Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

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 Day's Track Group

Kelly Atkinson, Ainslie Riddoch, Shona Nelson, Ron and Jill Orme, Carl Mumm and Greg Bate, of the Day’s Track Group, will speak about the remediation of the Day’s Track area.

4.2 Colin Ratcliffe

Colin Ratcliffe will speak about his observations in relation to the proposal to introduce wheelie bins for future recycling.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 26 November 2015 9 - 17

Document number M1622

Recommendation

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

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 25 February 2016 18 - 21

Document number R5517

Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 25 February 2016 (R5517) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

7. Chairperson's Report

Transport and Roading

8. Terms of Reference - Main Road Stoke Speed Limit Change - Public feedback 22 - 25

Document number R5201

Recommendation

THAT the report Terms of Reference - Main Road Stoke Speed Limit Change - Public feedback (R5201) and its attachment (A1472228) be received;

AND THAT the Terms of Reference in attachment 1 (A1472228) be adopted.

9. Days Track Resolution 26 - 32

Document number R4701

Recommendation

THAT the report Days Track Resolution (R4701) and its attachments (A1431387 and A1432782) be received.

Recommendation to Council

THAT remediation of Days Track with a gravel track at an estimated cost of $430,000 be approved, noting this will require additional funding of $265,000 to be included in the Annual Plan 2016/17.

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

10. Asset Management Planning Updates for Utilities Asset Management Plans 2018-2028 33 - 40

Document number R5301

Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Updates for Utilities Asset Management Plans 2018-2028 (R5301) and its attachment (A1484408) be received and updates noted.

Solid Waste

11. Asset Management Planning Updates for Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 41 - 45

Document number R5276

Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Updates for Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 (R5276) and its attachment (A1485311) be received and updates noted.

12. Recycling bin feedback 46 - 49

Document number R5300

Recommendation

THAT the report Recycling bin feedback (R5300) be received;

AND THAT prior to implementation of the new collection methodology, that a choice between a 240 litre and 120 litre bin be offered to Nelson residents and that this be ascertained as part of the pre roll-out communications;

AND THAT once issued with a bin, should any change be sought to the bin issued, a $80.50 fee (incl GST) to cover administration and transport cost be charged.

Buildings

13. Earthquake Update Report #7 50 - 57

Document number R5218

Recommendation

THAT the report Earthquake Update Report #7 (R5218) and its attachments (A1498625, A1498652, A1498808) be received;

AND THAT approval is given to proceed with the earthquake strengthening of Isel House Chimneys to above 34%NBS, funded from the 2015/16 earthquake remediation budget;

AND THAT approval is given to proceed with the earthquake strengthening of the Refinery Building to above 34%NBS, funded from the earthquake remediation budget in 2016/17 once the existing lease expires in December 2017.

Public Excluded Business

14. 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 - 26 November 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
2	Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 25 February 2016	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)(i) To protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
3	Moana Landowner Negotiations	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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

15. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Daniel Leaper and Sam McIlroy will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee

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

On Thursday 26 November 2015, commencing at 9.00am

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

In Attendance: Councillors P Matheson, B McGurk and M Ward, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Manager Operations (P Anderson), Manager Capital Projects (S Davies), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Manager Administration (P Langley), and Administration Adviser (S McLean)

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Late item memo M1621 refers.

The Chairperson advised of two late items for the public part of the meeting, therefore the following resolutions were passed:

2.1 Intersection Safety Improvements - Main Road Stoke/Elms Street

Resolved WI/2015/013

THAT the item regarding Intersection Safety Improvements - Main Road Stoke/Elms Street be considered at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Davy/Barker Carried

2.2 Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Programme of Work

Resolved WI/2015/014

THAT the item regarding Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Programme of Work be considered at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 9.02am.

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 Walking and Cycling

Malcolm Saunders tabled and read from a handout regarding walking and cycling (A1463479).

Mr Saunders raised concerns about walkers being hit by cyclists on shared pathways and asked councillors to consider this in relation to the Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Programme of Work report on the agenda.

Attachments

1 A1463479 - M Saunders Cycle Walkways Handout

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 22 October 2015

Document number M1543, agenda pages 8 - 14 refer.

Resolved WI/2015/016

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 22 October 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 26 November 2015

Document number R5161, agenda pages 15 - 18 refer.

