Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

31 March 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 Pip Rene

Pip Rene, Coordinator, to speak about a proposal to relocate the larger stalls from the Farmers Market to a new location.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 25 February 2016 7 - 14

Document number M1725

Recommendation

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 25 February 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 31 March 2016 15 - 19

Document number R5652

Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 31 March 2016 (R5652) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

7. Chairperson's Report

Transport and Roading

8. Asset Management Planning Update for Transport Asset Management Plans 2018 - 2028 20 - 25

Document number R5426

Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Update for Transport Asset Management Plans 2018 - 2028 (R5426) and its attachment (A1496710) be received;

AND THAT the items raised within report R5426 be noted for consideration when developing the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

9. Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities 26 - 41

Document number R4960

Recommendation

THAT the report Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities (R4960) and its attachments (A1522595 and A1436204) be received;

AND THAT the opportunities identified in report R4960 be confirmed and incorporated into future work programmes for Waimea Road.

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

10. Infrastructure Fees and Charges 42 - 46

Document number R4752

Recommendation

THAT the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges (R4752) and its attachment (A1510346) be received;

AND THAT the proposed charges as per attachment (A1510346) be approved effective 1 July 2016.

Public Excluded Business

11. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
2	Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 31 March 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)(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	Toi Toi Grove - Transport Connection	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)

12. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Fynn Sawyer and Hayley Goldthorpe 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 25 February 2016, 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: Councillor B McGurk, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Manager Capital Projects (S Davies), Team Leader Engineer (D Light), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Nelson Youth Councillors (D Leaper and S McIlroy)

1. Apologies

There were no aplogies.

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 Day's Track Group

Kelly Atkinson of Day’s Track Group gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1512126). Ms Atkinson spoke about the background of the Day’s Track slip, the current temporary infrastructure, the health and safety risk of the slip, and the frustrations that residents had faced. She advised the Group sought Council’s attention and support for the remediation and restoration of Day’s Track and associated infrastructure.

Shona Nelson spoke about the options in the related officer’s report on the agenda for the meeting. She raised concerns that the proposed gravel track would be unsafe, could require a higher level of maintenance and did not match the rest of Day’s Track. Ms Nelson advised that Day’s Track Group was in support of Option 3 in the report, a concrete track, and highlighted the relatively minor difference in cost between the gravel and concrete options.

In response to a question, Ms Atkinson advised the Group was aware of the Tahunanui slump zone, but still felt a concrete walkway would be safer for the diverse range of users of Day’s Track.

Attachments

1 A1512126 - Presentation from Days Track Group

4.2 Colin Ratcliffe

Mr Ratcliffe raised concerns about the proposed recycling wheelie bins. He suggested there would be residents who would have difficulty using these due to limited space, steep driveways, or living in upstairs apartments. Mr Ratcliffe also suggested the collection of wheelie bins would take much longer than the current collection system and therefore cost more to operate. He added that people may abuse the intent of the bins by putting non-recyclable material in them.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 26 November 2015

Document number M1622, agenda pages 9 - 17 refer.

Resolved WI/2016/001

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.

Skinner/Noonan Carried

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

Document number R5517, agenda pages 18 - 21 refer.

In response to questions, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, provided further detail about Fiddle Lane and the Policy of Licenses for Footpath and Outdoor Dining.

Resolved WI/2016/003

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

Davy/Lawrey Carried

7. Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

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

Document number R5201, agenda pages 22 - 25 refer.

Asset Engineer - Transport, Chris Pawson, presented the report

Resolved WI/2016/004

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.

Lawrey/Skinner Carried

9. Days Track Resolution

Document number R4701, agenda pages 26 - 32 refer.

Team Leader Engineer, David Light, and Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies, presented the report.

In response to questions, Mr Light advised officers were not concerned that minor flooding would wash away the gravel track, as the design would incorporate features for stormwater and drainage. He advised the gravel track was the most appropriate option given the section of Day’s Track was in the Tahunanui Slump zone, which meant that a concrete structure would be likely to crack.

