Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

10 May 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 Graham Wells

Graham Wells will speak about his recycling and rubbish collection.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 31 March 2016 8 - 16

Document number M1798

Recommendation

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 31 March 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 2016 17 - 21

Document number R5849

Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 May 2016 (R5849) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

7. Chairperson's Report

Transport and Roading

8. Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report 22 - 72

Document number R5622

Recommendation

THAT the report Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report (R5622) and its attachments (A1521274, A1486083 and A1521649) be received;

AND THAT it be agreed that the speed limit on Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Salisbury Road be reduced from 80km/h to 60km/h on completion of the Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection safety improvements and associated speed reduction measures;

AND THAT schedules G and I in the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 be amended to reflect this change;

AND THAT physical works approved at the Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection be funded from the Minor Improvements budget in 2016/17.

9. Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes 73 - 77

Document number R5770

Recommendation

THAT the report Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes (R5770) and its attachment (A1531450) be received;

AND THAT in line with community feedback, approval be given to construct a pedestrian refuge in the location shown in attachment 1 at an estimated cost of $30,000.

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

10. Capital Project Budget Status Report 78 - 80

Document number R5818

Recommendation

THAT the Capital Project Budget Status Report (R5818) be received;

Recommendation to Council

THAT with respect to the Montcalm/ Arrow/Washington Valley/Hastings stormwater upgrade project that $116,000 be transferred from the current provision in 2016/17 to 2015/16 to maintain continuity of this multi-year project.

Solid Waste

11. Future of green waste 81 - 85

Document number R5797

Recommendation

THAT the report Future of green waste (R5797) be received.

Recommendation to Council

THAT following a review of green waste services at the request of Council:

THAT Nelson City Council partner with Tasman District Council to call for public tenders with respect to their green waste in June 2016;

AND THAT failing success with this approach with Tasman District Council, that officers be authorised to negotiate a contract with a commercial operator to accept its green waste;

AND THAT in the interim, Council continues to take green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station;

AND THAT Council’s budgets be amended to reflect any increase in costs that may arise from this tendering process and that this be reported back via a future Audit Risk and Finance Committee through the Corporate report.

Public Excluded Business

12. 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 - 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)(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 - 10 May 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

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 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)(i)

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

Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 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

13. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Mamata Dahal and Ben Rumsey 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 31 March 2016, commencing at 9.03am

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

In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk and P Matheson, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading (R Palmer), Engineering Adviser (S McAuley), Administration Adviser (G Brown), and Nelson Youth Councillors (H Goldthorpe and F Sawyer)

Apology: Councillor L Acland

1. Apology

Resolved WI/2016/017

THAT an apology be received and accepted from Councillor Acland.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chairperson advised that since the agenda had been distributed there were three additional public forum presentations.

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 Pip Rene, Stephen Morris and Ben Jurgesen, from the Nelson Farmers Market.

Pip Rene, Stephen Morris and Ben Jurgensen spoke about a proposal to relocate the larger stalls from the Nelson Farmers Market to a new location.

Ben Jurgensen spoke to a handout (A1521588) and gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1525271).

In response to questions, Mr Morris said that due to health and safety issues and time constraints, he believed stall holders would relocate to another location in the future. He added that any area central to the town centre would be considered.

Ms Rene referred to the importance of health and safety and said a traffic management plan could be compiled by the speakers if required.

Attachments

1 A1521588 - Farmers Market Handout

2 A1525271 - Farmers Market Presentation

4.2 Jana Henare

Ms Henare spoke about the resurfacing on Toi Toi Street.

In response to questions, Ms Henare said the resurfacing on Toi Toi Street was completed in January 2016 and complaints were given to Council in relation to the poor condition of the resurfacing works. She added that temporary measures had been taken but the issues had occurred again.

In response to a further question, Ms Henare said that she was told by Council that the level of resurfacing was a financial decision in that no further work would be conducted at this area.

Attachments

1 A1525685 - Jana Henare Presentation

4.3 Colin Bott, from the Nelson Farmers Market

Mr Bott spoke about the philosophy and purpose of the Nelson Farmers Market.

Mr Bott advised that the Farmers Market was a cooperative society therefore all funds went to the stallholders. He said there were limitations in using Morrison Square for the Farmers Market.

In response to questions, Mr Bott said that stallholders needed to produce 70% of what they sold and that the market closed at 3.30pm, however stallholders did not need to vacate until 4.30pm. He added that to have another farmers market on a Wednesday would negatively impact the Morrison Square Farmers Market.

In response to a question, Mr Bott said that he was satisfied that the Farmers Market was held in a safe environment.

In response to further questions, Mr Bott said that if given the choice stallholders would prefer to hold the Farmers Market at Buxton carpark. He added that the Farmers Market needed to be about local and organic produce.

Mr Bott said that if stallholders wanted to grow in size then they could consider retail space.

4.4 Ken Beckett

Mr Beckett spoke about item 9 of the agenda, Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities report.

