AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Works and Infrastructure Committee
Thursday 10 September 2015
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Councillor Eric Davy (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Ian Barker, Luke Acland, Ruth Copeland, Matt Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson), Gaile Noonan and Tim Skinner
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Orders:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings (SO 2.12.2)
· At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.
· Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee (SO 3.14.1)
It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda. They should withdraw from the table for discussion and voting on any of these items.
Works and Infrastructure
Committee
10 September 2015
1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Matt Lawrey
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Owen Houliston - General State of the City's Infrastructure
Owen Houliston will speak about the general state of the City’s infrastructure.
Document number M1375
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 30 July 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.
6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 September 2015 14 - 18
Document number R4789
Recommendation
THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 (R4789) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.
Transport and Roading
8. Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 19 - 20
Document number R4293
Recommendation
THAT the report Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (R4293) and its attachment (A1156705), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be received.
Recommendation to Council
THAT the Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (A1156705), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be adopted.
Note: Due to its size, the attachment to this report has been circulated separately.
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater
9. Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 21 - 23
Document number R4659
Recommendation
THAT the report Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 (R4659) and its attachments (A824126, A824068 and A824368) be received.
Recommendation to Council
THAT the Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 (A824126, A824068 and A824368), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2015- 2025, be adopted.
Note: Due to their size, the attachments to this report have been circulated separately.
Solid Waste
10. Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 24 - 25
Document number R4295
Recommendation
THAT the report Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (R4295) and its attachment (A1300889) be received.
Recommendation to Council
THAT the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (A1300889), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be adopted.
Note: Due to its size, the attachment to this report has been circulated separately.
11. Solid Waste: Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sites on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) 26 - 31
Document number R4312
Recommendation
THAT the report Solid Waste: Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sites on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) (R4312) be received.
Recommendation to Council
THAT Council approve the development of a consent practice note that will allow the receiving of up to 25m3 soil (at the York Valley landfill) from a HAIL site (to align with the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health - NESCS), subject to bulk testing at the landfill at current landfill charges;
AND THAT the following concessions for soil from HAIL residential sites be approved (subject to compliance with current York Valley landfill resource consent criteria):
· 40% discount of the applicable landfill charge where the soil has been tested, meets the NESCS recreation standards and can be used as construction/cover material;
· 15% discount of the applicable landfill charge where the soil has been tested, does not meet the NESCS recreation standards and cannot be used as construction/cover material;
AND THAT the following volume concessions for soil from HAIL commercial sites be approved (subject to compliance with current York Valley landfill resource consent criteria), irrespective of whether the material can be used as construction/cover material:
· 0-10,000m3 - 10% discount of the applicable landfill charge;
· >10,000m3 – 15% discount of the applicable landfill charge.
Buildings
12. Outline Business Case for Millers Acre Public Toilets Upgrade 32 - 42
Document number R4604
Recommendation
THAT the report Outline Business Case for Millers Acre Public Toilets Upgrade (R4604) and its attachments (A1328484) be received;
AND THAT option 1 as detailed in the outline business case (A1328484) - monitor and assess needs, defer design and construction - is approved.
Public Excluded Business
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 - 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. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
|
2 |
Collection and Processing of Recycling Services in Nelson
|
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)(b) To protect information that may disclose a trade secret or the commercial position of a person;
· Section 7(2)(c) To protect information that is subject to an obligation of confidence. |
14. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.
Note:
· Youth Councillors Elaine Ang and Katie Shaw will be in attendance at this meeting.
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 30 July 2015, commencing at 9.02am
Present: Councillors E Davy (Chairperson), I Barker, M Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson) and T Skinner
In Attendance: Councillors P Matheson and M Ward, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Manager Administration (P Langley), and Administration Adviser (G Brown)
Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland, R Copeland, and G Noonan
1. Apologies
|
Resolved WI/2015/007 THAT apologies be received and accepted from Her Worship the Mayor, Councillors Acland, Noonan, and Copeland. Lawrey/Barker 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 Gordon Dicker - Reimbursement for Water Leaks
Mr Dicker raised his concerns about the criteria for credit requests in relation to water leaks and spoke to a tabled document (A1395076).
