completed on Council owned buildings with initial assessments rated below 34%NBS; and

1.1.2 Works completed to strengthen Council owned earthquake prone buildings.

1.2 To set direction from the Committee on how they wish to proceed with Council owned buildings rated below 34%NBS following detailed assessments.

1.3 To consider a way forward with three buildings rated between 34% and 67% NBS.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee is delegated to make decisions on building services and structures.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Earthquake Prone Buildings #5 (R4128) and its attachments (A1252682, A573853, A573921) be received;

AND THAT approval be granted to undertake design and cost estimate for the remedial work to Isel House Chimneys funded from provision provided in the 2015/16 budget;

· Refinery building

· Plant and Food building

· Wood Turners Building

4. Background

4.1 Council resolved in August 2013 “AND THAT a further report be brought back to Council once all detailed assessments and costs of strengthening works for all Council owned buildings have been completed, with the emphasis on a global approach on how to proceed with all Council building assets going forward”

4.2 Council also resolved in July 2014 “AND THAT it be noted that a further report will be presented once all detailed assessments and costs of strengthening works for all Council owned buildings (with ISA’s less than 34% NBS) have been completed, with the emphasis on a standardised approach on how to proceed with all Council building assets going forward”

4.3 Council also resolved in October 2014 “THAT Council note that no work will be undertaken on the Reliance Engineering Building at this stage as the building is not expected to collapse or cause serious injury during a moderate earthquake event”

4.4 Council also resolved in March 2015 “AND THAT Council note that no work will be undertaken on the Woodturner Building at this stage as the building is not expected to collapse or cause serious injury during a moderate earthquake event”

4.5 This report summarises the outcomes of all detailed seismic assessments completed to date and seeks guidance on how to proceed with the buildings rated below 34%NBS and the three buildings rated between 34%NBS and 67%NBS.

5. Discussion

Outcome of the Detailed Seismic Assessments

5.1 A total of 38 detailed seismic assessments have been completed over the last 4 years on Council owned buildings with initial seismic assessments below 34%NBS (excluding toilet blocks, change rooms, garages, sheds, shelters and footbridges). The results are detailed in the attachments.

5.2 Of these 38 buildings, 28 buildings require no further action under the Building Act.

5.2.1 17 buildings achieved above 34% NBS following detailed assessments.

5.2.2 9 buildings have been or are currently being strengthened to achieve above 34% NBS.

5.2.3 1 building rated below 34% NBS has been demolished

5.2.4 1 building rated below 34%NBS is scheduled to be demolished.

5.3 A total of 10 buildings will require additional work to either strengthen the building to at least 34% NBS or otherwise remove the risk. With the exception of two, these buildings have been issued with Section 124 notices (Notice is respect of earthquake prone building) as detailed in the table below.

5.3.1 10 buildings achieved less than 34% NBS following a detailed assessment.

Building Name	Section 124 timeframe to complete the strengthening work or demolish
Hunter Furniture	9 July 2019
Old Mediterranean Food	31 January 2022
Stoke Memorial Hall	26 September 2029 (See note 1)
Refinery Building	30 June 2032
Plant and Food Building	5 September 2034
*Anchor Building	23 October 2029 (Addressing the Critical Structural Weakness (CSW) has reduced the life safety risk posed by the building but the building will remain below 34% and earthquake prone)
*Old Hunting and Fishing	27 January 2030 (Addressing the CSW has reduced the life safety risk posed by the building but the building will remain below 34% and earthquake prone)
*Old Four Seasons	20 May 2035 (Addressing the CSW has removed the earthquake prone building classification, although it will remain below 34%NBS. The lifting of the S124 Notice is currently being reviewed by the Building Unit)
Old Reliance Engineering and Wood Turners Building	Not issued as the under the Building Act the building is not classified as earthquake prone. Council previously resolved not to strengthen.

Note 1: Structural engineer’s advice that work should be completed on Stoke Memorial hall in the next 5 years, subject to review of Stoke Community Centre and Sports Centre. This is considerably less than 2029 date noted on the S124 notice.

5.4 A summary of the rough order costs to strengthen to 34%, 67%NBS and demolition costs including dependencies with other projects are listed in the table below. The costs provided exclude design, supervision, consenting, costs associated with working within heritage buildings and contingencies. Cost to strengthen to 100% is also included for information in Appendix 1.

Building	Leased	Cost to 34%	Cost to 67%	Demolition costs	Links and dependencies with other projects
Hunter Furniture (Achilles Ave)	Yes	$5,000	$20,000	$118,000	Subject to Property Asset Review
Old Hunting and Fishing Building (Achilles Ave)	No (used for storage)	$98,000	$98,000	$73,000	Subject to Property Asset Review regarding future use of building/ site
Old Mediterra-nean Food Building (Halifax Street)	No (Council Storage)	$390,000	$390,000	$198,000	Subject to outcome of Elma Turner Library extension project
Plant and Food Building (Wakefield Quay)	Yes	$140,000 Plus $2.4m one off maintenance	$300,000 Plus $2.4m one off maintenance	Heritage Building. Quotes not sought	-
Building	Leased	Cost to 34%	Cost to 67%	Demolition costs	Links and dependencies with other projects
Reliance Engineering (Haven Road)	Periodic-ally but currently vacant	$30,000	$30,000	$208,000	Subject to Property Asset Review with development plan of the Haven Precinct
Old Four Seasons Building (250 Haven Road)	No (Council Storage)	$34,000	$34,000	$77,000	Subject to Property Asset Review with development plan of the Haven Precinct
Anchor Building (Wakefield Quay)	No	$67,000	$293,000	Heritage Building. Quotes not sought	Subject to Property Asset Review with development plan of the Haven Precinct
Stoke Memorial Hall (Main road Stoke)	Yes	$227,000	$417,000	$350,000	Subject to review of Stoke Community Centre and Sports centre.
Refinery Main Building (Halifax Street)	Yes	$175,000	$369,000	$235,000	-

