Agenda of Council - 23 May 2017

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 10 May 2017	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).

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council to hear submissions to the Draft Annual Plan 2017-2018

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

On Wednesday 10 May 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner and S Walker

In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Policy Co-ordinator (J Loughnan), Team Leader Administration Advisers (R Byrne) and Administration Adviser (S Burgess)

Apology: Councillor L Acland (arrived late afternoon)

Opening Prayer

Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.

1. Apologies

Resolved CL/2017/042

That the Council

Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Acland.

Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor drew attention to the final hearing schedule (A1757722), the updates to submission folders (A1756280) and the late submissions (A1757073), which had been tabled. She advised a resolution was required to accept the late submissions.

Resolved CL/2017/043

That the Council

Accepts the late submissions to the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1757073).

Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried

Attachments

1 A1757722 - Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 - Hearings Schedule

2 A1756280 - Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 - Late submissions - Memo to Council

3 A1757073 - Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 - Total Late Submissions

Interests

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

3. Hearing of Submissions to the draft Annual Plan 2017/18

3.1 Mr Tony Gray and Ms Abbey Patterson (Submission:12849) NMIT

Accompanied by Abbey Patterson, Student President of NMIT, Mr Gray presented his submission. He spoke about the NMIT CAM Plan (Capital Asset Management Plan) and the changes in pedagogy the Institute was planning. Mr Gray said the CAM Plan would be released soon and it would offer opportunities to open the campus up to the community.

Mr Gray said NMIT was looking to reduce its physical footprint and relinquish some spaces and buildings. He said all of this was necessary to adapt to a rapidly changing environment for education delivery.

Mr Gray said Council was a key partner for NMIT. He said he would like to work with officers for the rest of the year to develop some proposals that could be included in the Long Term Plan and that would strengthen the partnership between Council and NMIT.

3.2 Mr Dan McGuire (Submission: 12296)

Mr McG uire presented his submission against funding the Brook Sanctuary and tabled a handout comparing Council rates with inflation rates (A1759574).

Attachments

1 A1759574 - Dan McGuire Handout

3.3 Mr James Horan (Submission:12335)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.4 Ms Jo Geddes (Submission:12338) City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band Inc

Ms Geddes presented the submission on behalf of the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band requesting funding for contribution to costs to keep the band active and viable. Ms Geddes tabled an overview of the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band (A1759576).

Attachments

1 A1759576 - Jo Geddes Handout

3.5 Mr David Ayre (Submission:12345)

Mr Ayre presented his submission on cycling in Nelson.

3.6 Mr Richard Osmaston (Submission:12372) Menzshed Whakatu

Mr Osmaston presented his submission on Menzshed requesting support from Council and tabled additional advertising presentations (A1759578).

Attachments

1 A1759578 - Richard Osmaston Handout

3.7 Mrs Meg Rutledge (Submission:12378) Natureland Wildlife Trust

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 9:48am.

Mrs Rutledge presented her submission on behalf of Natureland Wildlife Trust via teleconference, requesting additional support for an additional staff member to meet industry standards.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.10am to 10.40am, during which time Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting.

3.8 Ms Larisse Hall (Submission:12404) creating a marine visitor attraction.

Ms Hall presented her submission regarding a sunken ship to celebrate the marine reserve, education and tourist attraction.

3.9 Mrs Kirsty Skinner (Submission:12424)

This presenter requested to attend on 11 May 2017.

3.10 Mr Alec Woods (Submission:12837) Heritage Nelson

Mr Woods presented his submission on behalf of Heritage Nelson to reinforce their stand on heritage in Nelson.

3.11 Ms Andrea Warn (Submission:12467)

Ms Warn presented her submission on Seymour Avenue requesting Council provide a raised crossing or shared path at end of Seymour Ave so children could safely cross the street to actively go to school by bike, scooter or walking.

3.12 Mrs Ann Nighy (Submission:12393) Nelson Walkers Unite

Mrs Nighy spoke to her submission on behalf of Nelson Walkers Unite asking for Council to consider separating walking and cycling tracks in the city.

3.13 Mr Clive Beaumont (Submission:12444) Nelson Bays Football

Mr Beaumont spoke to his submission on behalf of Nelson Bays Football discussing the state of pitches at Saxton Field and Trafalgar Park.

3.14 Mr Tim Bayley (Submission:12445) Domett St residents

Mr Bayley presented his submission on Domett St.

3.15 Mr Hugh Briggs (Submission:12450) Colonel Noel Percy Adams (Melrose) Society supported by Doug Hattersley

Mr Briggs spoke to his submission on behalf of the Colonel Noel Percy Adams (Melrose) Society requesting continued Council support.

Attachments

1 A1759600 - Hugh Briggs Handout

3.16 Mrs Penny Molnar (Submission:12422) Community Action Nelson

Mrs Molnar presented her submission on behalf of Community Action Nelson, noting it been in operation for nearly 30 years.

3.17 Mr Greg West (Submission:12406)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.18 Mr Gus Taukamo (Submission:12459) Living Wage and Ms Christine Irvine.

Mr Taukamo and Ms Irvine presented their submission on behalf of Living Wage.

3.19 Mrs Mary Ellen O'Connor (Submission:12478) individual

This submitter rescheduled to 11 May 2017.

3.20 Mrs Kate Malcolm (Submission:12471)

Mrs Malcom presented her submission on options for shared paths and tabled an updated map (A1759572).

Attachments

1 A1759572 - Kate Malcolm Handout

3.21 Mr John Rominger (Submission:12704)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.22 Ms Judy Robinson (Submission:12474) Tahunanui Community Centre

Ms Robinson presented her submission on behalf of Tahunanui Community Centre requesting the centre and public toilets at the beach be maintained and upgraded.

3.23 Ms Karen Stade (Submission:12476) Nelson Historical Society

Ms Stade presented her submission, accompanied by Ms Karen Price, Vice-President Nelson Historical Society.

3.24 Mr Bill Johnston, on behalf of Ms Hilary Clifton (Submission:12503) Citizens Advice Bureau Nelson Tasman

Bill Johnston presented on behalf of the Citizens Advice Bureau Nelson as Ms Clifton was unable to attend. The submission requested housing the Citizens Advice Bureau in the central business district.

3.25 Lee Sinclair and Andy Miliner on behalf of Mr John Gilbertson (Submission:12515) Nelson Motels

Lee Sinclair and Andy Miliner attended on behalf of Nelson Motels as John Gilbertson was unable to attend. They requested that Council not consider targeted rates for visitors.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.25pm to 1.26pm, during which time Councillor Fulton left the meeting.

3.26 Ms Gillian Wratt (Submission:12568) Nelson Tasman Cycle Trail Trust

Ms Wratt presented the submission from the Nelson Tasman Cycle Trail Trust and responded to questions.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 1.29pm.

3.27 Mr Christopher St Johanser (Submission:12570 and 12585) Brook Valley Community Group, Inc

Mr St Johanser tabled a handout and sticker (A1759561) relating to the aerial poison drop planned by the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust. He spoke to the points in his submissions and raised further points regarding Crown land, resource consents and use of traps.

Attachments

1 A1759561 - Christopher St Johanser Handout

3.28 Mr Andrew Stoddart (Submission:12585)

Mr Stoddart withdrew his request to speak at the hearing.

3.29 Ms Cynthia McConville and Ms Sasha Kerslake (Submission:12560) Nelson Dog Owners Group

Ms Kerslake and Ms McConville displayed two videos (A1759636 and A1759637 available on request to an Administration Adviser) regarding a dog exercise facility and spoke to the points in the Nelson Dog Owners Group submission. They responded to questions from councillors regarding the purpose and use of a dog exercise park.

3.30 Mrs Annabelle Laird (Submission:12525)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.31 Mrs Judy Crowe and Ms Cynthia McConville (Submission:12600) Educate Don’t Fluoridate

Ms Crowe and Ms McConville spoke to the key points of the Educate Don’t Fluoridate submission. Ms McConville suggested that spending to enable water fluoridate would trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.32 Ms Jane Fisher (Submission:12679)

Ms Fisher summarised the key points in her submission.

3.33 Mr David Smythe (Submission:12602)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.34 Dr Caleb McCullough (Submission:12687)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 2.15pm.

3.35 Mr Steve Cross (Submission:12622) Nelson Residents Association

Mr Cross gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1759642) and summarised the points in his submission.

Attachments

1 A1759642 - Steve Cross Presentation

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 2.18pm and Councillor Matheson left the meeting at 2.28pm.