In response to a question, Mr Davies assured councillors that the Day’s Track project had been prioritised appropriately in terms of health and safety risks.

During discussion, it was noted that whichever method of reinstatement was used for Day’s Track, Council would not be able to construct a track that would necessarily withstand extreme rainfall/slip events in future. Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, reiterated that the same risks would apply to both types of track construction in a significant weather event.

In response to questions, Mr Louverdis advised that the movement of the Tahunanui slump was a known issue. He also advised it was possible, with no adverse weather or other complications, that the Day’s Track project could be completed by December 2016.

Resolved WI/2016/005

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

Lawrey/Barker Carried

Councillor Lawrey, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved the recommendation to Council in the officer report.

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.

Councillors Skinner, seconded by Councillor Copeland, moved an amendment:

THAT remediation of Days Track with a concrete track at an estimated cost of $500,000 be approved, noting this will require additional funding of $335,000 to be included in the Annual Plan 2016/17.

Those in support of the amendment believed that a concrete path would be safer for the wide range of users of Day’s Track, and was not significantly more expensive than the gravel track option.

The amendment was put and lost; the meeting returned to the motion.

Recommendation to Council WI/2016/006

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.

Lawrey/Noonan Carried

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

Document number R5301, agenda pages 33 - 40 refer.

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

In response to a question, Mr Ruffell advised that Treasury would consider assessing impacts of flooding hazards on Council’s infrastructure network this financial year.

It was pointed out that some councils worldwide had started to categorise waterways as assets in order to recognise their value.

Resolved WI/2016/007

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

Davy/Skinner Carried

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

Document number R5276, agenda pages 41 - 45 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer – Solid Waste, Johan Thiart, presented the report.

Resolved WI/2016/008

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.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.24am to 10.37am.

12. Recycling bin feedback

Document number R5300, agenda pages 46 - 49 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report.

A suggestion was made that a scheme could be established for residents who wished to swap bins with others wanting to downgrade/upsize. Mr Louverdis said this would be given further thought to assess its viability.

In response to questions, Mr Louverdis advised there would not be a large increase in operating costs for the new bin collection system. He said the default bin for those who had not indicated a preference for bin size would be 240L.

Resolved WI/2016/009

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.

Davy/Noonan Carried

13. Earthquake Update Report #7

Document number R5218, agenda pages 50 - 57 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report.

In response to questions, Mr Louverdis advised the high cost to replace chimneys at Isel House was because of their heritage status.

In response to a question, Mr Louverdis advised that it could be possible to work with the Refinery tenant to strengthen the building prior to December 2017 if this was an option.

Resolved WI/2016/010

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.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

14. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved WI/2016/011

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

Davy/Noonan 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 - 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)

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.04am and resumed in public session at 11.26am.

15. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2016/012

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Davy/Skinner Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.26am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Works and Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2016

REPORT R5426

Asset Management Planning Update for Transport 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 has the delegation to review policies and strategies relating to its areas of responsibility, including the provision, operation and maintenance of roads, streets, bridges, cycleways and walkways and public transport (including footpaths, landscaping and ancillary services and facilities, street lighting, and traffic management control).

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Asset Management Planning Update for Transport Asset Management Plans 2018 - 2028 (R5426) and its attachment (A1496710) be received;

AND THAT the items raised within report R5426 be noted for consideration when developing the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

4. Background

4.1 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.

4.2 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 Transport Asset Management Plan 2015-2025 on 19 November 2015. This plan is continuously referenced and reviewed to ensure it makes adequate provision for the ongoing function of core Council assets and also recognises the issues the community may face into the future.

4.4 Implementation of the 2015 AMP 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 AMP and which are expected to feature in the Asset Management Plan 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. recommendations for Annual Plan, for consideration in next AMP, etc).