In response to questions, Mr Beckett said that he believed embarking on projects on Waimea Road was irresponsible until a decision was made by the New Zealand Transport Agency regarding the Nelson Southern Link investigation. He added that option 1 of the report should be the preferred option.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 25 February 2016

Document number M1725, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.

A spelling error was highlighted under ‘Apologies’ and it was suggested the wording be changed in the second paragraph of item 10, Asset Management Planning Updates for Utilities Asset Management Plan 2018-2028, dependent on whether it was an officer or an elected member who made the statement.

Resolved WI/2016/018

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

Davy/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

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

Document number R5652, agenda pages 15 - 19 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report and responded to questions.

Resolved WI/2016/019

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

Davy/Barker Carried

7. Chairperson's Report

The Chairperson advised the Committee of a proposed workshop on Tuesday 19 April on the topic of Licences for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining, including the moratorium on public parking spaces.

Transport and Roading

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

Document number R5426, agenda pages 20 - 25 refer.

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

In response to a question, Mr Palmer advised that the reason for prioritising Atawhai study ahead of the Stoke study was due to the timing of the Nelson Plan. He added that the Stoke study related to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Nelson Southern Link investigation and Council would be able to utilise the transportation model developed by NZTA for the Stoke study work.

In response to a further question regarding the need to consider options for governance as referred to in attachment one, Mr Palmer said that the Local Government Act 2002 required Council to review the cost effectiveness of the procurement of all services with respect to governance.

Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting from 10.09am to 10.10am.

Mr Palmer clarified that the ‘One Road Network Classification’ was imposed by NZTA and would affect funding levels. He added that the key decision for Council was whether to accept the current levels of service or provide further local funding for each individual road classification.

It was highlighted that it would be beneficial to include in the review the updated travel delay data gathered from the NZTA Nelson Southern Link investigation model.

There was discussion about Atawhai activities in relation to transport problems and issues from landscape challenges as referenced in attachment one. It was suggested that the landscape issues were not complicated.

In response to a question in relation to paragraph 5.9 of the report, Mr Palmer informed the Committee the main change to the 2015 International Infrastructure Manual was that the Transport Asset Management Plan now required a strong strategic front end that outlined the key drivers.

There was a discussion about the costs of asphalt and non-asphalt (chip seal) surfaces. In response to a question, Mr Palmer said it would need to be considered how much funding NZTA would be willing to pay for One Road Network Classifications. It was agreed that this issue would be added to the review.

Resolved WI/2016/020

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 with amendments to the schedule within report R5426 be noted for consideration when developing the Asset Management Plans 2018-2028.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.20am to 10.33am.

9. Waimea Road Issues and Opportunities

Document number R4960, agenda pages 26 - 41 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer – Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, and Engineering Adviser, Sue McAuley, presented the report.

It was noted that no assessments of any impact of the implementation of the Nelson Southern Link on the operation of Waimea Road had been undertaken as the NZTA consultation included the possibility of either no Southern Link road or three lanes on Waimea Road.

In response to question, Mr Palmer confirmed that three lanes had not been considered as part of the report but had come into focus after receipt of the NZTA Nelson Southern Link investigation consultation document.

There was a discussion regarding table 5.1 of the report, and Mr Palmer indicated that the opportunities listed in line three; construct bus stop lay by at Ulster Street, line four; provision of pedestrian/cycle refuges on Waimea Road between Tutuka Street and Boundary Road in conjunction with York Stream upgrade and line seven; highlight location of each end of Snow Hills walkway, could be progressed without any implications to the future layout of Waimea Road.

In response to questions, Mr Palmer advised that the refuge on Waimea Road associated with the York Stream upgrade would cost approximately $30,000 and would be funded from the minor improvements program. He added that the other issues listed in table 5.1 would be incorporated in other work streams.

There was general support for the opportunities listed in lines three, four and seven of table 5.1 to be progressed, with consultation on these options to be undertaken with those affected.

Resolved WI/2016/021

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

Davy/Lawrey Carried

Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved:

AND THAT opportunities three, four and seven in table 5.1 of report (R4960) are supported in principle;

AND THAT officers initiate consultation on these opportunities and report feedback to a future meeting of Works and Infrastructure.

A concern was raised that it would be beneficial to wait on the outcomes from the NZTA Nelson Southern Link investigation consultation. It was suggested that the only opportunities listed in lines four and seven should be progressed as the refuges on Waimea Road could be wasted work should the Southern Link progress.

Councillor Barker, seconded by Councillor Skinner moved an amendment to the first clause.

AND THAT opportunities three and seven in table 5.1 of report (R4960) are supported in principle;

There was a discussion about opportunity 4 in that the provision of pedestrian/cycle refuges on Waimea Road would provide safety benefits and that the costs were modest.

The motion was put and lost, and the meeting returned to consider the original motion.