Resolved WI/2015/017

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 26 November 2015 (R5161) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

7. Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

8. Roading Maintenance Contract Collaboration - Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

Document number R4186, agenda pages 19 - 23 refer.

Manager Operations, Peter Anderson, presented the report.

In response to a question, Mr Anderson confirmed that if the councils proceeded with a single tender then roading standards would need to be compared and potentially adjusted.

Resolved WI/2015/018

THAT the report Roading Maintenance Contract Collaboration - Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council (R4186) be received;

AND THAT a single tender for the Nelson and Tasman Urban areas is approved in principle;

AND THAT approval is granted for officers to work with Tasman District Council officers to prepare a business case for collaboration on an urban roading maintenance contract;

AND THAT the business case be reported back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee noting any benefits or disadvantages.

Barker/Noonan Carried

9. Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining - review of basis of rentals

Document number R4696, agenda pages 24 - 29 refer.

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

In response to a request for detail on stallholder license fees, the Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, said officers could provide this to councillors if required. She emphasised the report was focussed on overarching principles and not individual rates.

Concern was raised that stallholder license fees were significantly lower than standard retail rents, and stallholders did not have to pay rates. It was pointed out this could be seen as retail premises subsidising stallholder operations.

Several councillors supported the stallholders, stating that they added interest and vibrancy to the city. It was highlighted that stallholder fees had increased by 36% over 10 years, and this was not likely to be the case for commercial rents.

It was suggested that footpath use for commercial retailers be reviewed when the policy on Licenses for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining was reviewed.

Resolved WI/2015/019

THAT the report Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining - review of basis of rentals (R4696) and its attachment (A1462369) be received;

AND THAT the current licence fees for street stalls be reduced by 30%;

AND THAT footpath dining and car park dining licence fees remain at the current levels, with the methodology for charging unchanged.

Copeland/Noonan Carried

10. Intersection Safety Improvements - Main Road Stoke/Elms Street

Document number R5063, late items agenda pages 3 - 10 refer.

Asset Engineer – Transport, Chris Pawson, and Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, presented the report.

Ms McDonald gave more detail on the recommended consultation for the speed limit change and provided an amended officer recommendation.

In response to a question, Ms McDonald advised that it was best practice that final decision making remain with the Works and Infrastructure Committee.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 9.44am to 9.52am.

Ms McDonald highlighted the importance of bylaw related matters.

Resolved WI/2015/020

THAT the report Intersection Safety Improvements - Main Road Stoke/Elms Street and its attachments (A1463084 and A1452019) be received;

AND THAT the design and construction of road safety improvements at the intersection of Main Road Stoke and Elms Street be included as a priority in the minor improvements work programme for the 2015/16 financial year;

AND THAT consultation to seek the community’s views on a reduction of speed on Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Salisbury Road to 60km/h is undertaken;

AND THAT a Consultation Feedback Group, chaired by the Works and Infrastructure Committee Chair with two other members being Councillors Skinner and Acland (and Councillor Noonan as alternate), be delegated authority to listen to oral feedback from the community on 9 March 2016;

AND THAT a terms of reference for the Consultation Feedback Group be brought to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on 25 February 2016.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

11. Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Programme of Work

Document number R4351, late items agenda pages 11 - 54 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, presented report.

Mr Palmer emphasised the need to progress and prioritise a coastal route. He highlighted that Council had adopted a level of service of 25% of commuters using active transport by years 4-10 of the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

It was asked that Nile Street be added to the list of projects which would be reported to the Committee before implementation.

There was discussion on the use of Anzac Park for cycle paths. Mr Palmer advised the Active Travel and Pathway Based Recreation Policy required Council to recognise special attributes of an area, therefore due to the War Memorial and use as a quiet contemplative space, Anzac Park was not appropriate for cycling.

In response to a question, Mr Palmer advised that paths would be designed for a 25 year life, and would be based on projected demographics.

There was discussion on the Nelson Southern Link investigation and its impact on the works programme. It was noted that further assessment would occur once the New Zealand Transport Agency business case was released.

It was noted that the T7 path in the Proposed Active Travel Network Map (A1449656) should be corrected to Primary Proposed status.

The Chairperson and Committee members commended Mr Palmer and officers on the work completed to date and the level of partnership with the community.