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.

5.7 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.

5.10 Attachment 1 is a summary of the significant issues or risks that will need to be considered when preparing the 2018-2028 Transport Asset Management Plan. Issues noted will require further investigation and analysis before detailed implications can be outlined.

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.

Rhys Palmer

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1496710 - Asset Planning Update - 2018 Transport Asset Management Plan

Transport Asset Management Plan (AMP)

Area	Issue/ Risk Definition	Implications for next 1-2 Years	Implications for 2018-2028 AMP
All Activities	LGA Section 17a reviews Review cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for infrastructure, services and regulatory functions. Need to consider options for governance, funding and delivery of services to ensure most cost-effective	Review of all activities to determine need for review and conduct reviews as necessary.	Depends on review - could result in change to governance, funding, or delivery method.
All Activities	Apply business case methodology to support operations and maintenance budgets as required by NZ Transport Agency for next National Land Transport Fund application	No change expected. Used to inform future CAPEX and OPEX priorities.	Strategic Case to be developed for the front section of AMP document. Agreed strategic direction will focus the alignment of the activities recommended through the AMP. Business case approach will promote early engagement with stakeholders and map a clear understanding of the problems, consequences and benefits in the transport activity.
Road Maintenance	Collaboration with Tasman District Council on road maintenance	Business case under development to understand opportunities and risks. If collaboration proceeds it would begin June 2017.	Potential for improved cost effectiveness and asset understanding through knowledge sharing.
Subsidised Transport Activities	Apply the 'One Road Network Classification' (ONRC) to the network and embed into road maintenance contracts and LoS	No change to LoS for 24 months. Work underway to understand gap between current performance and proposed ONRC performance.	The gap between the proposed ONRC LoS and the current LoS will influence the level of future NZ Transport Agency subsidised funding.
All Activities	Network wide road crash risk mapping undertaken in 2015/16 on the Nelson City Council network by Accident Compensation Corporation to be used to inform road safety priorities.	No change expected. Used to inform future CAPEX and OPEX priorities	Improved understanding of network crash risk will lead to optimised decision making.
Urban Revitalisation	Improvement opportunities maybe identified in the Stoke CBD study.	Priorities will inform non subsidised CAPEX programme in 16/17 and 17/18.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
All Activities	Transport problems and issues from forecast growth and population changes in Stoke.	Foothills study to inform future AMP, Regional Land Transport Plan and Nelson Plan.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
All Activities	Transport problems and issues from forecast growth and geotechnical and landscape challenges in Atawhai.	Investigation to inform future AMP, Regional Land Transport Plan and Nelson Plan.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
Active Travel	East / west cross town link for active modes between Nelson East and the high schools / intermediate has poor LoS.	Strategic and Programme Business Cases to be developed to inform future AMP and Regional Land Transport Plan.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
All Activities	Improvement/changes necessary to local road network as a result of any non local road network changes.	No change expected in network. Will need to assess impact on local network as result of Southern Link Investigation and potential changes to the Port access.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
All Activities	Lack of capacity at Quarantine Road, Nayland Road and Pascoe Street intersections.	Strategic and Programme Business Cases to be developed to inform future Asset Management Plan and RLTP.	Priorities will inform CAPEX programme. Additional CAPEX possible.
All Activities	Civil Defence Lifelines / Network Resilience review	Could change operational and maintenance service levels.	Priorities will inform OPEX and CAPEX programme. Additional OPEX and CAPEX possible.
Car parking	Car park pay and display meters renewal programmed for 17/18 and 18/19. Significant OPEX and CAPEX in zones of poor financial return (P60 zones under current first hour free regime).	Prepare business case to inform and investigate options for renewal.	Inform pay and display meter renewal budget. Amendment to parking OPEX and CAPEX possible.
Structures	Structures (bridges and retaining walls) maintenance and renewals not well prioritised. Identified by collaborative working between operation and asset management team.	Develop risk based framework to ensure investment is at the right level and at the right time.	Investment level/priorities will inform OPEX and CAPEX programme.