Resolved WI/2016/022

AND THAT opportunities three, four and seven in table 5.1 of report (R4960) are supported in principle;

AND THAT officers initiate consultation on these opportunities and report feedback to a future meeting of Works and Infrastructure.

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

10. Infrastructure Fees and Charges

Document number R4752, agenda pages 42 - 46 refer.

Manager Operations, Peter Anderson, presented the report.

In response to a question, Mr Anderson advised that no further analysis on fees and charges had been undertaken from last year, and that the increase only took into consideration the Consumer Price Index.

Resolved WI/2016/023

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.

Noonan/Lawrey Carried

11. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved WI/2016/024

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	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)

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.20am and resumed in public session at 12.18pm.

12. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2016/025

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Davy/Lawrey Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.18pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Works and Infrastructure Committee

10 May 2016

REPORT R5622

Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider public/stakeholder feedback regarding the proposed speed limit reduction on Main Road Stoke between Saxton and Salisbury Road.

1.2 To amend the current speed limit bylaw schedules to reduce the speed limit on Main Road Stoke between Saxton and Salisbury Road from 80km/h to 60km/h.

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 1998 (LTA).

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report (R5622) and its attachments (A1521274, A1486083 and A1521649) be received;

AND THAT schedules G and I in the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 be amended to reflect this change;

AND THAT physical works approved at the Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection be funded from the Minor Improvements budget in 2016/17.

4. Background

4.1 In response to the recommendations of a Crash Reduction Study and two serious crashes in 2015, concept designs were completed for safety improvement works at the intersection of Main Road Stoke and Elms Street. During the design process it was identified that the speed limit on Main Road Stoke would need to be reduced to 60km/h if the safety risks were to be mitigated.

4.2 The case for safety improvements at the intersection and the need to reduce the speed limit was made in the report to the 26 November 2015 Works and Infrastructure Committee, where it was resolved:

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.

4.3 The Terms of Reference were approved by the Works and Infrastructure committee on 25 February 2016 and consultation undertaken.

4.4 The Consultation Feedback Group heard feedback on the proposed changes at Saxton Oval on 9 March 2016.

4.5 Currently a temporary speed limit of 50km/h is in place.

5. Discussion

Legislation

5.1 Currently, the process for setting speed limits is set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 with further technical guidance provided by Speed Limits New Zealand – Guidelines for setting speed limits and procedures for calculating speed limits. These documents are to be replaced by the Speed Management Guide in the near future following trialling of the guideline around the country.

5.2 Under the current speed limit setting process the calculated speed limit is 80km/h. Section 3.2(5)(a) of the rule allows a speed limit different to that calculated to be put in place if “a speed limit different from the calculated speed limit is the safe and appropriate speed limit for a road with regard to the function, nature and use of the road, its environment, land use patterns and whether the road is in an urban traffic area or a rural area”

5.3 In this case, the safe speed limit is 60km/h due to the need to reduce the potential impact speed of crashes at the intersection of Main Road Stoke and Elms Street.

5.4 The term appropriate relates to the ability of the road environment to communicate the speed limit to drivers in the absence of speed limit signs and its function in the wider network. In this case the function of the road is essentially the same as the 50km/h sections at either end of it (local arterial).

5.5 The challenge is the open nature of the road environment as a result of having Saxton Field on the east side of the road. Council will need to make the road environment “self explaining”, so that drivers naturally travel at a speed close to the proposed 60km/h limit. It is proposed to narrow the lanes through road marking and plant areas of the bank between the off road cycleway and the drainage channel on the eastern side of Main Road Stoke in order to reduce the feeling of open space that drivers experience. This is expected to assist drivers to drive at a speed closer to 60km/h.

5.6 To further support the case for a 60km/h speed limit in the context of the legislation, the draft Speed Management Guide that is expected to be the controlling document in the future, supports this speed limit in this location.

Public feedback

5.7 Attachment 1 summarises the feedback received from members of the public as well as officer comments.

5.8 Attachment 2 summarises the oral feedback received by the Consultation Feedback Group.

5.9 In summary, feedback was received from 32 individual members of the public or businesses. A petition signed by 67 members of the Curves gym was also received.

5.10 The majority of the feedback received supported some form of speed reduction. In 15 submissions and the petition the proposed 60km/h limit was supported and in 9 submissions a 50km/h speed limit was supported.

5.11 As detailed in the previous report to the 26 November 2015 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting, the warrant calculation for this section of road gives a speed limit of 80km/h so the proposed 60km/h is already outside this. Further reduction on a permanent basis to 50km/h is considered to be unrealistic given the low density of driveways and a lack of parking on this section of Main Road Stoke. Additional engineering works alone to reinforce a 50km/h speed limit would not be expected to successfully convey the speed limit to drivers without the need for a very aggressive, permanent speed enforcement regime.

5.12 Seven submissions opposed the speed limit reduction.

5.13 Feedback supporting and opposing the speed reduction commonly asked that an alternative intersection control, such as a roundabout, traffic signals or banning the right turn out of Elms Street, be considered or adopted. A rough estimate for these types of intersection controls is in the order of $1Million and unlikely to be funded by NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).