In response to questions, Mr Dicker advised he lived on a hillside with good drainage so it was difficult to identify the water leaks. He added that the leaks arose when pressure built up on the pressure release valve on the hot water cylinder.
In response to a further question, Mr Dicker said the issues were resolved by replacing the pressure reducing valve.
|
Attachments 1 A1395076 - Tabled Document - Criteria for Credit Request for Water Leak from October the 1st 2011 - Gordon Dicker |
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 5 May 2015
Document number M1200, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2015/009 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. Davy/Lawrey Carried |
6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 July 2015
Document number R4598, agenda pages 15 - 18 refer.
In response to a question, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, advised the Beatson Road signage would be installed to coincide with the physical works, scheduled for completion by the end of August 2015.
|
Resolved WI/2015/010 THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 30 July 2015 (R4598) and its attachment (A1150321) be received. Davy/Lawrey Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
There was no Chairperson’s Report.
Transport and Roading
8. Infrastructure Fees and Charges
Document number R4248, agenda pages 19 - 23 refer.
Manager Operations, Peter Anderson, and Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies, presented the report.
In response to a question, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, advised the increase in transfer station fees was part of the closed account landfill activity and part of the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan.
In response to questions, Mr Davies advised the justification for the increase in roading fees was due to an internal review for road closures in 2014, along with more stringent legislative requirements which resulted in additional consultation, notification, assessing traffic management plans, providing assistance to organisations and detailed assessments for health and safety. He added that road closure fees for construction had not been increased since 2010.
In response to a further question, Mr Davies confirmed the charges reflected actual costs therefore Council was not making a profit.
There was some concern raised about the level of increase and that processes needed to be simpler.
It was noted that traffic management plans were the responsibility of the organiser of the event, and were required to be comprehensive as enforcement action could be taken by the Police.
|
Resolved WI/2015/011 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. Davy/Lawrey Carried |
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater
9. Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects
Document number R4356, agenda pages 24 - 47 refer.
Manager Asset Management, Kevin Pattersson, and Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities, Phil Ruffell, presented the report.
In response to a question, Mr Ruffell advised the proposed detention pond at the Nelson College for Girls would need to be investigated and discussions would be held with Nelson College for Girls. He said there was an area available which would require an additional embankment. Mr Ruffell advised that it would be similar to the detention pond at Ngawhatu.
In response to a further question, Mr Ruffell advised there would be no change to the playing fields apart from manhole covers being replaced by grates.
The Chairperson clarified that the options highlighted in the business cases would be progressed.
|
Resolved WI/2015/012 THAT the report Outline Business Cases for Selected 2015/16 Projects (R4356) and its attachments (A1306411, A1306409, A1328492, A1328494, A1328501, and A1378910) be received. Lawrey/Davy Carried |
Buildings
10. Earthquake Prone Buildings #5
Document number R4128, agenda pages 48 - 60 refer.
Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies, presented the report.
|
Resolved WI/2015/013 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 Davy/Lawrey Carried |
11. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2015/014 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: 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 |
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 |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 9.37am and resumed in public session at 9.47am.
12. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2015/015 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Davy/Lawrey Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.47am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4789
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 September 2015
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.
2. Recommendation
|
THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 (R4789) and its attachment (A1150321) be received. |
Shailey McLean
Administration Adviser
Attachments
Attachment 1: Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - September 2015
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4293
Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025.
2. Delegations
2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has powers to recommend to Council asset management plans which relate to Transport.
3. Recommendation
|
THAT the report Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (R4293) and its attachment (A1156705), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be received. |
Recommendation to Council
|
THAT the Transportation Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (A1156705), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be adopted. |
4. Background
4.1 Council resolved on 18 December 2014 as follows:
THAT the draft Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (A1156705) be adopted as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
5. Discussion
5.1 The draft Transport Asset Management Plan adopted by Council on 18 December 2014 has been amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2015/25 as highlighted in yellow in attachment 1.
5.2 Other minor amendments have also been made to the Transport Asset Management Plan as highlighted in blue.
6. Alignment with relevant Council policy
6.1 The Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 supports Council’s purpose under section 10 (1(b)) of the Local Government Act 2002.