Works and Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2016

REPORT R4960

Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform Council of the issues and opportunities for a programme of work through the Waimea Road corridor.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has responsibility for the provision, operation and maintenance of roads.

Recommendation

THAT the report Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities (R4960) and its attachments (A1522595 and A1436204) be received;

AND THAT the opportunities identified in report R4960 be confirmed and incorporated into future work programmes for Waimea Road.

3. Background

3.1 The Arterial Traffic Study undertaken in 2011 recommended the operation of Waimea Road including its intersections between Beatson Road roundabout and Rutherford Street should be studied further with the aim to improving operation, safety and impact on the surrounding community.

3.2 During the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) hearings the Council and the Regional Transport Committee were asked by submitters representing the residents and businesses on Waimea Road, to review a request for a Liveable Arterial approach to the design and layout on Waimea Road. In particular the potential for a visual “softening” of the corridor whilst recognising the need to retain parking.

3.3 The Nelson Regional Transport Plan 2015-2021 has a project at the intersection of Van Diemen Street and Waimea Road in 2021-24.

3.4 Waimea Road is the busiest road in Nelson carrying around 24,000 vehicles/weekday. This level of traffic is above the normally accepted capacity of a two lane urban road, resulting in unstable traffic flow characteristics experienced along the road between the CBD and Bishopdale during peak hours. Very small events can result in queues forming and delays occurring. Minor accidents occur and anecdotal evidence infers many go unreported. It is well known drivers use adjacent residential streets as short cuts to avoid anticipated delays on Waimea Road.

3.5       The level of traffic flow results in the following issues for the communities living alongside the road:
- noise, fumes and general intrusion;
-   difficulty for pedestrians crossing;
-   turning delays at intersections and driveways;
-   safety;
-   shortcutting on adjacent residential roads to avoid delays; and
-   visually unattractive.

3.6 Officers have undertaken surveys and analysis to assess Waimea Road between The Ridgeway to the south and Rutherford Street to the north. Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan.

3.7 No assessment of any impact of the implementation of the Nelson Southern Link on the operation of Waimea Road has been undertaken. The opportunities identified will provide value whether or not the Nelson Southern Link is progressed.

3.8 One approach to addressing some of these issues is the Liveable Arterial approach. This urban design based approach seeks to reduce the impact traffic has on the community that lives and works along its length. It focuses on the community rather than engineering based transport solutions.

3.9 The objectives of this approach are to consider the overall street environment and the balance of space allocated within the corridor, with an emphasis on improving pedestrian amenity, safety and opportunities, improving turning safety, whilst not compromising the capacity on Waimea Road, and to further improve the visual aspects and amenity of the transport corridor.

3.10 The liveable arterials approach has been used in Auckland in the past, as part of the long-term management of the community severance and intrusion around some of the arterials routes. They used an urban design based approach to develop long-term plans, including the reprioritisation of road space to encourage more varied activity within the arterial corridor.

4. Discussion

4.1 This report focuses on the safety, capacity, and accessibility issues surrounding the Waimea Road corridor. In addition to this the visual and landscape aspects of the road have been reviewed by an urban designer and opportunities identified.

4.2 Extensive data collection was undertaken to better quantify the identified issues along the corridor. These included an origin destination number plate matching survey to understand the short cutting being undertaken to the east and west of Waimea Road, crash statistics analysis, traffic and pedestrian count analysis, Road Safety Audit information and site observations.

4.3 This data and information is included in an Issues and Options Analysis Report in Attachment 2.

5. Options

Two options are proposed for consideration:

5.1 Option 1 - Status quo (do nothing), other than routine maintenance on the Waimea Road Corridor.

5.2 Option 2 – Consider a series of specific issues and opportunities for further development as detailed in Table 5.1 below. These are listed in geographic order from south to north and no priority rating has been assessed at this stage.