Stakeholder feedback

5.14 Council is required to seek feedback from the following stakeholders when proposing a speed limit change:

· NZTA

· Police

· Automobile Association (AA)

· Road Transport Forum

5.15 NZTA support the 60km/h speed limit as this speed limit matches the new Speed Management Guideline output for this road section and the need to mitigate the road safety risk at the Elms Street intersection. NZTA have suggested that vehicle speeds be monitored should the 60km/h speed limit be approved to measure compliance with the new limit and additional work be done to make the road environment “self explaining” if compliance with the new limit is poor. As detailed in section 5.3 of this report, some works to achieve this are proposed.

5.16 No feedback has been received from the Police National Headquarters. Local Police representatives are supportive of the change to 60km/h.

5.17 The AA reluctantly accepts that there is a need for change and have asked that the section of Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Polstead Road be considered for a 60km/h speed limit as well. It is proposed that review of this section happen as part of a wider speed review once the new Speed Management Guideline is released by NZTA (scheduled for the end of 2016) as there is no safety concern related to this section of road.

5.18 No feedback has been received from the Road Transport Forum.

6. Options

6.1 Option 1: Do nothing (retain 80km/h speed limit) - The option to do nothing is not considered to be prudent given council’s awareness of the safety issues at the intersection and the high risk of death or serious injury.

6.2 Option 2: Reduce the speed limit on Main Road Stoke to 60km/h to allow safety improvements at the Elms Street intersection which involve remarking and minor kerb realignment to create a dedicated left turn lane.

6.3 Option 3: Retain the temporary 50km/h speed limit for the next 2-3 years to allow time for a roundabout or traffic signals option to be included through a future LTP or Annual Plan (and RLTP if further analysis shows that the project can be subsidised by NZTA). This would also allow time for design and construction. It is noted that either of these intersection forms would likely require a reduction in speed limit. A roundabout would be expected to encroach onto the Saxton Fields reserve and require significant changes to the current concept plan for the reserve. There is a risk with this option that the temporary 50km/h speed limit would lose its effectiveness over time due to reducing levels of compliance unless the police aggressively enforced this limit.

6.4 Officers recommend option 2.

7. Funding

7.1 The cost reported to the November 2015 Works and Infrastructure Committee to undertake the works was estimated at $150,000.

7.2 Following discussions with NZTA additional works to make the road environment more “self explaining” were required bringing the estimate of works to $190,000.

7.3 The works will be funded from the Minor Improvements budget with the additional estimated cost of $40,000 having already been anticipated and included in the business case for Minor Improvements.

7.4 It is envisaged that works will commence at the beginning of the 2016/17 financial year.

8. Alignment with relevant Council policy

8.1 Improving road safety through a reduction in high severity crashes in the transport network is a key level of service measure in the 2015-25 Transport Asset Management Plan, Regional Land Transport Plan and the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

8.2 The recommendations in the report are not inconsistent with previous council decisions.

8.3 Goal 9 of Nelson 2060 focuses on meeting people’s essential needs which includes making them feel and be safe. The recommended road safety improvement option is expected to improve the safety of users of the intersection and reduce the risk of death and serious injury.

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

9.1 This decision is not significant under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

10. Consultation

10.1 Full consultation for the speed limit change has been undertaken as required and this report summarises the outcomes of the consultation to inform the Committee’s deliberations.

11. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

11.1 No specific consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Consultation has been completed with the majority in support of a speed reduction. There is support from NZTA and Police.

12.2 Officers recommend that the speed limit on Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Salisbury Road be reduced from 80km/h to 60km/h in order to mitigate the risk of an accident resulting in death or serious injury at the intersection of Elms Street and Main Road Stoke.

Chris Pawson

Asset Engineer - Transport

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1521274 - Main Road Stoke speed limit change 2016 - Feedback summary

Attachment 2: A1486083 - Main Road Stoke speed limit change 2016 - Written feedback - Full

Attachment 3: A1521649 - Feedback Summary - Oral feedback - Main Road Stoke Speed limit 9Mar2016