3.36 Mr Lew Metcalfe (Submission:12690)

Mr Metcalfe spoke to the points in his submission.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson returned to the meeting at 2.32pm.

3.37 Mrs Belinda Crisp (Submission:12627)

Mrs Crisp withdrew her request to speak at the hearing.

3.38 Mrs Mary Heaphy (Submission:12696)

Mrs Heaphy spoke to the points in her submission.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 2.45pm. The meeting adjourned from 2.49pm to 3.09pm, during which time Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting.

Councillors listed further information required from officers on particular submissions.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 3.18pm.

3.39 Mr Iain Sheves and Kerensa Johnson (Submission:12732) Wakatu Incorporation

Attendance: Councillor Acland joined the meeting at 3.24pm.

Ms Johnson and Mr Sheves presented the key points of the Wakatu Incorporation submission. Mr Sheves added detail regarding development at Wakapuaka and responded to general questions.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 3.31pm.

3.40 Mr Hudson Dodd and Mr Dave Butler, with Mr Chris Golding of Department of Conservation, (Submission:12767) The Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust

Mr Dodd and Mr Butler spoke to the points in the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust submission.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 3.38pm to 3.40pm.

Mr Dodd and Mr Butler provided detail regarding trustee backgrounds and supporters of the Trust. Mr Golding spoke about connections with Department of Conservation strategies, and the benefits of wildlife sanctuaries.

Mr Butler and Mr Dodd responded to questions regarding the poison drop, resource consent, pest eradication options, projected visitor numbers, land stability, future funding requests and what would happen if Council did not provide funding to the Trust. Mr Golding responded to questions regarding species relocation and conservation progress in New Zealand.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 4.10pm to 4.14pm.

Late Item – Chief Executive Employment Committee Minutes 8 May 2017

Her Worship the Mayor advised Council of one public late item and two public excluded late items, and that procedural resolutions needed to be passed in order for these items to be considered at the meeting.

Resolved CL/2017/044

That the Council

Considers the Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee – 8 May 2017 at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Dahlberg/Matheson Carried

Attachments

1 M2575 - Council Late Item

Chief Executive Employment Committee – 8 May 2017

Document number M2561, late item memo M2575 pages 1 - 3 refer.

Resolved CL/2017/045

That the Council

Receives the unconfirmed minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee, held on 8 May 2017.

Barker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

Late Item – Chief Executive Employment Committee Public Excluded Minutes 8 May 2017

Document number M2562, late item memo M2585 refers.

Resolved CL/2017/046

That the Council

Considers the public excluded minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee – 8 May 2017 at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Dahlberg/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

Attachments

1 M2585 - Council Late Item

Late Item – Supplementary Information - Chief Executive's Employment Contract

Document number R7700, late item memo M2585 refers.

Resolved CL/2017/047

That the Council

Considers the public excluded item regarding the Chief Executive’s Employment Contract at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Matheson/Dahlberg Carried

Exclusion of the Public

Paul Bell was to be in attendance for the Public Excluded part of the meeting to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution was passed:

Resolved CL/2017/048

That the Council

Confirms, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Paul Bell remains after the public have been excluded, for the late items Extraordinary Chief Executive Employment Committee Minutes – 8 May 2017 and Chief Executive’s Employment Contract, as he has knowledge that will assist the Council; and

Notes, in accordance with section 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that the knowledge that Paul Bell possesses relates to the Chief Executive’s contract.

Barker/Dahlberg Carried

Resolved CL/2017/049

That the Council

Excludes the public 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:

Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson 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	Extraordinary Chief Executive Employment Committee - Public Excluded Minutes – 8 May 2017	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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege. · 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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
2	Supplementary Information – Chief Executive’s Employment Contract	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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege. · 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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Extraordinary Chief Executive Employment Committee - Public Excluded Minutes – 8 May 2017

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)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege.

· 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)(a)

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

Supplementary Information – Chief Executive’s Employment Contract

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)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege.

· 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)(a)

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

The meeting went into public excluded session at 4.22pm and resumed in public session at 6.12pm.

Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved CL/2017/050

That the Council

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

The meeting adjourned at 6.12pm.

Minutes of a reconvened meeting of the Nelson City Council to hear submissions to the Draft Annual Plan 2017-2018

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

On Thursday 11 May 2017, commencing at 9.08am

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner and S Walker

In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Senior Infrastructure Planner (L Gibellini), Manager Roading and Utilities (P Anderson), Manager Capital Projects (S Davies), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Policy Coordinator (J Loughnan) and Administration Advisers (J McDougall and S Burgess)

Hearing of Submissions to the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 (continued)

3.41 Mrs Mary Ellen O’Connor (Submission 12478)

This submitter was rescheduled from 10 May 2017 but did not attend the hearing.

3.42 Mr Chris Fitchett (Submission 12513).

Mr Fitchett spoke to his submission and read out his tabled document (A1759248) regarding council expenditure.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge joined the meeting at 9.13am.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton joined the meeting at 9.19am.

3.43 Mr Aaron Adcock and Mr Cliff Brunning (Submission 12648) Kohatu Park.

Mr Adcock spoke to the submission requesting Council support for Kohatu Park and answered questions about environmental aspects and facilities available.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 9.26am to 9.28am.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 9.27am to 9.29am.

3.44 Mr Peter Olorenshaw (Submission 12806) Nelson Transport Strategy Group (Nelsust) Inc.

Mr Olorenshaw spoke to a Powerpoint presentation (A1759651) and focused particularly on the importance of encouraging cycling as a way of reducing traffic congestion.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 9.38am to 9.43am.

3.45 Mr John-Paul Pochin (Submission 12813) Bicycle Nelson Bays

Mr Pochin spoke to his submission about support for cycling and answered questions about options for increasing cycle usage and reducing traffic congestion.

3.46 Mr Philip Chapman (Submission 12734) Menzshed Whakatu

Mr Chapman spoke to the submission and handout (A1759250) seeking support to establish a Menzshed in Nelson and presented a 5 minute video (A1758826 – available on request from an Administration Adviser) about Menzshed.

Mr Chapman answered a question about suitable locations for a Menzshed.

3.47 Mr Brian Ramsay (Submission 12815) Nelson Community Patrol

Mr Ramsay spoke to the submission requesting support for the Nelson Community Patrol and tabled a pamphlet on Community Patrols of New Zealand (A1758609), statistics for the Nelson Community Patrol and a support letter from the New Zealand Police (A1759244).

Mr Ramsay responded to questions about the patrols and funding applications.

3.48 Mr Richard Sullivan (Submission 12714)

Mr Sullivan spoke to his submission about delays and lack of control of projects, in particular the funding of the Brook Sanctuary and the poison drop. Mr Sullivan answered questions about the effect of the poison drop on his and neighbouring properties.

3.49 Mr Zachary Domike (Submission 12802)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.50 Mrs Faye Wulff (Submission 12759) Community Art Works

Mrs Wulff spoke to the submission requesting a permanent home for Community Arts in Nelson and answered questions about the current lease, and the possibility of locating the Menzshed on the same property.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 10.27am to 10.48 am for morning tea. During this time Councillors Acland and Skinner left the meeting.

3.51 Ms Alice Robin and Mr Fynn Sawyer (Submission 12800) Nelson Region Sustainability Festival

Ms Robin summarised the submission about the Festival and Mr Sawyer spoke in support of the concept, noting that it lined up with the Nelson 2060 plan.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 10.50am.

Ms Robin answered questions on the potential number of exhibitors, and engagement with the Nelson Saturday market.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 10.56am.

3.52 Mr Dave Johnston and Mr Raymond Smith (Submission 12764) Te Runanga o Ngati Kuia.

Mr Johnston spoke to the submission and tabled additional information on environmental matters and on the request for support for the waka project (A1759252).

Mr Smith noted the December 2019 celebrations of Captain Cook’s visit and answered questions about the security and storage for the waka.

3.53 Mr John-Paul Pochin (Submission 12798) Light Nelson Artists Collective

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 11.08am to 11.10am.

Mr Pochin spoke to a presentation (A1759647) about a working creative community space and answered questions about the current space and collaboration with NMIT.

3.54 Mr Garry Adcock (Submission 12786) Kohatu Park

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.55 Mr Tom Taylor (Submission 12769)

Mr Taylor spoke to his submission about the importance of structured decision making processes.

3.56 Mr Martin O’Connor (Submission 12772) Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Mr O’Connor spoke to the submission requesting a focus on core services and a user pays approach. Mr O’Connor noted the Wakapuaka drains had still not been cleared from the December 2011 floods.