Note: That further assessment considering economical and community factors be deferred for 12 months on all buildings pending decisions on wider Council initiatives as noted in the table above

Council Owned Buildings with Initial Assessments Rated Between 34% and 67%NBS.

5.5 46 Council owned buildings are currently rated between 34% and 67%NBS.

5.6 A building rated between 34% and 67% NBS is classified as a moderate risk building, although it is acceptable legally under the Building Act. Strengthening a building to 67%NBS reduces the relative risk from around 20 times to around 3 times that of a new building.

5.7 Recommended that should any refurbishment or major alterations be completed to Council owned buildings, these buildings should be strengthened to at least 67%NBS providing the solution is reasonably practical and economical.

5.8 Council officers have reviewed buildings rated between 34 and 67%NBS following initial assessment and advise that the following detailed assessments should be completed in the next year. These buildings have been selected due to low %NBS achieved and high volume of people using them at any one time or high frequency of use. On the basis that these are of the next highest priority. The remainder will be assessed as part of future asset management planning.

5.8.1 Montgomery Superloo. This building has a provisional rating of 36%NBS.

5.8.2 Nelson Haven Sports Complex. This building has a provisional rating of 42%NBS.

5.8.3 Tahuna Campground – Function Centre. This building has a provisional rating of 45%NBS.

Isel House

5.9 An initial assessment has rated the building below 34%NBS due to the un reinforced masonry chimneys. Although not a critical structural weakness the chimneys present a life safety risk due to the potential falling hazard. The House excluding the chimneys achieves >67%NBS based on an initial assessment.

5.10 A detailed assessment has not been completed as the un reinforced masonry chimneys are unlikely to achieve above 33%NBS.

5.11 It is recommended that a detailed seismic assessment is not completed and the funds are allocated to completing the design and construction to address the risk posed by the chimneys.

5.12 The most cost effective approach to remove this risk is likely to be the removal of the chimneys, which could then either be replaced with replica stacks or the exterior walls could be re-clad. The final solution will need to be made in consultation with Heritage New Zealand.

Financial

5.13 Funding is provided in 2015/16 as below:

5.13.1 Detailed Assessments- $50,000

5.13.2 Potential capital remediation works - $419,000

6. Options for remedial works

6.1 Options to remediate existing buildings below 34%NBS include:

6.1.1 Do Nothing – The section 124 Notices set timeframes for strengthening or demolition. This could leave high risk buildings untouched for several years depending on dependencies.

6.1.2 Strengthen to either 34%NBS or 67%NBS or otherwise remove the danger posed by earthquake prone building as soon as is reasonable practical. It is recommended that further assessment should be completed before a decision is made on the future of the building.(Strengthen, demolish, retain, dispose).

6.2 Where work to buildings rated between 34%NBS and 67%NBS require major alterations or refurbishment buildings should be strengthened to 67%NBS.

7. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance Policy

7.1 This is not a significant decision in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

8. Alignment with Relevant Council Policy

8.1 This work aligns with the 2014/15 Annual Plan and proposed work in the draft Long Term Plan

8.2 This work is aligned to Council’s current Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

8.3 This work is consistent with Nelson 2060, particularly providing a strong economy and sustainable city

8.4 The work Council is undertaking fits in well with the purpose of local government, as it provides for good quality local infrastructure, provides a public service and meets regulatory requirements that will guide good decision making.

9. Consultation

9.1 No consultation has been undertaken as this stage. Future significant decisions to be made by Council will be guided by consultation through the Long Term Plan or future Annual Plan process.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 No consultation has been undertaken with Māori.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Detailed assessments on Council owned buildings with initial earthquake assessment less than 34%NBS have been completed and the results are shown on the accompanying attachments.

11.2 Council has previously resolved not to strengthen the Old Reliance Engineering building or Wood Turners building.

11.3 Remedial works have been completed on a number of buildings.

11.4 With regard to Council owned buildings with initial assessments between 34%NBS and 67%NBS officers recommend that detailed assessments be undertaken on three buildings - Montgomery Superloo, Nelson Haven Sports Complex and the Tahuna Campground Function Centre.

11.5 Officers seek clarification from Councillors on how to deal with the Buildings rated below 34%NBS.

Mel Large

Team Leader Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: List of buildings rated <34% NBS (1252682)

Attachment 2: List of buildings rated 34% to 67% NBS (A573853)

Attachment 3: List of buildings rated above 67% NBS (A573921)