Main Road Stoke speed limit change 2016 – Public feedback summary

Name	Summary of feedback	Officers comments
Arthur (no surname given)	Supports reduction in speed limit but wants a 50km/h limit	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).
Malcolm Hossack	Supports Speed reductions. Would like to see safety improvements to the Alliance Group access.
Gavin Johnston	Supports reduction in speed limit but wants a 50km/h limit. Wants a roundabout to deal with delays for Elms Street traffic.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA.
Gavin and Julie Johnston	Oppose the speed limit change. Want to see a more comprehensive solution that makes it easier for drivers to turn out of Elms Street	Likely to require a roundabout or traffic signals costing around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA
Esther Sassenburg	Supports reduction in speed limit but wants a 50km/h limit. Wants to see a pedestrian/cycle refuge at the intersection	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA. A refuge is being considered as an option to reinforce the speed environment.
Jackie and Dave Gibb	Supports reduction in speed limit. Want cycle lanes removed	The proposed works at the intersection include a left turn lane. The cycle lane will be in the area needed to separate the left turn lane from the straight through to ensure visibility so in effect the cycleway utilises what would otherwise be unused space.
Jessie Sutton and Kirsty Glasgow	Supports reduction in speed limit. Want a roundabout or traffic signals at the intersection.	Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA
67 members of the Curves Gym	Supports speed limit change
Nick Rose	Unclear whether the speed limit change is supported. Wants a roundabout or traffic signals or ban right turn out of Elms Street.	Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA. Banning the right turn would likely result in increased light and heavy vehicle volumes using Main Road Stoke through the centre of Stoke which is not a desirable outcome.
Queenie Ballance on behalf of Nelson branch of the National Council Of Women of New Zealand	Wants to see a 50km/h speed limit	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA.
Daphne Crampton	Supports speed limit change
AJ and SA Thoms	Supports speed limit change
Sue and Andrew Whelan	Supports speed limit change. Suggests option of banning right turn from Elms Street	Banning the right turn would likely result in increased light and heavy vehicle volumes using Main Road Stoke through the centre of Stoke which is not a desirable outcome.
John Jordan	Opposes speed limit change. Wants the speed limit kept at 80km/h as time is too valuable	The current 80km/h limit is unsafe. See previous report to Works and Infrastructure report for further detail.
Lindsay Twiname	Supports speed limit change
Pete Trewavas	Supports speed limit change
Merle Moffitt	Opposes speed limit change. Wants right turn from Elms Street banned instead and 80km/h limit retained	Banning the right turn would likely result in increased light and heavy vehicle volumes using Main Road Stoke through the centre of Stoke which is not a desirable outcome. The current 80km/h limit is unsafe. See previous report to Works and Infrastructure report for further detail.
Trevor Gately	Wants the speed limit reduced to 50km/h instead of 60km/h.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA.
Bob and Val McFadden	Wants the speed limit reduced to 50km/h instead of 60km/h.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA.
Gary Michael	Opposes the speed limit change. Wants the 80km/h limit to be retained, the ditch filled and the cycle lanes removed	See previous report to Works and Infrastructure report for further detail. The cycle lane will be in the area needed to separate the left turn lane from the straight through to ensure visibility so in effect the cycleway utilises what would otherwise be unused space.
David McAlister	Wants the speed limit reduced to 50km/h instead of 60km/h.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA.
Clive Workman	Supports reduction in speed limit but wants a 50km/h limit. Wants a roundabout and removal of cycle lanes.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA.
Maria Archer	Wants the speed limit reduced to 50km/h instead of 60km/h.	60km/h limit is already outside the warrant calculation and any further reduction will not be supported by NZTA.
J Clayton	Supports speed limit change. Wants a roundabout or traffic signals to be considered as well	Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA.
Jand and Peter Winfield	Supports speed limit change
Jim Diack	Suggests that the 60km/h limit is trialled as a temporary speed limit	No scope for this allowed in the legislation. Only 50km/h and 70km/h allowed as a temporary speed limit.
PJ O’Conner (Heslops Group)	Opposes the speed limit change. Wants the cycle lanes removed and replaced with a dedicated left turn lane	The proposed works at the intersection include a left turn lane. The cycle lane will be in the area needed to separate the left turn lane from the straight through to ensure visibility so in effect the cycleway utilises what would otherwise be unused space.
P Goldie	Supports speed limit change. Suggests option of banning right turn from Elms Street	Banning the right turn would likely result in increased light and heavy vehicle volumes using Main Road Stoke through the centre of Stoke which is not a desirable outcome.
Harry Pearson	Opposes speed limit change. Wants the 80km/h speed limit retained and a roundabout installed	See previous report to Works and Infrastructure report for further detail. Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA.
Jan Valk	Supports speed limit change.
Joanne Dixon	Supports speed limit change.
Joanne Dixon	Supports speed limit change.
Chris Budgen	Opposes speed limit change. Wants the 80km/h speed limit retained and banning of right turns at Elms Street, a roundabout installed, or an alternative access to Saxton Road.	See previous report to Works and Infrastructure report for further detail. Roundabout or traffic signals likely to cost around $1M and require 3 years for inclusion in Annual Plan, design and construction. Unlikely to be funded by NZTA. A connection to Saxton Road would require a bridge that would be very costly and is also unlikely to be funded by NZTA.

Feedback Summary

Consultation Feedback Group – Intersection Safety Improvements Main Road Stoke/Elms Street

Held in Saxton Oval, Saxton Road, Stoke

On Wednesday 9 March 2016

Name

Feedback received

Clive Workman

Mr Workman said he felt the speed limit should be 50km/hr for that length of the road as the road before and after this was also 50km/hr. He raised concerns that a 60km/hr speed limit would still have people travelling up to 70km/hr as he believed many drivers travelled over the speed limit.