3.57 Youth Councillors (Submission 12791) Nelson Youth Council.

Youth Councillors spoke to the submission which was on a range of topics including parking tickets, sewage spills and the Stoke bus loop.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting from 11.32am to 11.34am.

3.58 Mrs Mary Ellen O’Connor (Submission 12792) Voice Nelson

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.59 Ms Nita Knight (Submission 12818)

Ms Knight presented information (A1759254) outlining the importance of providing support to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary.

3.60 Ms Ami Kennedy and Ms Jacquetta Bell (Submission 12795) Friends of the Maitai

Ms Bell spoke about the importance of the Maitai river and supported the suggestion of moving the status and significance of the river to a higher level.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting from 11.58am to 12noon.

3.61 Mr Gaire Thompson (Submission 12799) Thompson Property Group

Mr Thompson spoke to his submission about costings and answered questions about his views on different rating systems.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 12.03pm to 12.05pm.

3.62 Mr Chris Mildon and Mr Rick Griffin (Submission 12796) MTB Trails Trust

Mr Mildon spoke to the submission about the importance of support for mountainbiking. Mr Mildon supported Andrews Farm as a hub location. Mr Griffin from Silvan Forest in Richmond answered a question about how to keep costs to a minimum when building mountainbiking trails.

3.63 Mrs Kirsty Skinner (Submission 12424)

This submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.64 Mr Mark Lile and Mr Aaron Smail (Submission 12820) Summerset Villages Richmond Ltd.

Mr Smail spoke to the submission on infrastructure matters.

3.65 Mr Dennis Win (Submission 12823)

Mr Win spoke to his submission on shared pathways, Nelson Regional Development Agency and freedom camping.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.44pm to 1.25pm, during which time Councillors Acland, Courtney, Fulton, Noonan and McGurk left the meeting.

Councillors listed further information required from officers on particular submissions.

Attendance: Councillors Acland, Courtney, Lawrey and McGurk returned to the meeting at 1.28pm. Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 1.29pm. Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 1.30pm to 1.32pm. Councillor Acland left the meeting at 1.35pm.

3.66 Mr Barry Thompson (Submission:12835)

Mr Thompson presented the points in his submission and provided a handout (A1759246).

Attendance: Councillor Acland returned to the meeting at 1.39pm. Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 1.47pm.

3.67 Mr George Molnar and Mr Kent Gibbons, on behalf of Barry Rowe (Submission:12841) FC Nelson Incorporated

Mr Molnar presented the points in the FC Nelson Incorporated submission, with supporting comments from Mr Gibbons.

3.68 Mr Brian Nathan, on behalf of Mr Tim Babbage (Submission:12713) Nelson Sea Sports Alliance

Mr Nathan spoke about the points raised in the Nelson Sea Sports Alliance submission.

3.69 Ms Kindra Douglas, Ms Judy Robinson and Mr Peter Milehener (Submission:12842) Victory Community Centre

Ms Douglas and Ms Robinson tabled a handout (A1760838), displayed a video (A1759634 – available on request from an Administration Adviser), and spoke about community centres and the Greenmeadows facility.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 2.20pm to 2.27pm.

3.70 Ms Willemijn Vermaat (Submission: 12844) Handle with Care

The submitter did not attend the hearing.

3.71 Mr Lindsay Wood (Submission:12697)

Mr Wood gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1759580) in line with his submission and tabled a copy of his presentation.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor vacated the Chair and left the meeting at 2.28pm. Deputy Mayor Matheson assumed the Chair. Councillor Acland left the meeting from 2.31pm to 2.33pm.

3.72 Mr Alistair Hill and Mr Troy Dando (Submission:12631) Nelson Dawnbreakers Fishing Club

Mr Hill spoke to the key points in his submission regarding marina use and safety.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 2.45pm and resumed the Chair.

3.73 Mrs Sarah Holmes and Mr Wayne Jackson (Submission:12707) Nelson Tasman Business Trust

Mrs Holmes and Mr Jackson spoke about supporting small business and small business mentoring and tabled a brochure (A1759597).

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 2.53pm.

3.74 Ms Julie Catchpole, Mr Ian Maclennan and Ms Gaye Hervey (Submission:12879) Bishop Suter Trust Board

Mr Maclennan spoke to the Bishop Suter Trust Board submission and read from a handout (A1759593).

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 2.55pm.

3.75 Ms Dorothy-Rose Pallesen (Submission: 12887)

Ms Pallesen spoke about the risks of helicopter poison drops.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 3.08pm. The meeting adjourned for afternoon tea from 3.10pm to 3.24pm, during which time Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Fulton left the meeting, and Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting. Deputy Mayor Matheson assumed the Chair.

3.76 Mr Mike Rodwell (Submission:12888)

The submitter withdrew their request to speak at the hearing.

3.77 Mrs Susan Fletcher and Mr Lindsay Wood (Submission:12716) Braemar Limited

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 3.26pm.

Mrs Fletcher spoke to the key points of her submission regarding climate change and reduction of emissions and gave a presentation (A1759649).

3.78 Mr Lauchlan Miller (Submission:12736)

Mr Miller tabled a map (A1759591) and spoke about the potential location for a skate park in Stoke and outlined reasons why it would work well.

3.79 Ms Denise Roche (Submission:12819)

This submitter withdrew their request to speak.

3.80 Mr Richard King (Submission:12344)

Mr King summarised the points in his submission and spoke about the Trafalgar Street Hall.

3.81 Mr Fendi Sofian on behalf of Ms Nissa Mowjood (Submission:12455) Nelson-Whakatu Muslim Association

Mr Sofian presented the submission from the Nelson-Whakatu Muslim Association. He added that the Association needed to be able to accommodate up to 80 people in a room. Mr Sofian responded to questions regarding timing of meetings, fundraising and length of time that a temporary centre was required.

Attendance: Deputy Mayor Matheson left the meeting at 3.54pm, Councillor Barker assumed the Chair.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting at 3.56pm.

Resolved CL/2017/042

That the Council

Agrees, pursuant to Standing Order 3.3.7, that the meeting continue beyond six hours.

Barker/Walker Carried

3.82 Mr Wayne Ballantyne (Submission:12435) Shelbourne Villa

Mr Ballantyne summarised the points made in his submission.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg returned to the meeting at 4.00pm.

3.83 Mr Paul Butterworth (Submission:12308)

Mr Butterworth tabled a handout (A1759601) and summarised the points made in his submission

Attendance: Deputy Mayor Matheson returned to the meeting at 4.04pm and resumed the Chair at 4.06pm.

Councillors agreed to email any further requests for information to Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, by 12 May.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting at 4.15pm.

Tabled Documents 11 May:

	Attachments 1 A1759248 - Chris Fitchett Handout 2 A1759651 - Peter Olorenshaw Presentation 3 A1759250 - Phillip Chapman Menzshed Handout 4 A1758609 - Brian Ramsay - Nelson Community Patrol - Handout 1 5 A1759244 - Brian Ramsay - Nelson Community Patrol - Handout 2 6 A1759252 - Te Runanga o Ngati Kuia Handout 7 A1759647 - John-Paul Pochin Presentation 8 A1759254 - Nita Knight Handout 9 A1759246 - Barry Thompson Handout 10 A1760838 - Kindra Douglas Handout 11 A1759580 - Lindsay Wood Handout 12 A1759597 - Sara Holmes Handout 13 A1759593 - Julie Catchpole and Ian MacLennan Handout 14 A1759649 - Susan Fletcher Presentation 15 A1759591 - Lauchlan Miller Handout 16 A1759601 - Paul Butterworth Handout
	Resolved CL/2017/043 *That the Council* *Excludes the public 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: Matheson/Courtney 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		Strategic Property Acquisition (recommendation to Council in Commercial Subcommittee minutes 27 April 2017)	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 4.17pm and resumed in public session at 4.23pm.

Resolved CL/2017/044

That the Council

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Matheson/Walker Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.23pm

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Council

23 May 2017

REPORT R7304

Deliberations on the Annual Plan 2017/18

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide additional information and recommendations to support deliberations on submissions and final decisions on the draft Annual Plan 2017/18.

2. Summary

2.1 Council has consulted on its draft Annual Plan 2017/18, via a Consultation Document distributed to all households, and must now deliberate on submissions and make decisions on changes to the Annual Plan 2017/18 before it is adopted.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Deliberations on the Annual Plan 2017/18 (R7304) and its attachment (A1759788)

4. Background

4.1 Council’s Consultation Document on the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 was open for submissions from 17 March to 18 April 2017 and was made available on Council’s website, at Nelson Public Libraries, at the Customer Service Centre and delivered to all Nelson households through a special edition of Our Nelson.