Table 5.1

Issue/ opportunity	Concept/ potential solution	Benefit	Funding	Comments
Waimea Road/The Ridgeway, high crash rate	Tighten left turn slip lane to slow traffic entering The Ridgeway combined with speed limit reduction	Crash reduction	Minor Improvement Budget	Included in Minor Improvement priority list for implementation in the 2017/18 financial year.
Existing 70kph Speed Limit,	Speed limit reduction on Waimea Road from Beatson Road to south of Market Road	Reduction of crash severity	Network and Asset Management	Will require a speed limit change procedure.
2km between bus stops on Waimea Rd. Recommended distance is 400- 800m	Construct Bus Stop lay by at Ulster Street	Improved public transport level of service for Ulster Street	Public Transport Minor Improvements	Engagement with the community
Pedestrian severance across Waimea Road	Provision of pedestrian/cycle refuges on Waimea Road between Tukuka Street and Boundary Road in conjunction with York Stream upgrade	Improved pedestrian / cycle crossing provision and safety	Minor improvement Budget 2015/16	Liaison with Emergency Services, and engagement with the community regarding loss of parking.
Pedestrian severance across Waimea Rd at Tutuka St	Ban right turn from Waimea Road into Tukuka Street (East)	Will enable refuge widened and improved pedestrian environment	Minor Improvement budget	Requires consultation with frontage commercial properties and surrounding community affected by the ban
Rat running through residential area north of Hospital. Serious cycle crash rate at Hampden Street intersection.	Restrict movements at Waimea Road into and out of Hampden Street west	Reduction in cycle crashes on Waimea Road and Improved pedestrian and residential amenity on Hampden, Kawai and Alfred Streets.	Minor improvement Budget	Will require extensive consultation with local business, school and residential community.
Awareness/ visibility of Snows Hill walkway poor	Highlight location of each end of walkway	Limit need to cross Waimea between Van Diemen and Rutherford Streets.	Minor improvement Budget	Engagement with the community
Improve visual amenity of the arterial corridor	Development of a planting scheme for Waimea Road	Improvement to the visual amenity of Waimea Road	To be considered in Annual Plan 2017/18 and funded from non subsidised account	Will require extensive engagement with the community, careful assessment of utility locations, potential shading and consequent amenity improvement. Will incur additional maintenance costs.

6. Funding

6.1 Funding for the majority of these works would be sourced from the Minor Improvement or Network and Asset Management budgets. Any project proposed will be included in the Minor Improvements priority matrix and will be prioritised for implementation.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The recommendations in this report align with the Community Outcomes in the LTP – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

7.2 It is also consistent with the NCC objectives in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

7.3 It also fits with Nelson 2060 in that it seeks to strengthen community health through reducing the community severance along Waimea Road.

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

8.1 The decision is not significant under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

9. Consultation

9.1 At this stage, no consultation has been undertaken on the specific opportunities and concepts identified.

9.2 Preliminary discussions have been held with Mr Paul Anderson representing the Waimea Road Business & Residents Society. Their concerns include any loss of parking and maintaining property access. They support the visual “softening” of the corridor and will work with officers to identify a programme of works for the corridor for further development and consultation.

9.3 As it may be some years before these works are prioritised for construction through the Minor Improvement budget it is considered more appropriate to undertake detailed consultation with affected residents and businesses at the investigation/design stage.

9.4 Engagement with emergency services will be undertaken to ensure any project proposed does not compromise the emergency response route.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 No consultation with Maori has been undertaken

11. Conclusion

11.1 There are a number of issues/opportunities identified following this review of Waimea Road, which could contribute to improving the safety and amenity for those using and living along Waimea Road. The list in Table 5.1 summarises these.

11.2 Officers recommend that these issues/opportunities are adopted as a basis for further development and prioritisation.