Resolved WI/2015/021

THAT the report Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Programme of Work (R4351) and its attachments (A1458108, A1449656, A1454515 and A1454601) be received;

AND THAT the 5 year forward works programme as prioritised in tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 (R4351) be adopted;

AND THAT the Forward Works Programme, Active Travel Network Map as amended and the Etiquette Guidelines (A1449656 and A1454515) be included as appendices to the Out and About, Active Travel and Path-based Recreation Policy;

AND THAT it be noted that the 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 budgets will change and the amendment will be included as part of the upcoming 2016/17 Annual Plan process;

AND THAT the following projects be the subject of reports to the Works and infrastructure Committee before implementation:

· Tahunanui Cycle Network

· Rocks Road

· Rocks Road to Maitai

· Maitai Path and Nile Street

· Anzac Park Link

Noting that all other projects in the five year forward works programme will be delivered under delegated authority.

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.37am to 10.46am.

12. Maitai and Roding Water Abstraction Resource Consent

Document number R4857, agenda pages 30 - 86 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer Utilities, Phil Ruffell, presented the report.

Mr Ruffell highlighted that an extended trial of drawing water exclusively from the Maitai Dam was being looked into to test the impact on the treatment plant membranes. He said the trial would likely last for 1-3 months at an approximate cost of $2,000 per day, which could be covered within operational budgets.

In response to a question, Mr Ruffell advised that Tasman District Council (TDC) currently took a fraction of its daily allocation from the Roding River but there would be no issue if TDC drew its full allocation.

Mr Ruffell highlighted the balance between high quality water in streams and using that high quality water in the water treatment plant to save costs on filtering. The Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, added that any issues in this area would be presented to Council for consideration. She highlighted that information collected in the trial would benefit any future decision making.

Resolved WI/2015/022

THAT the report Maitai and Roding Water Abstraction Resource Consent (R4857) and its attachments (A1332911, A1438784, A1438811) be received;

AND THAT new resource consent applications for the city water supply (as detailed in R4857) be lodged by 31 May 2016 on the same basis as existing consents.

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

13. Approval to Refer Award of Tenders to Council

Document number R4923, agenda pages 87 - 89 refer.

Team Leader Engineer, David Light, presented the report.

Resolved WI/2015/023

THAT the report Approval to Refer Award of Tenders to Council (R4923) be received;

THAT the approval of award of tender for Hampden St East Little-Go Stream Stormwater Upgrade including Water and Wastewater Renewals be referred to Council;

AND THAT the approval of award of tender for the Maitai Pipeline Upgrade (WTP - Westbrook) be referred to Council.

Noonan/Barker Carried

14. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved WI/2015/024

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	Public Excluded Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 25 November 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)(b)(i) To protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret
2	Saxton Creek Upgrade Tender Approval Report	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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3	Earthquake Prone Buildings #6	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)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Public Excluded Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 25 November 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)(b)(i)

To protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret

Saxton Creek Upgrade Tender Approval Report

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)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Earthquake Prone Buildings #6

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)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.13am and resumed in public session at 11.31am.

15. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2015/025

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Davy/Noonan Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.31am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R5201

Terms of Reference - Main Road Stoke Speed Limit Change - Public feedback

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Terms of Reference for the Consultation Feedback Group regarding the proposed speed limit change on Main Road Stoke.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has delegated authority to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the operation of roads conferred on Council by relevant legislation. In this case the controlling legislation is the Land Transport Act (LTA).

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Terms of Reference - Main Road Stoke Speed Limit Change - Public feedback (R5201) and its attachment (A1472228) be received;

AND THAT the Terms of Reference in attachment 1 (A1472228) be adopted.

4. Background

4.1 It was resolved at the 26 November 2015 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting:

“AND THAT consultation to seek the community’s views on a reduction of speed on Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Salisbury Road to 60km/h is undertaken;

AND THAT a terms of reference for the Consultation Feedback Group be brought to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on 25 February 2016.”

5. Discussion

5.1 Terms of Reference (TOR) are appended as Attachment 1.

6. Options

6.1 The TOR can be approved or amended as necessary.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 This decision is not inconsistent with any other previous Council decision.

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

8.1 This is not a significant decision under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 No consultation has been undertaken in preparing the TOR.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 No consultation with Maori has been undertaken in preparing the TOR.