4.2 Council received 397 submissions during this period and 66 submissions were presented verbally at hearings on 10 and 11 May 2017. Eleven late submissions were approved for consideration by Council on 10 May.

4.3 Approximately one in four submissions were made by groups or organisations, with the remainder made by individuals. 360 submissions were made by people from Nelson, while 21 were from Tasman residents and the rest from outside of the region. 349 submissions were made through the website, 17 by email, with others either hand delivered, posted, or provided to Council at drop-in sessions or at libraries.

4.4 At this Council meeting of 23 and 24 May 2017, Council will deliberate on submissions, ensuring that reasons for any decisions are made clear so that this can be conveyed to submitters as per the Local Government Act 2002, Section 82(1)(f): ‘that persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions...’.

Discussion

4.5 Major issues raised in submissions are dealt with in this report in activity order, with recommendations as appropriate. Smaller or more submitter-specific issues and the proposed response to these submissions are covered in Attachment 1, the spreadsheet of responses to submitters. Responses to submitters will be approved by the relevant Committee Chair before being sent to submitters, following the adoption of the Annual Plan in June.

4.6 The attached spreadsheet does not duplicate material covered in the body of the report, e.g. there are no responses on the Brook Sanctuary submissions in the spreadsheet as these are covered in the parks and active recreation activity discussion of this report.

Resourcing the 2017/18 work programme

4.7 Since the draft Annual Plan was approved by Council in March, officers have been working to assess resourcing for the 2017/18 year. It became apparent early in this process that the size of the work programme was likely to outstrip available resourcing. The Chief Executive felt it appropriate (given Council’s focus on capex delivery) to begin recruiting for an extra position in the Infrastructure Projects team.

4.8 With a better picture of carry forwards into 2017/18 now available, officers are concerned that there is still a gap between the scope of total capital projects and the available officer resourcing. While officers will look for ways to reallocate existing resources to stretch the ability to deliver, it will be important through the deliberations process that any new projects added are balanced by the removal of lower priority projects.

5. Transport

Public transport and Stoke bus loop

5.1 A wider review of public transport is underway and this review will inform the Regional Public Transport Plan. The review will encompass all bus services including the issues raised in submissions to the Annual Plan. There will be a review of routes generally as well as consideration of express buses, other improvements and the issues of increased patronage and promotion of buses. The Regional Public Transport plan will be consulted on during 2018.

5.2 In relation to the Stoke bus loop, there was general acceptance by submitters that the uneconomic bus loop route needed to be addressed although also disappointment that this hadn’t been taken up by the community. In the draft Annual Plan 2017/18, a reduced amount of $80,000 was included for the Stoke bus loop, as officers were hopeful that a route with reduced coverage and frequency could still be viable.

5.3 As a result of more detailed work on the potential alternate Stoke Loop service officers now believe funding of $120,000 will be required to provide the revised service. This would deliver a shorter route running with six services between (provisionally) 9am and 2.40pm. The main areas that would no longer be serviced are the Enner Glynn area north of Panorama Drive and Nayland Road south of Summerset Retirement Village. Although this would be 49% funded from NZTA (reducing Council’s commitment to $60,000) it does not seem a good use of public funds as there is a risk that even this reduced route would not see good patronage.

5.4 It is therefore recommended that funding for the Stoke Loop be removed from the Annual Plan pending a review to be undertaken as part of the wider public transport review. If a more viable service is recommended from that review then a resumption of NZTA funding will be applied for at that point.

Recommendation

That the Council

Removes the $80,000 budget for the Stoke Bus Loop in 2017/18 pending the results of the public transport review currently underway.

5.5 Some submitters commented on bus ticketing. Council is in the process of implementing an integrated ticket solution and this is programmed to be in place by June 2018. This is as part of a consortium of nine other regions. Passengers will be able to check their balances and top-up the credit on their cards online. The cards will be able to be used in the nine regions where this new system is being installed. As key funder of the new system, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), has worked closely with the councils throughout the process. This change is programmed and will be carried out within the existing budget.

5.6 One submitter requested the extension of the bus service to Wakefield. Officers note that the majority of a bus service between Wakefield, Brightwater and Hope would be within the Tasman District Council area and as such will need to be implemented largely by Tasman. The Tasman District Council is undertaking a feasibility report on a service before it makes any decisions and Council will be informed as this develops through the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan which will be consulted on during 2018.

LED street lighting

5.7 There was a good level of support from submitters for the move to LED street lighting on grounds of cost savings over time, better quality of light, reduced maintenance and improved safety. Contractors removing mercury vapour lights follow industry best practice when disposing components of removed mercury lighting.

5.8 The renewal of all street lighting city wide to LED will provide increased light levels and a safety improvement as the LED white light provides improved recognition and reaction times compared with the current yellow sodium lights that exist across the network. There are community benefits associated with the changing of streetlights to LED associated with minimising light spill to the night sky and adjoining residences, and improved illumination of the road and footpath space.

5.9 Since the Annual Plan was prepared, the NZTA has announced a larger subsidy for all lighting converted to LED by December 2018 to encourage councils to upgrade street lighting to LED. As a result of this one-off increase in subsidy, officers recommend that additional funding be included to enable a greater conversion to the lighting in the period that the higher subsidy applies.

5.10 In the draft Annual Plan 2017/18, Council had included funding to commence the programme of street light conversion to LED, but given the NZTA subsidy, officers recommend converting the majority of the street lights in 2017/18. If Council increases the budget to $2,400,000, NZTA will provide 85% of the funding. Council will save in the long run by receiving an 85% FAR rate for this particular piece of work instead of the usual rate of approximately 50% on top of the operational savings from the reduced power and maintenance costs that the LED conversion gains.

Recommendation

That the Council

Increases the capital budget for the LED street lighting upgrade programme in the Annual Plan 2017/18 from $53,000 (included in the Draft Annual Plan 2017/18) to $2,400,000 noting that this is 85% funded by NZTA in the 2017/18 year.

Saltwater Creek Bridge

5.11 There was support for Council’s proposal to increase the budget allocation for the Saltwater Creek Bridge in order to complete this project given the level of use by cyclists and walkers, although some questioned the size of the cost increase. Concerns were expressed about safety for all users in the current design and Council was urged to ensure the new bridge delivered better in this regard.

5.12 This project is being progressed as quickly as possible and it is expected to be completed during the 2017/18 financial year. The initial design for the Saltwater Creek Bridge (adjacent to the QE2 bridge) has been developed to provide appropriate grades and facilities to suit use by all cyclists and pedestrians. This has resulted in a significant increase in the cost which was identified in the Annual Plan. This project, with a total cost of $750,000 is 66% funded by NZTA/Urban Cycleway Project (UCP), consequently the cost to Council is $247,000.

Local transport issues

5.13 Some Seymour Avenue residents and users made submissions requesting improvements in the Seymour Avenue and Brook Street areas for walking and cycling and requested a raised crossing/path or a safe crossing point on one end of Seymour Avenue.

5.14 Council proposed four years ago to improve cycle facilities in the Brook Valley. Through consultation, it found that the local community was not in favour of reduced car parking to accommodate the increasing cycle volumes, and instead proposed to install increased signs and markings to raise awareness for motorists of the likelihood of encountering cyclists on the Brook/Westbrook route. 'Share with Care' signs are proposed to be installed on Brook Street and Westbrook Terrace in the near future. This will be complemented by the re-marking of the shallow pavement markings which remind motorists that they are sharing the same road space as cyclists.

5.15 In relation to submitter comments requesting that Council consider a raised crossing/path at one end of Seymour Avenue, officers note that there are a number of locations where issues similar to this have been raised and funding is available through the Minor Improvements Fund. This fund is limited, and projects are prioritised each year. The allocation is prioritised based on a number of factors including proximity to schools and other pedestrian generating locations, traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. This particular project will be included in the list for assessment and funding allocation.

5.16 Four submitters commented on the need for a change in speed limits in some areas of Nelson including in the CBD. As a result of urban design features and speed tables, actual speeds are low in the central city. Officers advise a reduction in the speed limit would require a number of signs and it is not considered a change in the formal limit would achieve any significant change to the operating speeds but would result in considerable visual pollution and cost of the additional signs. There are areas of the city fringe where a lower speed limit may be justified.