6.2 Nelson 2060 has been taken into account in the preparation of this plan.
7. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
7.1 This is not a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
8. Consultation
8.1 Decisions arising from the draft Transport Asset Management Plan which were considered to be significant were consulted through the Long Term Plan 2015-25.
9. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
9.1 Consultation with Maori was via the Long Term Plan.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The draft Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council as reflected in the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025. Other minor amendments have also been made.
10.2 This revised asset management plan requires formal adoption.
Rhys Palmer
Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1156705 - Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (Circulated separately)
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4659
Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025.
2. Delegations
2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the delegation to recommend to Council that asset management plans relating to water based utilities be adopted.
3. Recommendation
|
THAT the report Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 (R4659) and its attachments (A824126, A824068 and A824368) be received. |
Recommendation to Council
|
THAT the Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 (A824126, A824068 and A824368), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2015- 2025, be adopted. |
4. Background
4.1 Council resolved on 5 June 2014 as follows:
That the Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 be adopted as the versions to inform the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
5. Discussion
5.1 The draft Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans adopted by Council on 5 June 2014 have been amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015/25 as adopted by Council on 23 June 2015 and now require Council approval as final versions.
6. Options
6.1 The Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 support Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the preferred option is for Council to adopt these plans.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 supports Council’s purpose under section 10 (1(b)) of the Local Government Act 2002.
7.2 Nelson 2060 has been taken into account in the preparation of these plans.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 This is not a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 Decisions arising from the Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans which were considered to be significant were consulted through the Long Term Plan 2015-25.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 No specific consultation with Māori has been undertaken. Consultation with Māori was via the Long Term Plan.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 have been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
11.2 The revised asset management plans require formal adoption.
Phil Ruffell
Senior Asset Engineer - Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A824126 - Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2015-25 (Circulated separately)
Attachment 2: A824068 - Wastewater Asset Management Plan 2015-25 (Circulated separately)
Attachment 3: A824368 - Stormwater and Flood Protection Asset Management Plan 2015-25 (Circulated separately)
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4295
Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025.
2. Delegations
2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has powers to recommend to Council asset management plans which relate to Solid Waste.
3. Recommendation
|
THAT the report Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (R4295) and its attachment (A1300889) be received. |
Recommendation to Council
|
THAT the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (A1300889), amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015-25, be adopted. |
4. Background
4.1 Council resolved on 18 December 2014 as follows:
That the Draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 be adopted as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2015-2025, noting that change will be required as a result of the implementation of the joint landfill.
5. Discussion
5.1 The draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan adopted by Council on 18 December 2014 has been amended to reflect the Long Term Plan 2015/25 as adopted by Council on 23 June 2015 and now requires Council approval.
6. Options
6.1 The draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 supports Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 supports Council’s purpose under section 10 (1(b)) of the Local Government Act 2002.
7.2 Nelson 2060 has been taken into account in the preparation of this plan.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 This is not a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 Decisions arising from the draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan which were considered to be significant were consulted through the Long Term Plan 2015-25.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 No specific consultation with Māori has been undertaken. Consultation with Maori was via the Long Term Plan.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council as reflected in the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
11.2 This revised asset management plan requires formal adoption.
Johan Thiart
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 (Circulated separately)
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4312
Solid Waste: Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sites on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL)
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To decide on the York Valley Landfill fee discount structure for disposal of HAIL material (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) sites that will provide financial relief for both residential and commercial developers.
2. Delegations
2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee is responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of solid waste services, including landfills, and has the power to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to landfills conferred on Council by relevant legislation. In this case, the relevant legislation is the Local Government Act 2002 and the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
3. Recommendation
|
THAT the report Solid Waste: Acceptance of Contaminated Soil from Sites on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) (R4312) be received. |
Recommendation to Council
4. Background
4.1 Landfill – Submission 453 from Rasamibe Co Ltd sought relief from costs associated with excavation of contaminated material from building sites and disposal at the York Valley landfill. The submitter noted that through the process of identifying HAIL (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) sites, many more residents were likely to face these issues. They asked that Council reduce the amount it costs to dump residentially contaminated soils within the landfill.