Mr Workman suggested that the cycle lanes be moved to the existing paths across the ditch alongside the proposed speed reduction area along Main Road Stoke. He tabled a proposed roundabout design for the Elms Road/Main Road Stoke intersection (A1516927).

Mr Workman suggested the shrubbery at the roundabout intersecting Salisbury Road and the Richmond Deviation should be removed to allow for better visibility.

In response to a question, Mr Workman suggested a traffic camera would ensure people abided by the speed limit along Main Road Stoke.

Malcolm Hossack, Alliance Group Ltd

Malcolm Hossack advised he was the Health and Safety Adviser at Alliance Group Ltd in Nelson and tabled a document (A1516937). He said during peak operating times over October to February there were up to 100 truck and trailer movements per day out of the plant. Mr Hossack added there were up to 200 employees on site who drove and cycled to work along Main Road Stoke.

Mr Hossack advised that contractors to Alliance Group had raised concerns regarding safety when pulling out onto Main Road Stoke. He said 60km/hr was an appropriate speed limit, and suggested that 50km/hr would be too slow for that area as it wasn’t built up or residential.

Mr Hossack explained that the merge lane (and flush median) in front of the Alliance Group plant was used as a passing lane on a regular basis, causing a number of near miss incidents. He asked that concrete bollards be used to prevent people driving straight through on the merge lane.

Mr Hossack provided suggestions for the design of a slip road into Saxton Oval, alignment of footpaths, and filling in the ditch along Main Road Stoke to create a second south bound lane. He added that Main Road Stoke was becoming busier over time.

In response to a question, Mr Hossack advised it would not be possible for Alliance traffic to exit from Elms Street.

Gavin and Julie Johnston

Gavin Johnston spoke about the near miss incidents he had witnessed along Main Road Stoke. He supported the current temporary speed limit of 50km/hr and suggested that a 60km/hr speed limit would still have people travelling up to 70km/hr.

Julie Johnston spoke about the large trucks and trailers exiting Elms Street and the frustration of vehicles trying to turn right on Main Road Stoke. She said Main Road Stoke was becoming busier over time and the Saxton recreation area was contributing to the increase in road traffic. She suggested that officers and councillors view the Elms Street intersection from the hours of 8-9am and 4-5.30pm on weekdays to understand the current issues.

Ms Johnston spoke about the roundabout at the intersection of Saxton Road and Main Road Stoke, saying it was hard to see low vehicles and cyclists over the shrubbery on the roundabout.

Mr and Mrs Johnston supported Mr Workman’s concept of a roundabout at the Elms St/Main Road Stoke intersection.

Works and Infrastructure Committee

10 May 2016

REPORT R5770

Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the feedback provided by the Waimea Road community in the vicinity of the proposed refuge at Boundary Road.

2. Delegations

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

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes (R5770) and its attachment (A1531450) be received;

AND THAT in line with community feedback, approval be given to construct a pedestrian refuge in the location shown in attachment 1 at an estimated cost of $30,000.

4. Background

4.1 A report outlining the transportation issue and opportunities on Waimea Road was presented to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on the 31 March 2016. At that meeting it was resolved:

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

AND THAT opportunities 3, 4 and 7 in table 5.1 of report (R4960) are supported in principle;

AND THAT officers initiate consultation on these opportunities and report feedback to a future meeting of Works and Infrastructure.

4.2 Opportunity 4, a pedestrian refuge on Waimea Road could be incorporated cost effectively into works occurring with the York Stream upgrade currently underway and thus consultation has been progressed on this opportunity as a matter of urgency.

5. Discussion

5.1 Attachment 1 shows the modifications to the existing traffic island at the intersection of Boundary Road and Waimea Road to accommodate pedestrians.

5.2 The proposed pedestrian refuge does not remove any on street parking nor hinder any turning movements compared with the current configuration.

5.3 If the pedestrian refuge is constructed in combination with the adjacent York Stream culvert works a savings of approximately $10,000 can be expected.

5.4 Officers have undertaken a survey of pedestrian crossing movements on Waimea Road between Boundary Road and Tukuka Street. The survey shows a strong desire line between the area of Gardiner Place, the bowling club and Caltex on the eastern side to the Boundary Road area on the western side of Waimea Road.

5.5 Officers have undertaken consultation on the pedestrian refuge proposal with affected parties and the summary of that consultation is shown below.