5.17 Council plans to undertake a city wide speed limit review next year and will include suggestions for changes in speeds in the CBD, Lud Valley and Princes Drive/Moana/Bisley Avenue as requested through submissions to this Annual Plan.

5.18 One submitter (12345) requested that Council allow children to cycle on pavements. This is a National Road User Rule issue which is decided at a national level. The Ministry for Transport and NZTA are currently reviewing the use of footpaths and which users should be permitted on them. The potential users include mobility scooters, Post Office delivery vehicles, pedestrians and young cyclists. There is also currently a petition before the Government to consider increasing the age of cyclists permitted on footpaths. It should be noted that there has been concern expressed by members of the local Accessibility for All Forum at the prospect of increasing the number of cyclists on footpaths.

5.19 Two submitters (12493 and 12696) requested traffic calming measures for Princes Drive/Bisley Ave/Moana Ave area. It is acknowledged that the collector route of Princes Drive and Bisley and Moana Avenues is being used as a rat run for arterial traffic avoiding the afternoon congestion on Rocks Road. Traffic counts show a 13 percent increase in traffic over the last four years which is significantly more than the underlying traffic growth that is typically experienced city wide. Council has worked with NZTA to ensure that the amount of green signal time on the Bisley approach at the Tahunanui intersection is not increased as the queue builds in the afternoon peak so that the rat run route is not made more attractive. Speed reductions will be considered through the review discussed above, and, if implemented, would reduce noise, make the route less attractive to through traffic and reduce the safety risk.

5.20 Submission 12504 requested that the roundabout at Polstead Road be removed and replaced with a stop sign. Officers note that the roundabout at Polstead Road now plays an important function in managing vehicle speeds along the Ridgeway and Suffolk Road. If it was removed the road safety risk would go up and the residential amenity would decrease. As part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Council is, however, considering the form and function of this intersection in the medium to long term as there is significant growth occurring in the general Stoke area and more specifically the Ngawhatu Valley.

5.21 The issue of inner city car parking was raised. Council is endeavouring to strike a balance between providing enough car parks of varying time limits within the CBD to support the retail and commercial activities, whilst also encouraging other transport modes to reduce the demand on car parking. Whilst the numbers of car parks are too few for some, others think the amount of space and expenditure by Council on CBD parking is too great. Council is currently in the process of reviewing the number and location of its special carparks within the CBD (e.g. taxi, loading, camper) to confirm if the current allocation and locations are appropriate for the demand. The request for more short term car park spaces in Trafalgar Street to increase turnover of the prime spaces is noted and will be added to the feedback being gained from that review. The enforcement regime of car parks is distributed across the whole city, including Stoke and Tahunanui centres. The level of enforcement is optimised to ensure that compliance and thus turnover of the high value spaces is encouraged with the parks in lower demand areas enforced less regularly.

5.22 The Nelson Youth Council (12791) requested that Council consider not using plastic parking tickets. Council, when renewing the pay and display machines, will be ensuring that any machine will either not require tickets or any ticket associated with the parking enforcement will be biodegradable. Further it is envisaged that technology will play a greater role in parking enforcement thus requiring less paper. Work to commence upgrading pay and display machines is scheduled for commencement in 2017/18.

5.23 Submitters that commented on specific or local transport issues or made queries about a transport project will be responded to individually with responses outlined in the attached spreadsheet.

Footpaths

5.24 The issue of level footpaths was raised. Council is aware of the need for footpaths to be as level as possible to cater for all residents. All new footpaths in greenfield areas are constructed to a level standard. In established areas, Council is undertaking a programme of improving footpaths in key pedestrian areas and where there are known issues. Unfortunately it is not always possible to flatten footpaths due to their narrowness, existing services like drains etc and private property issues.

5.25 Footpaths had significant additional renewal funding allocated to them during the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as it was identified that their condition, combined with the demands from our ageing population, required a higher standard surface. The site on Main Road Stoke mentioned in submission 12578 is programmed to be resurfaced in 2017/18 following Ultra Fast Broadband installation. A Bridge Street footpath site, also noted in submission 12578, will be rehabilitated as priorities allow.

Cycling and cyclepaths

5.26 Council investment planned in the 2017/18 Annual Plan for cycling has a focus on completing the remaining sections of the Coastal Route. Work includes the Saltwater Creek bridge, Maitai/Wakefield Quay cycleway, and the City to Tahunanui cycleway.

5.27 Council, as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28, is considering a project to better connect the eastern parts of Nelson City with the schools and Railway Reserve Route (i.e. provide an east-west route). When implemented, this will provide a safer alternative to riding on the busy arterial route of Waimea Road when travelling south.

5.28 One submitter (12630) requested a better connection between the Elma Turner Library and the Maitai Path. The lack of a kerb cut down to allow easy connection between the Maitai Path cycleway and the cycle stands at the library carpark has been investigated. Installing it results in the loss of a carpark in this high demand area and has not been progressed as most users have been observed to either park their bike near the play area adjacent to the path, and move over the kerb at an appropriate space where there is no car occupying a park, or dismounting and using the footpath. This Annual Plan includes investigation and community engagement for a project to connect the Railway Reserve/St Vincent Street Route that runs past Anzac Park to the Maitai Path that would fix the poor connection at Halifax / Countdown area.

5.29 Some submitters wanted more focus on alternative transport and less on cars and carparking and more participation of cycling throughout the city. Nelson has strong cycle and walk to work participation as a result of decades of investment and encouragement of active and alternative modes of transport. Council needs to balance the level of investment in active and alternative transport with the amount that the community is willing to invest.

5.30 Several submitters commented on improvements needed to cycleways in Atawhai. They described the need to improve the cyclepath crossing at Marybank Drive and the narrow path between Marybank and Sybil Way.

5.31 The shared path crossing point at Marybank Drive was constructed by the NZTA, has been safety audited and has operated for many years without a recorded cycle or pedestrian crash. It is noted, however, that the crossing feels unsafe to use and would benefit from increased sightlines as a minimum. This project will be added to Council’s network deficiency list for prioritisation and consideration as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

5.32 The shared pathway between Marybank Road and Sybil Way is narrower than ideal as a result of the challenging topography in the area. Similar to the above crossing point, this was constructed by the NZTA, has been safety audited and has operated for many years without a recorded cycle or pedestrian crash. This section is also separated from the State Highway traffic by a parking lane, thus significantly reducing the risk of injury. Due to the topography it is difficult to make this shared pathway wider and officers do not recommend any changes through this Annual Plan.

Maitai Connections – Maitai Path to eastern residential areas

5.33 Several submitters commented on the Maitai Connections – Maitai Path to eastern residential areas project with a particular interest in Domett Street. Submitters were concerned that the walkway should be for walking only, or requested a separate cycle path along the top of the embankment, separate from the road. Some submitters were also concerned with carparking in the area and considered that Council has not responded to previous engagement on the matter.

5.34 The issue of parking and cycle use of Domett Street has been a long standing source of concern for many local residents and riverside users. The Maitai Connections project was put on hold pending development of the Out and About – Active Travel and Pathway-based Recreation Policy and the use of this policy to guide the programme of works. Council is initiating the project in 2017/18 in order to develop a plan for this part of the network. This will build on previous proposals and consultation with residents to develop a cycle facility that is acceptable to residents, walkers, cyclists and motorists to connect the Maitai Path with the eastern residential areas.

5.35 Friends of the Maitai (12795), and other submitters made a request for a named riverside park along the Maitai River between Trafalgar and Nile Streets. In fact, this area already has a name, ‘Maitai River Esplanade Reserve’ and submitters will be advised of this.

Southern Link and Rocks Road

5.36 Some submissions referred to the Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road. Submitters will be informed the Nelson Southern Link Investigation is a New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) project, which Council has limited opportunities to influence the progress of. It is expected that more information about the next stage of the Nelson Southern Link project will be provided by NZTA in the second half of 2017.

Beach bus

5.37 One submitter (12806) requested that the beach bus be run each summer and extended to the airport in an expansion of the trial service run last summer. The beach bus was run in the 2016/17 summer and was arranged through the Tahuna Holiday Park. The cost of running it from 22 December to 30 January was approximately $35,000, with Council providing funding of $15,000 for this from a Special Economic Projects Fund, with the balance provided from fares and Tahunanui businesses. If this project is to be run again in 2017/18, it would either need to be run in the same way as in 2016/17, with funding provided from economic budgets, or delivered as a transport project, which would require funding in the Annual Plan. A business case would be required if an NZTA subsidy is to be sought. It is recommended that a report is taken to the Governance Committee to review the 2016/17 performance of the beach bus and following this, funding be allocated for 2017/18, if required.