4.2 A charge of $15/tonne was suggested by officers at the LTP deliberations.
4.3 Council resolved during the May 2015 LTP deliberations :
4.4 “THAT further work be done on a discounted rate for contaminated material from sites classified as being on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List and requiring resource consent for excavation, to be considered at the Works and Infrastructure Committee.”
5. Discussion
HAIL Material
5.1 Where HAIL material is shown to be contaminated and is removed from a site, it must be disposed of in an appropriate way at an approved landfill.
5.2 In the case of York Valley, contaminated material must comply with the York Valley resource consent. To determine this, the material must be tested.
5.3 The existing Council landfill acceptance criteria for the acceptance of HAIL material is that where it complies with the landfill consent requirements it will be accepted at normal landfill charges (no discount).
5.4 Where the material is found not to comply with landfill requirements the material must be modified by the landowner to achieve York Valley landfill acceptance criteria or disposed of at an alternative landfill which will be located out of the district.
5.5 The National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS) has produced guidelines which set out the acceptance levels for material that has lower levels of contamination and may be put to good use in certain areas. For example, it sets out a minimum contamination standard for material that complies with recreational use, which is consistent with the probable end use at York Valley.
5.6 Material that meets the York Valley landfill acceptance criteria and is below the NESCS Recreational levels may be used at the landfill as a top soil finish, capping material or daily cover.
HAIL in context of the NESCS and Landfill
5.7 The NESCS however exempts owners and developers from the requirement of testing soil on HAIL sites where the volume of soil disturbance affected is less than 25m3/500m3 per piece of land.
5.8 The NESCS also allows landowners to remove 5m3/500m2/annum per piece of land without testing as of right. However, the York Valley landfill consent conditions require testing of this material. The NESCS does not override the landfill consent.
5.9 Where property owners move between 5 and 25m3/500m2/annum per piece of land the NESCS requirements are overly onerous. The health and public safety outcomes from moving this soil to the landfill under well managed conditions are actually better than disturbing the soil on site. The purpose of the NESCS is to protect human health, and removing soil for bulk testing would entail less human exposure to potentially contaminated soil than disturbing and testing the soil on site. It is therefore proposed that the removal of this volume of soil be managed as a consented activity but under less onerous conditions.
5.10 Developing a resource consent practice note, which allows for this activity, is the appropriate next step.
Impact on York Valley landfill
5.11 Experience since the identification of HAIL sites in Nelson has shown that most of the soil received from HAIL sites is suitable for use as landfill construction material and can offset cover material that is currently imported into the landfill.
5.12 Up to 10,000 tonne per annum of clean fill material that complies with requirements of landfill construction has historically been imported at no charge at the discretion of Council.
5.13 The tonnage of contaminated soil received over the past year indicates that the total tonnage of contaminated soil is unlikely to exceed the cover material needed to manage the landfill. Any adoption of relief measures would therefore not significantly affect the available airspace at the landfill.
Generation of Waste Soil
5.14 Nelson landowners need to make informed decisions when building on sites that are identified as HAIL. In this matter, innovative cost effective methods are possible and available to manage this material on site.
5.15 However, developers/owners of land that are classified as HAIL sites do face potential additional costs if the material is to be taken to landfill. These costs are associated with the testing of the soil in accordance with HAIL requirements, as well as the remediation that will be required where testing demonstrates that the soil is contaminated.
5.16 The disposal of excavated contaminated material to landfill could add significant additional cost to developers and homeowners. On a typical residential property costs could be as high as $50,000.
5.17 The landfill charges are only one part of the cost to the landowner in dealing with contaminated soil – testing, transportation and potential remediation (where the material does not comply with NESCS recreational standards) are other considerations. These high costs should and do provide an added incentive to the landowner to consider alternative remedial measures that could provide affordable outcomes.
5.18 Currently Tasman District Council does not offer discounts.
5.19 Marlborough District Council offers a 33% discount (subject to adherence to their landfill resource consent conditions) and do not accept waste from outside the area.
6. Options
Residential
6.1 There are options Council can consider in terms of providing potential relief to residential developers and landowners with respect to managing HAIL sites.
6.2 Option 1: Retaining the status quo i.e. no relief. This adds potential significant additional cost for those who have invested in a property that is now classified as a HAIL site. This could potentially slow down development and growth in Nelson and make it more difficult to do business in Nelson.