11. Conclusion

11.1 TOR have been prepared for the Consultation Feedback Group and officers recommend they be adopted.

Chris Pawson

Asset Engineer - Transport

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1472228 - Consultation Feedback Group - Terms of Reference - Main Road Stoke Speed Limit Change

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R4701

Days Track Resolution

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve an option for reinstating Days Track.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee is responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of walkways and footpaths.

2.2 Additional funding is the responsibility of Council.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Days Track Resolution (R4701) and its attachments (A1431387 and A1432782) be received.

Recommendation to Council

4. Background

4.1 Days Track is a pedestrian link on the Tahunanui Hills providing access between Rocks Road, Moana Avenue/Moncrieff Avenue and Toi Toi Street. Refer to Attachment 1.

4.2 During the December 2011 extreme rainfall event, the area between Grenville Terrace and Moncrieff Avenue (on Council Reserve) was severely damaged by a landslip. This damaged the concrete step structure beyond repair, damaged existing utilities and severed access.

4.3 The majority of issues caused by the December 2011 event have been resolved, with the exception of Days Track.

4.4 Temporary above ground sewer and stormwater services were installed following the event and will remain in place until the finalisation of a permanent solution.

4.5 Days Track and the surrounding properties are located within the Tahunanui Slump Core. This is a known and widely accepted deep seated slump on Council’s records, estimated to vary between 25m to 40m below existing ground level. Sensors installed after December 2011 have recorded 25mm of movement between February 2012 and November 2014, equating to approximately 7-8mm per year.

5. Discussion

5.1 Days Track, before being severely damaged, was a track that has been in place for many years and had been well used by the local community and there has been strong interest in having the track reinstated.

5.2 The ‘Days Track Group’ has been established by track users and local residents with the aim to see the track and temporary services reinstated as soon as possible. This group has previously met with Council officers, Councillor Davy and Councillor Lawrey to advocate the reinstatement of Days Track.

5.3 The Days Track Group has stated a willingness to support the Council with planting and beautification of the area should the track be reinstated.

5.4 At present track users have to use an alternative route to travel from Grenville Terrace to Moana Avenue/Moncrieff Avenue. The route is along Bisley Avenue/Moana Avenue and is approximately 800m in length, requires two road crossings and takes approximately 8 min to walk. One of these road crossing has limited sightlines, which would be an issue for less able walkers but could be addressed if no track reinstatement was approved. Refer to Attachment 2.

5.5 The original route along Days Track from Grenville Terrace to Moana Avenue/Moncrieff Avenue is 120m long, was very steep and took approximately 3 minutes to walk.

5.6 Reinstating Days Track to pre December 2011 (but formalising services) will retain a similar historical risk rating - no works will address the deep seated Tahunanui slump risk.

6. Options

6.1 A decision needs to be made as to whether Days Track is remediated, including temporary services being made permanent and the slip material removed from the carriageway of Grenville Terrace. The cost for this remediation varies from between $370,000 and $500,000 depending on the type of track reinstated.

6.2 Three options are presented with regards to the track reinstatement and remediation of Days Track. A summary of these options is detailed below and costs, advantages and disadvantages is summarised on the table below.

6.3 Option 1 – Do not reinstate the track but make temporary services permanent, remove slip material from the carriageway of Grenville Terrace and improve sight lines on Bisley Avenue/Moana Avenue.

6.4 Option 2 – Reinstating Days Track with a 1m wide gravel track (timber edging and timber steps). Work includes remediating Days Track as per option 1 (excluding sightline improvements).

6.5 Option 3 – Reinstating Days Track with a 1m wide concrete track as well as remediating Days Track as per option 1 (excluding sight line improvements).

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Cost *

Option 1

Cheapest option

No H&S risk to track users in the event of similar landslip

Negative reaction by residents, track users and media

Pedestrians continue to use the current route via Bisley Avenue/Moana Avenue

$370,000

Option 2

Track is reinstated

Cheapest track option

Community support

Not visually in keeping with the rest of Days Track i.e. not concrete

H&S risk to track users in the event of similar landslip

Will require ongoing maintenance of approximately $2,000 per year

$430,000

Option 3

Track is reinstated

Visually in keeping with the rest of Days Track

Strong community support

Most expensive option

Will potentially suffer cracking due to ground movement and need ongoing maintenance of approximately $2,000 per year.