6. Water supply

Brodifacoum

6.1 Some submitters are concerned about the impact of the Brodifacoum drop at the Brook Sanctuary on the water supply. This area is not in the Maitai or Roding water supply catchments. Further discussion about the Brook Sanctuary is included in the parks and active recreation section of this report.

Brook water supply

6.2 One submitter (12641) requested that Council should reinstate the waterworks reserve status in the Upper Brook so that the water can be used for water supply, noting that it would prevent the need for the Waimea Dam, and could be used when the Maitai water is of a poor quality and for residents to fill water bottles from the river.

6.3 Officers note that the Brook water supply was decommissioned when the flows became too low to supply the city and the dam showed signs of being at the end of its service life. There are no plans to re-establish this supply because the infrastructure is no longer operational and flows are not sufficient to provide Council with a long term supply without a storage dam. The original dam was decommissioned because it became unsafe to hold water. The submitter will be informed of this in their response.

6.4 In relation to filling water bottles from the river, it is not recommended that Council encourage consumption of untreated water due to the health risks for example cryptosporidium or giardia.

Waimea Dam

6.5 A small number of submitters commented on the Waimea Dam and will be informed of the process underway.

Water leaks

6.6 Concern about cost of water leaks was raised by submitters, with one requesting that there should be a rates remission for businesses for the period of the leak, noting one example of a business that received a $10,000 invoice.

6.7 Council has remission of charges for excess water arising from leaks, but the remission is not available for commercial or industrial properties. A remission for businesses with water leaks is not considered appropriate as businesses often have larger supply pipes so the volume of leakage can be significant. As businesses treat water as any other input such as power, they are generally aware of the need to control use and wastage. In addition, businesses can generally claim GST on the cost of the water, and as a cost of business the charge is tax deductible.

6.8 The costs of leaks to Council owned infrastructure are met by Council. Leaks on private reticulation are the responsibility of the property owner. Regularly checking water meters can help owners detect water leaks and minimise the volume of water that is lost.

6.9 Council is working on a project to roll out electronic water meters within the next five years. A trial has been undertaken in the Wood to test electronic meters. Once the new meters are in place water leaks will be able to be detected more quickly.

6.10 If Council did want to consider extending the Remission Policy for excess water charges to include commercial ratepayers, this would need to be considered through the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Fluoridation

6.11 One submitter (12600) raised the issue of fluoridation including the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and requesting Council funding to provide filters to the community to remove fluoride if the NMDHB request that water is fluoridated.

6.12 A submission was made by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) on this bill, representing the interests of the sector. LGNZ’s submission included a request for greater clarity in the Bill on the removal of responsibility for making decisions on fluoridation in drinking water from territorial authorities and also requested that decision makers on the matter should also cover the costs.

6.13 Consultation on the Bill has now closed and the process is at the select Committee Stage. Council’s response will be governed by legislation once this legislation is finalised.

7. Wastewater

Wastewater spills

7.1 Two submitters raised a concern with wastewater spills and overflows from the network (12398 and 12791).

7.2 Through the Long Term Plan 2015-25, Council has directed some resource to dealing with stormwater inflow in the wastewater network in order to reduce overflows. Management of overflows comes from maintenance of the network, the renewal programme, trade-waste permits, the inflow & infiltration programme and education about what people should not put down the sewers. Control is only possible at some pump stations that have on-site storage. There are particular issues during wet weather flows which require further work.

Gracefield beheading

7.3 Submitter 12797 requested that the Gracefield beheading project be included in 2017/18. The first year of the Gracefield beheading project was included in the Long Term Plan in 2018/19 but was brought forward in the Annual Plan 2016/17. The work has progressed but officers recommend carrying the remaining funding ($22,000) forward to 2017/18 to continue to progress the detailed investigation in 2017/18 This will be considered through a separate exceptions report to Council.

7.4 Further timing changes to this project will be considered through the Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

Awatea pump station

7.5 One submitter (12836) requested that the Awatea Place wastewater upgrade has provision for holding tanks so no discharges occur in the adjacent creek. The design of the proposed Awatea wastewater pump station will incorporate four hours of dry weather storage. There will be times when high rainfall events will lead to discharges from the pump station until such time as levels of inflow and infiltration of stormwater and ground water into the network are managed.

8. Stormwater and flood protection

8.1 A number of general comments on stormwater and flood protection infrastructure were received and some submissions were made on specific or local stormwater and flood protection queries. These responses are outlined in the attached spreadsheet.

9. Environment

Sustainability

9.1 Council’s response to climate change was raised by several submitters. Nelson's Resource Management Plan is currently being reviewed (the Nelson Plan). This Plan seeks to address a number of the matters raised including the effects of climate change and urban growth as outlined in the Draft Regional Policy Statement. Potential impacts of climate change (sea level rise) have been discussed with the community as part of the recent natural hazard public workshops. There will be a further opportunity to provide feedback on the wider Nelson Plan once a draft is released in early 2018. Other matters relating to how Council responds to climate change will be addressed in Council’s 30 year Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Plan 2018-28. Council will assess and act on, as appropriate, any recommendations from the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group. This Group has been set up by the Minister for Climate Change Issues to provide advice on options for adapting to climate change. Climate Change is a key focus of LGNZ, given the implications for New Zealand and Council will be kept informed of LGNZ work in this area.

9.2 Several submitters commented on the importance of Nelson’s 2060 strategy, and one submitter (12697) requested that more be done to deliver on the objectives contained within the strategy. The points raised in relation to Nelson 2060 in submissions will be considered by staff when working on relevant projects across the organisation. A compilation of examples of current projects that help to deliver on Nelson 2060 outcomes is planned.

Nelson Plan

9.3 Some submitters raised issues that are under consideration through the Nelson Plan process, including woodburner controls, heritage, freshwater and the number of dwellings on each site. The issues raised by submitters will be considered by officers preparing the Nelson Plan. The draft Nelson Plan will be released for public feedback during 2017/18 and there will be an opportunity for submitters to make further comments at this stage.

10. Social

Menzshed

10.1 Fourteen submitters requested that Council consider supporting the establishment of a Menzshed in Nelson and cited the benefits of such a facility. Menzshed Wakatu requested Council support to help establish a Menzshed in Nelson through a community lease on a Council-owned premise and $20,000 start-up funding or $30,000 to lease a private premise, make fit for purpose and related start-up funding for 2017/18.

10.2 Currently, there are two menzshed groups established but not operating in Nelson –Menzshed Wakatu and Menzshed Nelson. Submissions to this Annual Plan appear to have been received from supporters of Menzshed Wakatu. In addition, there is a Menzshed in Waimea. The submission to this Annual Plan was presented by Philip Chapman who has moved from the Waimea Menzshed to assist with the establishment of Menzshed Wakatu.

10.3 The Mayor has met with both Nelson groups in the past and officers have attempted to broker some agreement between the groups without success. It would therefore seem that Council should consider the request from Menzshed Wakatu on its merits and not continue to hope that all interested parties could find a way to work together on this project.

10.4 Officers have sought further information from Menzshed Wakatu about its request and are informed that the group considers it will be able to meet the future costs of a lease (either community or private) through fundraising etc, and thus the request to Council is not for ongoing funding but is a one off request for assistance with establishment.

10.5 There are many menzsheds in operation around New Zealand and the degree of support from local councils varies. The successful Menzshed Waimea has been able to establish itself with no input from TDC, although a $3,000 grant was subsequently provided in 2016 for men’s health and wellbeing. Approximately 60 Nelson residents regularly use the services of Menzshed Waimea. Menzshed Waimea operates from Richmond Park at the A&P Show Ground in Richmond.

10.6 Officers agree with submitters that menzsheds can deliver a number of very positive outcomes for the community, however this is one of many groups that would like Council support and or subsidised accommodation, so, for consistency, Menzshed Wakatu should be referred to Council’s Community Partnerships team to discuss their proposal and options for partnership and potential community investment funding for 2018/19. Officers will discuss with Menzshed Wakatu opportunities for use of Council-owned buildings through this process.

Community hub

10.7 The Nelson Bays Community Foundation supports Council investigating the feasibility of establishing a community hub, noting that the community hub could be the permanent base of a core group of organisations, with the opportunity for many other community groups to share hot-desk arrangements. This idea has been raised previously, however the difficulty is that it delivers significant advantages to a small percentage of the many community groups operating in Nelson and thus is inherently inequitable.