6.3 Option 2: Provide relief.
6.4 A workable three tier charging mechanism that will provide relief for sites zoned residential is suggested – all criteria is on the basis of full compliance with the York Valley landfill resource consent:
6.5 Volumes less than 25m3 be accepted at landfill from HAIL sites without testing at current landfill charges to cater for NESCS;
6.6 Material that can be used as landfill construction material attract a discount of 40% of current landfill charges;
6.7 Material that cannot be used as landfill construction material attract a discount of 15% of the current landfill charges. This discount is less than that under 6.4.2 and reflects the airspace consumed by such material but still promotes development.
Commercial
6.8 Whilst the submission received as part of the LTP deals specifically with relief for residential developers, the issue of how Council deals with commercial waste warrants discussion.
6.9 Council does receive requests for concessions from commercial developers. It is therefore both timely and appropriate to consider relief for commercial development if it is recognised that commercial development adds to the economic prosperity of Nelson and contributes to making Nelson a better place to live. Commercial development does both of these.
6.10 Large volumes to landfill could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (excluding any transportation and remediation) and could even extend into the millions of dollars.
6.11 Again there are two options - No relief or provide relief.
6.12 Recognising the commercial aspect (and accepting that some residential developers are in the business of treating residential development as a commercial activity – i.e. build and on sell for profit), a tier system for commercial development based on volume of materials is seen as the best way forward. Again any concessions granted are subject to adherence to York Valley landfill criteria :
6.13 0 to 10,000m3 – 10% of the going landfill charge;
6.14 >10,000m3 – 15% of the going landfill charge.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The implementation of a relief mechanism will allow improved choice and economic value to those who choose to make use of the opportunity.
7.2 Implementation of this proposal will contribute in making Nelson a better place to live.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s S Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 This is not deemed to be a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 Consultation on relief is not required as this comes from a public submission as part of the LTP deliberations.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 The implementation of the proposed relief measures is consistent with the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan that was adopted following consultation with Māori interest groups.
11. Conclusion
11.1 A submitter as part of the 2015/25 LTP process requested relief from landfill charges for the disposal of contaminated soil from a residential HAIL site.
11.2 Officers deem that some sort of relief is appropriate (for both residential and commercial activities) as detailed in the body of this report.
Johan Thiart
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste
Attachments
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 September 2015 |
REPORT R4604
Outline Business Case for Millers Acre Public Toilets Upgrade
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve the outline business case for the Millers Acre Toilet upgrade project identified 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 operation and maintenance of building services and structures.
3. Recommendation
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 is the second report to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on key projects identified to be reported back. The first report was tabled and approved by the Committee on 30 July 2015.
4.3 This report covers the Millers Acre Public Toilet Upgrade project as approved through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 and provides the outline business case requested for this Committee. This project has been previously discussed through Asset Management Plan workshops and was included in the Long Term Plan 2015-25.
5. Discussion
Millers Acre Public Toilet Upgrade
5.1 This multi year project was first proposed in the Facilities Asset Management Plan 2007 with construction originally identified to begin in 2010-11. The project has been deferred several times in the subsequent years through the Annual Plan process.
5.2 Signage has been added at the Millers Acre toilets which inform the public about the additional toilet facilities at Civic House and Elma Turner Library.
5.3 The Long Term Plan 2015-25 identifies $32,205 in 2015-16 for investigation and design. Construction budget of $359,135 is identified for 2016-17.
5.4 The outline business case in Attachment 1 summarises the history of the drivers and assumptions for this project. Many of the drivers and assumptions are no longer valid or have yet to be formally confirmed.
5.5 The most recent driver for the expansion of the toilets is the report of queuing during peak times; specifically when two or more tour buses arrived at the same time. Feedback on queuing is anecdotal based on conversations with a few tour bus drivers and the maintenance contractor’s recollection from a few years ago. No formal complaints about queuing have been logged and no formal investigations assessing demand have taken place.
5.6 Before progressing with expansion of the Millers Acre public toilet, more information on demand needs to be collected and assessed.