H&S risk to track users in the event of similar landslip

$500,000

* Note – Cost estimates include design, consent, physical works and contingency. Operations and maintenance costs are not included.

6.6 For options 2 and 3, to manage the H&S risk of potential landslips, signage will be placed on the track advising users not to use the track during times of prolonged heavy rainfall.

6.7 The Days Track Group has a strong desire to have the track reinstated.

6.8 Officers do not recommend the temporary services being left as is and this said, support reinstating Days Track with a gravel track, as the cost between option 1 (reinstatement of services) and option 2 (gravel track and services) is marginal at around $60,000.

7. Financial

7.1 An amount of $185,000 is provided in the current 2015/16 budget to address the current issue, with approximately $20,000 spent to date.

7.2 Should the committee choose option 2 at an estimated cost of $430,000, additional funding of $265,000 is required.

8. Alignment with relevant Council policy

8.1 Any decision to either reinstate the track or not, is not inconsistent with existing Council resolutions or asset management plans.

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

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

10. Consultation

10.1 Consultation has been undertaken with the Days Track Group.

11. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

11.1 There has been no consultation with Maori.

12. Conclusion

12.1 An extreme rainfall event in December 2011 damaged the existing Days Track.

12.2 Council has a budget of $185,000 with $20,000 spent to date.

12.3 Officers recommend the reinstatement of Days Track with a gravel track (including making temporary services permanent) at an estimated cost of $430,000 and approval of additional funding of $265,000 for this work.

David Light

Team Leader Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1431387 - Location of Days Track

Attachment 2: A1432782 - Alternative Route

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R5301

Asset Management Planning Updates for Utilities Asset Management Plans 2018-2028

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform Council of significant new items that will be considered during development of the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee have the delegation to review policies and strategies relating to its areas of responsibility, including provision, operation, and maintenance of water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Updates for Utilities Asset Management Plans 2018-2028 (R5301) and its attachment (A1484408) be received and updates noted.

4. Background

4.1 Central Government’s National Infrastructure Unit of The Treasury released the Thirty year New Zealand Infrastructure Plan 2015 in August 2015. The plan concluded that in order for New Zealand’s infrastructure to contribute to a strong economy and high living standards we need a “…better understanding of the levels of service we want to deliver, more mature asset management practices and use of data, and more effective decision-making that considers non-asset solutions.” Council Officers will monitor the detailed action plan from Central Government and update Councillors in future Asset Management Planning workshops.

4.2 The Asset Management Plans (AMPs) are one enabler of sound asset management. They describe agreed management practices, asset management strategies, projects, and operational activities required to meet expected levels of service and mitigate risks.

4.3 AMPs are key documents in showing how the organisation intends to manage its asset base and includes a long term plan for ensuring levels of service are met in the most cost-effective manner.

4.4 Council adopted the Utilities Asset Management Plans 2015-2025 on 15 October 2015. These plans are continuously referenced and reviewed to ensure they make adequate provision for the ongoing function of core Council assets and also recognise the issues the community may face into the future.

4.5 Implementation of the 2015 AMPs is underway – scheduled projects have commenced and asset management improvement actions are in progress.

4.6 Asset management is a continuous process and, as internal and external factors change, must consider implications on asset management objectives and practices.

5. Discussion

General

5.1 This report summarises new significant issues and risks that have arisen since adoption of the 2015-2025 AMPs and which are expected to feature in the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

5.2 Issues that arise from changes in legislation, customer expectations, and environmental factors or are uncovered during planned studies and investigations or ongoing operations are collected and assessed.

5.3 Council’s Operations, Capital Projects and Asset Management Teams are co-located and frequently discuss issues and share information freely. Cross-council communications are also maintained to ensure all key stakeholders are included in this sharing of knowledge.

5.4 Several recent initiatives have strengthened this relationship by driving a common understanding of practices, clarifying responsibilities and formalising aspects of lifecycle asset management activities across the Infrastructure Group.

5.5 Operational staff and Asset Managers contribute to asset planning and risk management through frequent asset performance meetings and their contribution to a shared asset improvement register of problems and opportunities. Items are discussed and actions agreed (e.g. recommendation for Annual Plan, for consideration in next AMP, etc).