10.8 A community hub was considered during the Long Term Plan 2015-25 and groups were encouraged to work together to find a sustainable model and told that Council support could then be considered. Council is still willing to consider providing support if such a proposal is received.

Light Nelson Arts Collective

10.9 Submission 12798, from The Light Nelson Arts Collective, presented to Council its concept for a working creative community space that references ideas such as maker spaces and community art workspaces.

10.10 Council officers will invite the Light Nelson Collective to meet to discuss the initiative before making recommendations ahead of the Long Term Plan 2018-28. This request will be discussed further through the Arts Activity Management Plan.

Community Centres

10.11 The Victory Community Centre (12842) asked that Council supports Nelson’s community centres through a 20% contribution towards each centre’s costs, possibly via a targeted rate.

10.12 Council purchased the Nelson Pacific Island Afternoon Study Programme building in 2016 for $100,000. This is now the home of the Tahunanui Community Centre. In addition, the Tahunanui Community Centre has been provided a total of $96,640 by grant since 2011. Council has provided the Victory Community Health Centre a total of $74,940 by agreement over the same period.

10.13 It is recommended that this issue is discussed further through the Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018-28 so that funding can be included in the Long Term Plan 2018-28, if required.

10.14 In addition to the submission made on behalf of Nelson’s community centres by the Victory Community Centre, the Tahunanui Community Centre made a separate submission (12474) on a number of requests about maintenance required at the Centre.

10.15 Work programmed in 2017/18 at the Tahunanui Community Centre from current budgets includes an access ramp to the rear entrance, accessible toilet improvements, application for building consent for fire systems and exterior paint. The Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan 2018-28 will consider a new access ramp to main entrance, new laundry facilities and additional fire systems. The building currently, under its original consents and intended use, is compliant for public use.

Community Art Works

10.16 Community Art Works requested Council assistance in providing a permanent home in Nelson.

10.17 Council does not have any premises suitable for a permanent home at this time, but will consider this request as part of the preparation for the Long Term Plan 2018-28. In the meantime, Community Artworks had a short-term lease at the building in Wakatu Square, which expired in October 2016. The lease is now being rolled over on a short term basis as there is currently no other suitable premises for them to move to.

Nelson Regional Sustainability Festival

10.18 The Nelson Regional Sustainability Festival (12800), requested Council funding of $50,000.

10.19 During the Long Term Plan 2015-25, Council decided criteria for accessing events funding be relaxed to also include community events, while the Events Strategy was under review. Work on the Events Strategy was put on hold as NRDA requested that the regional identity work should be progressed and incorporated into the Events Strategy. Work has recommenced on the Events Strategy now that the Regional Identity work is reaching a conclusion, however there is unlikely to be a strategy to guide events funding until later in the 2017/18 year.

10.20 In the interim, officers recommend that the current arrangement for events, be extended to 2017/18 to enable both community and economic events access to the events fund. Applications for funding are assessed by the NRDA.

10.21 It is intended that the new Events Strategy would provide guidance for Council support for both community and economic events.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that the interim arrangement extending coverage of the Events Fund to include community events continue until the Events Strategy is complete; and

Agrees that the Nelson Regional Sustainability Festival be encouraged to apply to the Events Fund.

Nelson Community Patrol

10.22 Nelson Community Patrol requested Council support for operational costs for the Nelson Community Patrol. It requested $400 per month to a total of $5000 per year for vehicle running costs.

10.23 New Zealand Police has advised that the Community Patrols of New Zealand Fund, which it administers, does not cover operational/running costs. Nelson Community Patrol was supported by Council in 2016 with a one off grant of $1,000 from funding set aside in that year for work related to safer communities.

10.24 There is discussion later in this report of the issue of community groups that do not fit within the social development criteria of the Community Investment Fund and what the Long Term Plan might include in this regard. In the interim, it is recommended that Council provide a contribution to the work of this group for 2017/18. As $5,000 for running costs seems rather high for a small group working in a compact urban area it is suggest that funding of $3,000 is provided.

Recommendation

That the Council

Provides funding of $3,000 in 2017/18 for the Nelson Community Patrol’s vehicle running costs.

10.25 In the meantime, for the remainder of 2016/17, the Mayor has advised that operational expenses for the group can be funded from Mayor’s Discretionary Fund.

Melrose House

10.26 The Melrose House Society submission sought Council funding for some of the work included in its Works Programme and financial support from Council to employ a part time Functions Manager to support Board members involved in the events programme.

10.27 The Programme of Works for this budget year (2016/17) for Melrose House will be completed within the year. There are several works items that have been recently discussed for 2017/18 with Melrose House and will be completed within existing budgets. Some of the items proposed by the Melrose Society in its submission are not currently included in the 2017/18 programme and should instead be raised as considerations in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process. This includes the two capital expenditure projects described in the submission, the grassed stage area and the renovation of the stables. It also includes the operational expenditure proposed for funding part-time staff coordinating functions or events.

Request for Islamic Centre

10.28 The Nelson-Whakatu Muslim Association Incorporated (12455), requested that Council consider supporting the establishment of an Islamic Centre in Nelson and noted that the current facility it uses, the Trafalgar Street Hall, is not large enough given the growing number of people participating. The group was particularly interested in Council support for a temporary facility while a more permanent location is sought and developed. The group will be invited to speak with one of the Community Partnerships staff to discuss the proposal and help recommend ways to seek additional support and advice about locations.

Living Wage

10.29 One submitter requested that Council employees and employees of Council Controlled Organisations, Council Controlled Trading Organisations and Council contractors be paid a living wage. A letter from the Taxpayers’ Union and report on the Living Wage has been placed on the TeamSite at their request.

10.30 Hutt City Council considered the matter, and noted that the Local Government Act required the delivery of functions in a cost effective manner.

10.31 At the present time, just over 94% of Nelson City Council employees earn more than the 1 July 2016 Living Wage rate of $19.80 an hour. Employees earning less than this rate are in training, cadet, or intern roles. Permanent employees who earn less than $19.80 an hour are expected to reach a pay rate that is at least equal to the Living Wage at the first annual remuneration review that follows the completion of the training period for their role.

10.32 CCOs and CCTOs are independent employers of their own staff. Nelson City Council does not intervene in the employment arrangements between those organisations and their employees. The Nelson Provincial Museum has indicated through its Statement of Intent, that it will pay a living wage to its staff.

10.33 As the CCTOs that are larger employers of staff are jointly owned with TDC, it would be appropriate to have a discussion with that council in the first instance.

Recommendation

That the Council

Includes the living wage in a joint committee workshop with Tasman District Council.

250^th Commemoration of Captain Cook’s landing

10.34 Ngati Kuia requested $10,000 in Council funding to support the building of a $100,000, 10-crew waka which could be used for public events and commemorations and for Council support with storage and transportation for the waka as well as safety equipment such as life jackets. The waka would be available to help commemorate the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s first landfall in New Zealand but also to support celebration of Waitangi Day and other civic events.

10.35 The Chairs of all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi recently considered (at Te Waka a Maui Iwi Chairs Forum) a draft terms of reference for a Strategic Relationship Framework which would look at capacity and capability issues, potential funding arrangements etc. Officers understand the Chairs may not provide feedback on the draft terms of reference until their next hui in August. This is a critical piece of work to establish an appropriate framework for working with iwi.

10.36 In the meantime officers do not recommend supporting one of the iwi for a project that does not appear to address priority areas such as capacity building. Council has also not had an opportunity to consider how it may wish to be involved in the commemoration celebrations.

10.37 As the commemoration takes place in 2019 there will be an opportunity to make provision through the Long Term Plan for appropriate Council support.

Suter Gallery

10.38 In the Draft Annual Plan 2017/18, an additional $62,000 was proposed for the Suter for an operating grant, while the maintenance funding was reduced by $108,000, leaving Council’s provision to the Suter at $550,000; $46,000 less than what was budgeted for in the Long Term Plan 2017/18 for the year. In future years, the additional operating grant will remain, while the maintenance funding will be required again, and there will be an overall increase in the funding provided to the Suter.

10.39 Council provided the Trust with $20,000 funding in 2016/17 to allow free entry to the redeveloped gallery and as part of this, asked that the Trust report back to Council as part of its preparation of the 2017/18 draft Statement of Intent on the impacts of this free entry. This report was provided to the Governance Committee on 20 April. The Trust requested that funding to allow free entry continue through 2017/18.

10.40 At the Governance meeting, the Committee decided that this item should be deliberated through the Annual Plan process.