Organisation/Party	Feedback
Fire Service	Supported – no issues
St John	Supported – no issues
NZ Police	Supported – no issues
Resident #202 Waimea Rd	Letter - no response
Landowner #202 Waimea Rd	Supported – no issues
Resident #204 Waimea Rd	Letter - no response
Landowner #202a Waimea Rd	Letter - no response
Resident #202a Waimea Rd	Letter - no response
Landowner #204 Waimea Rd	Supported – no issues
Bowling Club	Letter - no response
Caltex Bishopdale	Comments that not the preferred location, would prefer 50m north out of merge and high speed area to improve road safety.
Nelson Intermediate	Supported, sees a growing demand for access to Intermediate from housing development in Bishopdale area.
Bicycle Nelson Bays - John Paul Pochin & Chris Allison	Supported but comments of pinch point for cyclists speed, and masking of pedestrians by turning vehicles.
Waimea Business and Residents Association - Paul Anderson	Generally supported. Can see there is no extra islands and observes people standing on the existing islands so thinks this should be able to assist. Bowling club people should like it because they are older and take a while to cross the road so gives a space to wait.

6. Options

Two options are available for consideration:

6.1 Option 1 - Status quo (do nothing).

6.2 Option 2 – Consider the largely positive feedback from the community for the modification to the existing traffic island for use by pedestrians and proceed to construction. This pedestrian refuge is estimated to cost $30,000 and has been budgeted within the minor improvements funding category.

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 Refer section 5.4 for consultation outcomes.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

11. Conclusion

11.1 A pedestrian desire line survey shows a crossing near Boundary Road is warranted.

11.2 Consultation with affected parties indicates support for a pedestrian refuge near Boundary Road.

11.3 Cost efficiencies can be achieved by installing the pedestrian refuge now as part of the York Stream upgrade.

11.4 Installation of the pedestrian refuge is recommended.

Rhys Palmer

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1531450 - Pedestrain Refuge Layout

Works and Infrastructure Committee

10 May 2016

REPORT R5818

Capital Project Budget Status Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the transfer of capital funding.

2. Delegations

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

3. Recommendation

THAT the Capital Project Budget Status Report (R5818) be received;

Recommendation to Council

4. Background

4.1 Council Officers have incorrectly interpreted the Delegations Register and arranged for additional funding from a future year to be transferred into this financial year to complete stage 2 of an ongoing project.

4.2 This report seeks to clarify and correct this error.

5. Discussion

Washington Valley Stormwater Upgrade

5.1 This project upgrades the existing stormwater infrastructure serving Washington Valley. The Washington Valley catchment is made up of several sub catchments including Arrow Street, Montcalm Street, Washington Road and Hastings Street. This project spans several financial years from 2014/15 through to 2020/21 and looks to investigate, design and construct solutions for each individual sub catchment and link them into the main Washington Valley system.

5.2 Arrow Street stage 1 was completed last financial year, 2014/15 and stage 2 is scheduled to be completed this financial year, 2015/16. This is considered the most important of the sub catchments as it contributes toward resolving stormwater surcharging issues within Washington Valley itself.

5.3 The stage 2 tendered construction estimate is greater than the available 2015/16 budget of $196,000. Additional funding of $116,000 is required to meet the estimated project cost of $312,000.

5.4 In order to complete the works to the Arrow Street sub catchment, officers proposed that the additional funding from future stages in the 2016/17 financial year be bought forward to ensure continuity of works.

6. Options

6.1 The works in Washington Valley are already committed and the additional funds are required to allow Stage 2 of the project to be completed.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The delivery of infrastructure capital projects is consistent with the requirement of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and subsequent Annual Plans.

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

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

9. Consultation

9.1 No consultation was undertaken specifically in relation to this report. Consultation on individual projects was undertaken.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 There has been no consultation with Māori.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Council officers have incorrectly interpreted the Delegations Register and arranged for additional funding from a future year to be transferred into this financial year to complete stage 2 of an ongoing project.

11.2 In order to complete the works to the Arrow Street sub catchment, officers propose that the additional funding from future stages in the 2016/17 financial year be bought forward to ensure continuity of works in the area.

Shane Davies

Manager Capital Projects

Attachments

Nil

Works and Infrastructure Committee

10 May 2016

REPORT R5797

Future of green waste

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To confirm the future of and level of service with respect to green waste.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee is responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of solid waste activities, including recycling, the transfer station and the landfill. This includes green waste.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Future of green waste (R5797) be received.

Recommendation to Council

THAT following a review of green waste services at the request of Council:

THAT Nelson City Council partner with Tasman District Council to call for public tenders with respect to their green waste in June 2016;

AND THAT failing success with this approach with Tasman District Council, that officers be authorised to negotiate a contract with a commercial operator to accept its green waste;

AND THAT in the interim, Council continues to take green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station;

AND THAT Council’s budgets be amended to reflect any increase in costs that may arise from this tendering process and that this be reported back via a future Audit Risk and Finance Committee through the Corporate report.

4. Background

4.1 Council has a policy of diverting green waste from its York Valley landfill as per the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) agreed with Tasman District Council (TDC) and approved by both NCC and TDC in March 2012.

4.2 Council approved the 2015-25 Solid Waste Asset Management Plan (AMP). This AMP included the phasing out of accepting green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station on the basis that it was cheaper for customers to take green waste direct to commercial suppliers.