6. Options
6.1 The options detailed in the attached outline business case are summarised below:
6.2 Option 1: Monitor utilisation during peak season to better understand demand trends. Defer project budget of $32,000 for design to 2016-17 and the construction budget of $359,135 to 2017-18.
6.3 Option 2: Expand and renovate existing Millers Acre toilet site to increase number of toilets.
6.4 Option 3: Build free standing toilet facility at or near the Millers Acre car park to increase the number of toilets available in the area.
6.5 Officers recommend option 1.
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 the delay of this project.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 Consultation with Māori on this project was via the Long Term Plan process.
11. Conclusion
11.1 This project is currently scheduled for design in this financial year.
11.2 The business case strongly favours monitoring to assess needs and deferring design and construction, if required, to future years.
11.3 This approach will also allow other key strategic work already underway to complete and further inform the business case. An updated business case will be circulated in April 2016 for consideration after the necessary data has been collected and evaluated.
Michael Homan
Property and Facilities Asset Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1: Outline Business Case for Millers Acre Public Toilet Upgrade (A1328484)
Business Case for Millers Acre Toilet upgrade
Project 2002
Prepared by: Don Bartkowiak, Asset Analyst; Arlene Akhlaq, Project Management Adviser
Reviewed by: Kevin Patterson, Manager Asset Management; Michael Homan, Property and Facilities Asset Manager
Approval by: Infrastructure Project Board (17 August 2015)
Last update: 18 Aug 2015
REASONS (Problem or Opportunity)
There is funding in the Long Term Plan 2015-25 for a project to increase to the number of toilets at Millers Acre. The proposed project has been included in previous planning documents and has been carried into the most recent Long Term Plan so additional investigation could take place as to the need. The strategic case for the project has not been met:
· There is currently no promise to meet demand during peak times (i.e. no waiting)
· It is unclear if additional toilets are required to meet peak demand since there is no evidence of any wait times
· If wait times exist, there is no evidence that they are unacceptable
There are frequent complaints about the lack of cleanliness and insufficient supplies. This issue will be managed by the operations team but should also be noted when evaluating options for expanding the facilities.
BACKGROUND
Construction of additional toilets at Millers Acre was originally identified in the Facilities Asset Management Plan 2007, with budget provision in 2010-11. Since then, the project has been included in all Asset/Activity Management Plans, and Long Term Plans, with varying budgets. The project has been deferred multiple times. The stated drivers for the project vary, and assumptions in the latest asset management plan have been carried through from previous versions.
Current situation is 3 pans (2 female pans and 1 male pan – 2 with disabled access) and 1 urinal.
|
Plan |
Project years |
Approved budget |
Drivers and Assumptions |
|
Facilities AMP 2007 |
2010-11 |
$250,000 |
Ensure public areas have adequate access to clean and useable toilet facilities |
|
LTP 2009-19 |
2012-13 |
$131,000 |
Meet future demand based on population increase of 3011 by 2019, and an increase in visitor numbers |
|
Community Facilities AMP 2012-22 |
2013-14 |
$300,000 uninflated |
Lack of availability of toilets when tour buses arrive at the site twice a day in winter; double the amount of passengers in summer. The i-SITE serves 250,000 customers each year |
|
LTP 2012-22 |
2014-15 and 2015-16 |
$332,000 |
Same as Community Facilities AMP |
|
Property and Facilities AMP 2015-25 |
2015-16 and 2016-17 |
$386,000 Uninflated |
Driver: better meet customer demand Assumptions: as per 2012 AMP
|
|
LTP 2015-25 |
2015-16 and 2016-17 |
$391,340 |
Drivers and assumptions as per 2015 AMP |
Verification of drivers and assumptions
In preparing this business case all previous drivers, assumptions and known issues were checked for validity with the following result
|
Driver, assumption, or issue |
Result of validation |
|
Ensure public areas have adequate access to clean and useable toilet facilities |
NCC meets the level of service commitment to provide toilet facilities within 200m of the city centre NCC meets the overall level of service commitment for cleanliness. The number of complaints suggests the cleanliness LOS is not being met at Miller Acre. Other |
|
Wait times during peak times |
There is no level of service commitment for wait times There are no plans to create a level of service linked to wait times No customer feedback related to wait times has been recorded through service requests No information recorded on wait times Contractor recollection about queuing is that 3 years ago 3 buses used to stop at the toilets at around the same time which lead to queuing. It was difficult for the cleaning team to access the toilets during this time to service them so they regularly ran out of toilet paper and general cleanliness was an issue. During peak times they pretty much had someone on standby at the site. |
|
Wait times during peak times – feedback from bus drivers that often have to wait for passengers who have had to queue for the toilet |
Feedback received from a bus driver in 2014 was not formally recorded or quantified.