5.6 A process for business cases has also been established and will enable decision making for capital projects. Business cases will support funding requests in the next round of AMPs.

5.7 Joint training and development opportunities have also been completed, including review of: the asset management lifecycle (to include asset management planning and AMPs), project management practices, and operational, maintenance vs. renewal activities.

5.8 Discussions have also taken place on means to improve use of asset management information systems to enable improvements to overall efficiency and effectiveness.

5.9 Additional improvements are planned including an update to the AMP format to drive consistency and ensure content is fit for the audience; a review of the risk management framework against organisational standards; and consideration on how to incorporate the changes raised in the 2015 International Infrastructure Management Manual and the new ISO 55000 standards for asset management.

6. Alignment with relevant Council policy

6.1 Asset Management Plans are intended to support Council’s purpose under section 10(1(b)) of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.2 Nelson 2060 will continue to be taken into account in the preparation of future plans

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

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

8. Consultation

8.1 No consultation has been undertaken at this stage. Consultation will be via the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

9. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

9.1 No consultation has been undertaken with Māori. Consultation will be via the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Phil Ruffell

Senior Asset Engineer - Utilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1484408 - Asset Planning Updates for 3 Waters AMP 2018-28

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R5276

Asset Management Planning Updates for Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-2028

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform Council of significant new items that will be considered during the development of the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee have the delegation to review policies and strategies relating to its areas of responsibility, including provision of solid waste activities.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Updates for Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 (R5276) and its attachment (A1485311) be received and updates noted.

4. Background

4.1 Asset Management Plans (AMPs) are one enabler of sound asset management. They describe agreed management practices, asset management strategies, projects, and operational activities required to meet expected levels of service and mitigate risks.

4.2 AMPs are key documents in showing how the organisation intends to manage its asset base and includes a long term plan for ensuring levels of service are met in the most cost-effective manner.

4.3 Council adopted the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 on 19 November 2015. This plan is continuously referenced and reviewed to ensure they make adequate provision for the ongoing function of core Council assets and also recognise the issues the community may face into the future.

4.4 Implementation of the 2015 AMPs is underway – scheduled projects have commenced and asset management improvement actions are in progress.

4.5 Asset management is a continuous process and, as internal and external factors change, must consider implications on asset management objectives and practices.

5. Discussion

General

5.1 This report summarises new significant issues and risks that have arisen since adoption of the 2015-2025 AMPs and are expected to feature in the Asset Management Plans 2018-28.

5.6 A process for organisational business cases has also been established and will enable decision making for capital projects. Organisational business cases will support funding requests in the next round of AMPs.

5.8 Discussions have also taken place on means to improve use of asset management information systems to enable improvements to overall efficiency and effectiveness.

5.10 Attachment 1 is a summary of the significant issues or risks that will need to be considered when preparing the 2018-2028 AMPs. Issues noted will require further investigation and analysis before detailed implications can be outlined. A number are dependent on joint analyses and agreement between Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

6. Alignment with relevant Council policy

6.1 Asset Management Plans are intended to support Council’s purpose under section 10(1(b)) of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.2 Nelson 2060 will continue be taken into account in the preparation of these plans.

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

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

8. Consultation

8.1 No consultation has been undertaken at this stage. Consultation will be via the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

9. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

9.1 No consultation has been undertaken with Māori. Consultation will be via the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Johan Thiart

Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1485311 - Solid Waste Asset Management Plan Update for 2018 AMP

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R5300

Recycling bin feedback

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide the Committee with feedback from residents on bin size and to determine a way forward.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has responsibility for provision, operation and maintenance of waste services, including kerbside solid waste and recycling collection services.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Recycling bin feedback (R5300) be received;

AND THAT once issued with a bin, should any change be sought to the bin issued, a $80.50 fee (incl GST) to cover administration and transport cost be charged.

4. Background

4.1 At the 17 December 2015 Council meeting, a change in recycling collection methodology, including a move to a new 240 litre bin collection system (and purchase thereof) was approved.

4.2 All new bins will become a chattel of each individual property and will not be owned by the owner/occupier of the property. Bins should remain with the property, even if the owner relocates.

4.3 It was also resolved that “Council engage with the community on the size of bins and report this back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee”.