Sue McAuley

Engineering Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1522595 - Map of study extents

Attachment 2: A1436204 - Issues and options analysis

Works and Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2016

REPORT R4752

Infrastructure Fees and Charges

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To advise and approve fees and charges for Utilities (water), Roading and Solid Waste services for the 2016/17 financial year.

2. Delegations

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

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges (R4752) and its attachment (A1510346) be received;

AND THAT the proposed charges as per attachment (A1510346) be approved effective 1 July 2016.

4. Background

4.1 Fees and Charges are reviewed annually and adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or to reflect changes in process and/or costs incurred to Council.

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

4.3 Fees and Charges were last approved for the 2015/16 financial year at the 30 July 2015 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting.

5. Discussion

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

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

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

5.4 Proposed Fees and Charges for Solid Waste are listed in Table 3 of Attachment 1.

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

6. Options

6.1 Option 1 Approve the proposed charges effective 1 July 2016. This is the recommended option.

6.2 Option 2 Do not approve the proposed charges.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 Setting fees and charges is not inconsistent with previous Council decisions.

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

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

9. Consultation

9.1 No formal consultation has occurred with regards to the proposal in this report.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Maori have not been consulted.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Officers recommend that the Works and Infrastructure Committee approve the charges as set out in Attachment 1 of this report.

Peter Anderson

Manager Operations

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1510346 - Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2016-17

ATTACHMENT 1

Table 1 Utilities (Water)

Description	Cost 2015-16 (Incl GST)	Cost 2016-17 (Incl GST)	Comment
Special Reading	$28	$28
Installation of Restrictor	$ 115	$116
Disconnection fee	$220	$223
Connection Application:
-Less than 50mm	$115	$116	Reflects CPI increase
-50mm and greater	$220	$223
Hydrant Supply Application	$130	$132
Bulk Filling Registration	$130	$132

Note : Installation costs and development contributions (where applicable) are additional to the above application fees.

Table 2 Roading

Description	Cost 2015-16 (inc GST)	Cost 2016-17 (inc GST)	Comment
Road closures
For Construction	$550	$558
For Event –charitable status	$324	$329
For Event – Commercial	$550	$558
For Vehicle Crossing applications	$120	$122	Reflects CPI increase
Corridor Access Requests	Application fee $75 Multiple openings $25 Inspection $75 Non Approval Penalty $250 Texturing contribution where applicable $7.50m2	Application fee $75 Multiple openings $25 Inspection $75 Non Approval Penalty $250 Texturing contribution where applicable $7.50m2

Table 3 Transfer Station

Transfer Station - General	15 – 16 price (Inc GST)	16 -17 price (Inc GST)	Comment
0.0 – 0.5 m³ (car boot) Minimum charge 0.5m³	$20	$20
0.5 – 1.0 m³	$40	$40
1.0 – 1.5 m³	$60	$60
1.5 – 2.0 m³	$80	$80
Thereafter Per M3	$40	$40
Tyres - Car	$7	$7	CPI increase insignificant
Tyres - Truck	$20	$20	NO PROPOSED CHANGE in fees and charges
Tyres – On rim	$15	$15
Tyres – Tractor or similar, off rim	$70	$70
Hazardous waste – 0 to 2kg (Household only)	Free	Free
Hazardous Waste – Thereafter (Household only)	$2	$2
Commercial Operators dumping hardfill and demolition	$180	$180
Transfer Station - Green Waste	15 – 16 price (Inc GST)	16 -17 price (Inc GST)	Comment
0.0 – 0.5 m³ (car boot) Minimum charge 0.5m³	$10	$10
0.5 – 1.0 m³	$20	$20	CPI increase insignificant
1.0 – 1.5 m³	$30	$30	NO PROPOSED CHANGE in fees and charges
1.5 – 2.0 m³	$40	$40
Thereafter Per M3	$20	$20