Bus stop is start/ end of line so unclear how waiting for passengers eventuates unless passengers are late to arrive at the stop before departure.
|
|
Wait times during peak times – feedback from nearby businesses re: public complaints about wait times |
Verification by Officers in July 2015 with the i-SITE, River Kitchen, and Simply NZ – no issues raised with the public toilets at Millers Acre
|
|
Lack of available toilets during peak times |
No level of service commitment linked to availability during peak times
Cannot verify availability as no information is collected on use of facilities
River Kitchen has a toilet for customers only. Toilets at the i-SITE and Simply NZ are for staff only
Public toilets within 100m of Millers Acre are located at the Elma Turner Library, and ground floor of Civic House, though not available 24/7.
|
|
Existing toilet capacity needs to be doubled to meet demand from bus passengers |
The latest AMP assumed 80% of the 1200 bus visitors a day (150 per hour) wish to use the toilet within an hour with an average occupancy time of 3 minutes. Cannot verify assumptions about # of bus passengers who may wish to use the toilet as no information is collected on the use of facilities.
July 2015: Two Intercity buses leave each morning from the i-SITE; one additional bus 2 afternoons each week. The return buses do not stop at the i-SITE. Full buses contain approximately 50 passengers. Abel Tasman Travel – all scheduled services depart from Bridge Street |
|
LTP submissions |
1 received (submission 550) suggesting use existing building and there is a need to improve as to help promote a good image/ first impression to visitors |
Additional relevant information
|
Customer complaints about maintenance |
In the previous 12 months (April 2014-March 2015) there were 21 service requests and all related to damage or lack of cleanliness. An average of 15 complaints about cleanliness per year since December 2009. |
|
Vandalism |
No reactive maintenance (3010 or 3011) explicitly noted in finance system over last 12 months. No code set up for graffiti (3020) or other vandalism (3025) for free public toilets in the general ledger. Contractor quotes estimate of $300/ year |
|
Additional toilets needed to meet demand, based on increase in visitors to Nelson
|
No information available on visitor number forecasts. The EDA report “Regional Prosperity 2014” reports moderate growth in regional tourism, and describes visitor spend as “steady”, during period 2008 to 2014 The latest AMP uses an estimate of 250,000 customers physically going to the i-SITE each year – this figure is based on the 2009/10 door count of 270,000 i-SITE visitors. More recent door count statistics show a decline: · 2010-11 217,700 · 2011-12 192,700 · 2012-13 172,000 Assumptions for toilet demand based on visitors to the i-SITE has not been validated |
Recent Investigations and project planning
Options explored during 2014-15 include:
· Additional toilets in a standalone block located somewhere in the Millers Acre site
· Additional toilets incorporated into the Millers Acre building, near to the existing toilets
The project was put on hold by the Senior Leadership Team in October 2014 due to the uncertainty around scope, need, and achievability. The approved budget is $32,000 for design in 2015-16, and $360,000 for construction in 2016-17. A business case has been requested by the Works and Infrastructure Committee, scheduled for 10 September 2015.
The Millers Acre property has been identified for further investigation under the Property Assets Review and has been considered in discussion around other CBD strategies. Counters are being installed at toilet facilities during 2015-16 to collect utilisation data.