4.3 Council has for many years publicly tendered the green waste contract and previous contractors include Greenwaste to Zero, Baltune Forest Limited and recently Millers Firewood Supplies (Millers).

4.4 Green waste is received at the Pascoe Street transfer station in a separate hopper, transported under contract by Fulton Hogan (FH) to the green waste processing contractor, who then processes the green waste for on-sale to its customers.

4.5 Income from green waste last year (2014/15) was around $134,000. The cost of running the green waste activity (including overheads and contribution to running the transfer station) was around $174,000. Any shortfall is subsidised by landfill revenue. The solid waste activity is a closed account and is not ratepayer subsidised.

4.6 The contract with Millers expired on 30 June 2015. In anticipation of phasing out green waste at the transfer station, the contract was rolled–over to allow officers time to implement the approved AMP change. Re-tendering the contract with the pending change was seen as inefficient.

4.7 Millers advised Council in March 2016 that they would not be accepting any further green waste and all attempts to find a cost effective solution by officers were unsuccessful.

4.8 The result of this was to bring forward the phasing out of accepting green waste at the transfer station as from 1 July 2016 and this was subsequently notified through Live Nelson and by way of signage at the transfer station.

4.9 Millers have since advised that they will no longer be accepting green waste at all from the general public.

4.10 Other options are available to Nelsonians to dispose of green waste and include:

· Mulching at home;

· Kerbside collection from a number of commercial green waste collection operators;

· Home composting bin;

· Commercial operators specifically Wholesale Landscapes (based in Saxton Road) and Greenwaste to Zero (based in Richmond).

4.11 These options aside, it is acknowledged that having a centrally located option for Nelson residents to dispose of green waste is something Nelson residents have come to expect.

5. Discussion

5.1 Based on the recent decision by Millers to cease taking green waste, councillors have asked for a review as to how green waste is handled.

Other options

5.2 The transfer station is open every day except Good Friday, Christmas Day and New Years Day.

5.3 This compares with the opening hours of:

· Greenwaste to Zero (8am to 5pm - 7 days) but closed 25 & 26 December; 1 & 2 January, Good Friday and half of Anzac Day;

· Wholesale Landscapes (7am to 5pm Monday to Friday). Wholesale Landscapes have signalled their intention to open 6 days/week from 1 June 2016.

5.4 It is acknowledged that with Millers not taking green waste and with residents not having the full number of days to dispose of green waste as currently enjoyed at the Pascoe Street transfer station that there is a change in the service offered to Nelson ratepayers.

5.5 The cost to users to dispose of green waste at the transfer station is $20/m3 compared to $16/m3 at Greenwaste to Zero and $16.10/m3 at Wholesale landscapes. All figures are GST inclusive.

6. Options

A number of options are open for consideration.

6.1 Option 1 – Continue to take green waste at the transfer station and transport to a commercial operator secured by way of public tender.

6.2 Option 2 – Cease taking green waste at the transfer station as per the agreed AMP from 1 July 2016.

6.3 Option 3 – Negotiate with a commercial operator or operators to take green waste from the transfer station.

6.4 Option 4 – Partner with TDC who currently operates on the same philosophy as NCC and has a contract with Greenwaste to Zero. TDC is seeking to go to market in June this year and they are open to partnering with NCC. Collaboration between the two councils is also noted in the JWMMP.

6.5 The option to collect green waste at the transfer station and take directly to landfill is not in accordance with Council policy (refer to item 4.1) and has not been considered further.

6.6 Advantages and disadvantages of the options are presented in the table below:

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	No change in service offered to Nelson ratepayers	Higher transportation costs than current as commercial operators are further from the transfer station than Millers. Contractor costs may also be higher.
2	In line with approved AMP and reduced costs to the landfill activity	Reduced service offered to ratepayers
3	No change in service offered to Nelson ratepayer	As per option 1
4	No change in service offered to Nelson ratepayer & TDC open to partnering	As per option 1

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The phasing out of accepting green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station is in line with the approved 2015-25 Solid Waste Asset Management Plan.

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

8.1 Any decision to stop or continue with green waste is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 Officers have advertised the intent to stop accepting green waste at the transfer station through Live Nelson, its web site and through signage at the transfer station.

9.2 Feedback has been received from both residents and commercial operators that this is not preferred.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 There has been no consultation with Māori on this issue.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Council has agreed to cease taking green waste at the transfer station as per the recently adopted 2015-25 Solid Waste Asset Management Plan.

11.2 Due to circumstances beyond the control of officers, the incumbent contractor (Millers) has advised council of their decision to stop accepting green waste from the transfer station and have since made the decision to stop taking green waste from the public. In addition, they have recently had a major fire at their premises.

11.3 All options to consider continuing with green waste will potentially result in greater costs to Council (including transportation costs and contractor costs to receive the green waste).

11.4 Council could decide to partner with TDC who are due to test the market in June. Officers support this approach.

Alec Louverdis

Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Nil