4.4 A media release using all traditional channels, including through social media (face book and twitter), went out pre-Christmas, with reminders in January 2016, pointing residents to Council’s web site asking their views on bin size. Feedback closed on 30 January 2016.

5. Discussion

Feedback

5.1 Feedback was received from 631 residents – this represents approximately 3.5% of Nelson residents. Results are as below.

Item	No of submissions	Summary of reasons
Support the 240 litre bin	454	Support of increased capacity
Preference for the smaller 120 litre bin	174	Main issues were lack of room in property and steepness of streets
Do not want a bin at all	3

6. Options

6.1 Council has already resolved to change the recycling collection system and to move to new 240 litre bins.

6.2 The logistics associated with providing residents with smaller bins were covered in the 17 December 2015 report. This will be time consuming and will attract additional cost from an administrative point of view. Tasman District Council has recently advised their residents that moving to a smaller bin will attract a cost of $70 plus GST (reflecting transport and administration costs).

6.3 The 17 December 2015 report also noted that from comparisons with other local authorities, about 10% of people would most likely request a smaller bin. However no correlation can be made from the feedback results as a small percentage of residents reflected a desire for a smaller bin.

6.4 This aside, the number of residents expected to request a smaller bin is still anticipated to be small.

6.5 Officers support providing choice to Nelson residents in terms of bin size. It is proposed that as part of the communications roll-out the exact number of residents wishing to have the smaller 120 litre bin be ascertained, prior to the start-up of the new collection methodology.

6.6 It is also suggested that Body Corporates indicate their preference in terms of the number of bins and size they may want. This will be part of the communications programme.

6.7 Following the ordering and delivery of all bins to residents, should any resident wish to down-size from a 240 litre bin to a 120 litre bin (or vice versa), then it is appropriate that an administration fee to facilitate this is charged and $80.50 (incl GST) is proposed. Nelmac who will be administering this on Council’s behalf confirm that $80.50 reflects the actual cost of facilitating this.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 Bin size preference is not inconsistent with the Council decision to change the recycling collection methodology.

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

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

9. Consultation

9.1 The views of residents were sought and suggests two sizes of bins be offered their choice of bin size.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Māori were not specifically consulted on this matter.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Council has previously resolved to change the recycling collection methodology including moving to new 240 litre bins.

11.2 Residents were asked to provide their preference between a 240 litre and 120 litre bin.

11.3 Feedback was received from just over 600 residents, with a small percentage requesting smaller bins.

11.4 Officers are in support of providing choice to residents and propose that as part of the communications plan that the numbers wanting smaller 120 litre bins be ascertained before the roll-out of the new collection methodology.

11.5 Officers also recommended that once issued with a bin, that should residents wish to down-size to a 120 litre bin (or vice versa) that a fee to cover administration and transport costs be charged - $80.50 incl GST is recommended.

Alec Louverdis

Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Nil

Works and Infrastructure Committee

25 February 2016

REPORT R5218

Earthquake Update Report #7

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update on earthquake matters relating to Council owned buildings.

1.2 To approve strengthening of Isel House chimneys and the Refinery building.

1.3 To approve that strengthening not be undertaken for the Wood Turner building.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has responsibility for the operation and maintenance of building services and structures.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Earthquake Update Report #7 (R5218) and its attachments (A1498625, A1498652, A1498808) be received;

AND THAT approval is given to proceed with the earthquake strengthening of Isel House Chimneys to above 34%NBS, funded from the 2015/16 earthquake remediation budget;

4. Background

4.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee resolved on 30 July 2015:

“THAT approval be granted to undertake detailed earthquake assessments on Montgomery Superloo, Nelson Haven Sports Complex and the Tahuna Campground – Function Centre, funded from provisions 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 estimates for the remedial work to Isel House Chimneys funded from provision provided in the 2015/16 budget;

AND THAT further assessments considering economical and community factors be completed on the following buildings below 34%NBS to enable the Committee to make informed decisions and that this is brought back to a future Works and Infrastructure Committee and/or Commercial Sub-Committee; Refinery building, Plant and Food Building and Wood Turners Building.”