Preferred Way Forward
Delay design of additional toilet facilities at Millers Acre until after detailed assessment is complete and data on use can be collected over the peak season. This will allow:
· data to be collected on use of the facilities (including investigation of peak time queuing)
· time to discuss implications of a service level change to incorporate wait times
· a better understanding of the facilities use in the context of the other strategic work underway
Defer project budget of $32,000 for design to 2016-17 and the construction budget of $360,000 to 2017-18. Submit an updated business case in May 2016 for review and approval.
|
BUSINESS OPTION 1 Continue with existing provision of 3 pans total and 1 urinal (2 female pans and 1male pan, 2 total accessible). Continue with plan to install devices to monitor usage – evaluate use during peak times (Jan – Mar). During peak season check timing of buses, use of facilities, and observe for queuing at those times. |
|
|
Benefits
|
Cost avoidance for both the project and the additional ongoing maintenance Avoid modifications and disruption to the Millers Acre site Toilet facilities appropriately sized in the event that there is a change to the coach service – currently 3 (1 gents, 2 ladies). Encourages passengers into nearby businesses that have toilet facilities – currently River Kitchen and Burger King, therefore more likely to spend money in these businesses Could consider in conjunction with the schedule renewal of the facilities and not renew the asset prematurely |
|
Dis-benefits |
None to note |
|
Costs
|
No new costs Costs already planned for: CAPEX: $2,000 for counter device Staff time: additional time for operational staff to monitor |
|
Timescale
|
Aug-15 to review cleanliness issues with contractor, explore counters. Dec-15 to Apr-16 to monitor during peak use. |
|
Risks
|
Use of the Millers Acre site changes significantly, for example significantly increased bus service, significant consistent increase in visitors to the i-site. If the main peak demand is from buses then perhaps the bus company could be encouraged to contribute to the toilet facilities (good indicator if waiting is a real issue for them). Do not meet a perceived expectation for queuing at peak times not needing to queue at all during peak times. |
|
BUSINESS OPTION 2 Expand and renovate existing site to increase number of toilets |
|
|
Benefits
|
Will not require creation of an additional structure Does not create confusion about location of toilets in that area |
|
Dis-benefits
|
Disruption to users of the site – limited or no access to existing toilets during construction |
|
Costs
|
CAPEX: $150,000 (could connect to renewal of the block - $30,000 available) Operations and Maintenance: will depend on the additional floor space and number of pans but indicative cost for double current size would be extra $3,000 – 4,000 / year. Staff time to run the project Minor expense for additional depreciation and interest costs to service debt. |
|
Timescale
|
Would plan to undertake work in the winter months when need is reduced. Tentative plan: Design by June 2016, construction complete prior to December 2016. Alternative option would be to construct starting April 2017 with completion by June 2017. |
|
Risks
|
Bus service reduces frequency or stops using that area – left with surplus assets to manage or decommission. Perception of spending resident money to meet the needs of a very few. Opportunity to renew existing toilets at same time (possible cost savings). |
|
BUSINESS OPTION 3 Build free standing toilet facility at or near the Millers Acre car park, to increase the number of toilets available in the Millers Acre area |
|
|
Benefits
|
Another toilet facility in the area to use if existing toilets are full Allows for opportunity to create architecturally designed signature toilet block at city gateway Would be done without disruption to the existing toilets. Would incorporate CPTED (Crime prevention through environmental design) standards. Does not increase building security issues as this would be free standing. |
|
Dis-benefits |
Another separate toilet block to maintain and protect against vandalism. |
|
Costs
|
CAPEX: $350,000 (uninflated) - loosely based on 1903 toilet – total cost $210,000. Might need to get services to the location. Staff time to run the project O&M: will depend on the additional floor space and number of pans but indicative cost for double current size would be extra $3,000 – 4,000k / year. Minor expense for additional depreciation and interest costs to service debt. |
|
Timescale
|
Design would commence 15/16 and construction be completed no later than April 2017; however, attempt would be made to construct prior to December 2016 to meet peak demand. |
|
Risks
|
Bus service reduces frequency or stops using that area – left with surplus asset to manage or decommission. Perception of spending resident money to meet the needs of a very few. Could close the toilets attached to the building outside of business hours, increasing security of the Millers Acre building. If too far from the bus stop the facilities might not be used by those riding the bus. Complaints from residents and visitors if remove parking spaces to accommodate the toilet block (if necessary) May need to get service to the area so could require some rework and digging up landscaping/ parking lot depending on location (if done in a location other than entry to car park). |