5. Budget

5.1 Funding for earthquake assessments and physical works is provided in the current financial year as follows:

5.1.1 Detailed Assessment Budget - $50,000. $45,000 of this budget has been committed to the three detailed assessments of Montgomery Superloo, Nelson Haven Sports Complex and the Tahuna Campground – Function Centre.

5.1.2 Earthquake remediation/capital budget - $419,000. $70,000 of this budget has been committed to undertaking the investigation, design and cost estimate for the remedial work to Isel House. $60,000 of this budget has been committed to the strengthening of 55 Muritai Street.

6. Discussion

Detailed Earthquake Assessment

6.1 Detailed earthquake assessments have been completed for Haven Sports Complex and Tahuna Campground – Function Centre and show that the buildings achieve 44%NBS and 64%NBS respectively.

6.2 As both buildings achieve above 34%NBS no further action is required.

6.3 No further assessments on any Council owned buildings are outstanding.

Isel House

6.4 Isel House chimneys have a detailed rating below 34%NBS. Although not a critical structural weakness, the chimneys present a life safety risk in the event of a moderate earthquake due to the potential falling hazard.

6.5 An organisational business case was completed by officers to assess the options for addressing the risks posed by the Chimneys. A summary of this is provided in Attachment 1.

6.6 The outline design and cost estimate for strengthening work has been completed and accepted in principle by Heritage New Zealand.

6.7 The cost estimate to strengthen all 5 Chimneys to above 34%NBS is $225,000.

6.8 Adequate funding exists in the 2015/16 earthquake remediation budget to proceed with strengthening work.

6.9 Construction could be scheduled to commence at the end of May when the house will close to the public. The previous tenant has moved out and the trial period for the Café will have ended in April. The work would be completed in September 2016 in time for the house to reopen during the summer.

6.10 Officers recommend that all 5 chimneys be strengthened to above 34%NBS as this mitigates the risk in a moderate earthquake.

7. Wood Turners Building

7.1 A detailed seismic assessment has rated the building below 34% NBS. The detailed assessment and the Building Unit do not consider this building as earthquake prone – it is not expected to collapse or cause serious harm during a moderate seismic event. This was previously reported to this Committee who resolved in March 2015:

“AND THAT Council note that no work will be undertaken on the Wood Turner Building at this stage as the building is not expected to collapse or cause serious injury during a moderate earthquake event.”

7.2 An organisational business case was completed by officers to assess the options for addressing the risks posed by the building. The summary of the business case completed is provided in Attachment 2.

7.3 Officers note that the organisational business case supports the earlier decision by the Committee not to strengthen the Wood Turner Building.

8. Refinery Building

8.1 The Refinery Building is rated below 34%NBS and could lead to serious harm for people in an event of a moderate earthquake.

8.2 An organisational business case was completed by officers to assess the options for addressing the risks posed by the building. A summary of this is provided in Attachment 3.

8.3 Officers considered at length the benefits and costs associated with the options and recommend that the building be strengthened to achieve above 34%NBS at a cost of $335,000 once the existing lease expires in December 2017.

8.4 Adequate funding exists in the 2016/2017 earthquake remediation budget to proceed with the strengthening work.

9. Plant and Food building

9.1 Work to commence a business case for the Plant and Food Building is on hold.

10. Alignment with Relevant Council Policy

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

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

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

12. Consultation

12.1 Consultation has been undertaken with Heritage New Zealand to develop the proposed strengthening option for Isel House Chimneys.

13. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

13.1 No consultation has been undertaken with Māori.

14. Conclusion

14.1 Detailed seismic assessments have been completed on Nelson Haven Sports Complex and the Tahuna Campground Function Centre. No further work is required on either of these buildings. No further detailed seismic assessments are required.

14.2 Organisational business cases have been completed on Isel House chimneys, the Refinery building and the Wood Turner building to allow an informed decision to be made on whether to progress or not progress with strengthening of these buildings.

14.3 Officers recommend that strengthening works be undertaken on the Isel House chimneys and the Refinery building and that no strengthening works be undertaken on the Wood Turner building.

Mel Large

Team Leader Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: Isel House Chimneys - Strengthening - Organisational Buisness Case Summary (A1498625)

Attachment 2: Wood Turner Building - Strengthening - Organisational Business Case Summary (A1498652)

Attachment 3: Refinery Building - Strengthening - Organisational Business Case Summary (A1498808)