10.41 The Trust has received estimated income of $5-6,000 from the donation box in the foyer. Officers consider that if Council provides funding for free entry, it could reduce the grant from the $20,000 in 2017/18 by $5,000, recognising the level of donations received. While it is recommended that the funding be provided on an ongoing basis, this should be balanced with the need to ensure that Council continues to incentivise the Trust to raise funds through the donations box. It is recommended that this additional funding be provided as an additional, reducing, amount in the operating grant – an additional $10,000 per annum for the first three years of the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a grant of $15,000 to the Bishop Suter Trust to continue to allow for free entry to all visitors in 2017/18; and

Confirms that funding of $10,000 for the purposes of free entry to all visitors be included as part of the operating grant to the Suter for the first three years of the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

11. Parks and active recreation

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary

11.1 There was both support and opposition for Council’s proposed increase in operational funding for the Brook Sanctuary, with strong views on both sides. There were approximately 100 submissions on the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary.

11.2 Those in support comment that the sanctuary is an asset for the city, that it provides economic social and environmental benefits, specifically tourism, educational and recreational benefits. Submitters also noted the effort by volunteers at the sanctuary. A number of people commented that they bring visitors to the region to the sanctuary and several submitters from outside the region described how they visit the Sanctuary when they visit Nelson.

11.3 Those submitters in opposition to funding for the Sanctuary, raise concerns with the economic model of the Sanctuary and questioned whether it would be financially sustainable, raised concerns with the fence, underlying slope stability and damage caused to the historic Dun Mountain railway as well as financial issues with other similar sanctuaries. Some submitters outlined particularly strong opposition to the planned aerial drop of brodifacoum.

11.4 Those submitters concerned about the brodifacoum drop commented on the lack of consultation with the community and the impact on the air and water quality in the area. In relation to the brodifacoum drop, relevant submitters will be informed that the resource consent process for the Sanctuary to use brodifacoum as pest control was considered by an independent commissioner. Council has no ability to reject the decision. In addition the Government has recently streamlined the regulatory regime for pest control meaning the aerial or ground application of brodifacoum, or 1080, will not need resource consent as of 1 April 2017.

11.5 Funding in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 for the Brook Sanctuary was conditional on an adjusted business model. Information provided to date has not demonstrated sufficiently an adjusted business model. The accounts provided demonstrate the Trust intends to develop contingency funding: a prudent step, but not something Council should be involved in funding. Further, in making material available to Council, it is difficult to provide all information publicly; the updated financials, and the 2013 peer review by Vantage Consulting, will be made available to councillors on a confidential basis on TeamSite.

11.6 The Sanctuary has considerable support, and does contribute to Council’s biodiversity aims. To allow for further consideration, it is proposed that Council provide $100,000 now, and set aside a further $150,000 as a provision in Council’s accounts. This should not be released to the Trust unless and until there is clear evidence of what this will purchase.

Recommendation

That the Council

Sets aside a budget of $250,000 for Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust activities with only $100,000 being paid to the Trust at this time and applications for further funding from this provision being referred to the Planning and Regulatory Committee.

Mountain biking

11.7 There were approximately 125 submissions either supporting the $80,000 included in 2017/18 for the development of tracks and hubs, in addition to existing funding or requesting that Council provide more infrastructure for development of mountain biking tracks and facilities. Submitters described being able to attract international riders and tourists by having better trails and supporting infrastructure such as hubs, toilets, bike washdown areas, car parking, signage and promotion.

11.8 Connecting trails from the proposed Maitai Hub to the Tantragee are through Ngāti Koata land. The funding allocated towards these trails in the Annual Plan 2017/18 is proposed to be in the form of a grant, with the Nelson Mountain Bike Club leading the physical works. Submitters questioned Council’s investment in trails on private forestry land but the funding is to support mountainbiking trails over a range of land ownership.

11.9 A number of submissions from Nelson Mountain Bike Club members and supporters request the following:

· An increased budget for the development of mountain bike facilities and trails on Council managed land to $1M per year to include funding to design, build and maintain at least one new high quality grade two family loop trail within easy riding distance of the Nelson CBD. The Club also wants to see construction start on a high quality hub in the Maitai where residents and visitors can park cars safely and start/finish bike rides.

· A clearly defined process for volunteer development of mountain bike trails on Council managed land.

· The finalisation of a 10-year strategy, including how Council and the Nelson Regional Development Agency will help ensure Nelson becomes world famous as a mountain bike tourism destination.

11.10 Some submitters outlined disappointment with the amount spent to date on mountain biking in 2016/17 and requested that work continue.

11.11 It is expected that the majority of the $178,000 allocated to mountain biking in 2016/17 will be either spent or committed (i.e. works underway) within this financial year, and any unspent money be carried over into the 2017/18 financial year.

11.12 Examples of where this money has been (or is being) directed includes planning (e.g. resource consent for P61, archaeological inspection), portaloo rental, reinstatement and new works at Codgers (e.g. ascending trail P63 and descending trail P62), signage and a Grade 2 trail at Marsden Valley. There was also $20,000 included in 2016/17 to complete a study on the economic benefits of mountain biking to the region. This work has been delayed to align with the work by the Nelson Regional Development Agency on the Regional Identity project.

11.13 Council officers are presently in discussions with Nelson Mountain Bike Club representatives. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been drawn up and is expected to be finalised and functioning by spring 2017. This MOU will also outline maintenance responsibilities for the tracks.

11.14 The Off Road Tracks and Trails Strategy has been adopted and will be updated every three years as part of the Asset Management Plan process. The Tracks and Trails Strategy includes an implementation plan, with proposed walking, mountain biking and shared tracks and mountain bike hubs on Council, Department of Conservation and Ngati Koata.

11.15 In relation to submitter comments about economic impacts of mountain biking, work will be undertaken on an economic analysis on the benefit of mountain biking to the region. This work will be used to guide future funding decisions.

11.16 The 2017/18 Annual Plan includes $60,000 for the development of two Grade 2 or 3 mountain bike tracks to link the Maitai to the Tantragee Saddle, and $20,000 to carry out preparation of a concept design for a mountain bike hub in the Maitai. Work is also underway investigating a hub in the Brook Valley. In addition to this funding, considerable staff time has been spent in planning and negotiations for trails and proposed hubs. Resourcing for mountain biking will be further reviewed through the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28, which is currently being developed.

11.17 It is recommended that additional funding for future years be considered through the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28 process so that it can be assessed alongside other priorities.

11.18 Officers consider that, given officer resourcing constraints, if Council wishes to provide additional funding in 2017/18 for mountain biking, in addition to the $80,000 already allocated, this should be provided by way of a grant to the Nelson Mountain Bike Club, conditional on a MOU being signed with the Club. Council could confirm the outputs to be delivered with the funding through a contract with the Nelson Mountain Bike Club so that activities can be undertaken in line with Council’s strategy and ensure that they are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable manner. The funding conditions may differ depending on whether the work is to be carried out on Council or other land.

11.19 The Club is well-equipped to undertake works, and for that reason any contribution from Council, in addition to work already committed in 2017/18, would be most efficient and appropriate in the form of a grant.

Great Taste Trail

11.20 The Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust submission (12568) requested Council explore a way to optimise trail management for both the Great Rides in the Nelson region, through an agreement with the Trust to provide a Great Ride Trail Manager role.

11.21 Council could have considered funding this role, in collaboration with Tasman District Council, however officers have been advised that Tasman District Council have not allocated funding for this. It is not recommended that Council contribute without Tasman also contributing, given the trails span both Nelson and Tasman land.

Marina

11.1 Several submitters made comments on the Marina Strategy, Marina Development Plan and general operations at the marina, including by identifying issues, suggestions for improvements, and proposals for a boat ramp at the marina. These suggestions and recommendations are discussed in the following paragraphs.

11.2 The number of motor boats using the Marina boat ramp is significant. In order to improve access it is recommended that a fixed and floating pontoon system be implemented to enable boats to immediately clear the ramp and allow the next one to be launched. This layout also aids in exiting the water by providing pontoon space for tying up and enabling the boat operator to fetch their vehicle and trailer without blocking the ramp to other users. It is recommended that the pontoons be installed in stages to allow future modifications to best fit the existing layout. The cost of stage one is $330,000 and it is proposed that this is included in funding for 2017/18.

11.3 $150,000 has been included for planning and design of a sea sports building at the Marina in 2017/18. $377,000 is included in 2018/19 for further work on this item. There is still an expectation of partner funding for the water sports building.

11.4 The draft Marina Strategy is currently being reviewed by the Marina Advisory Group prior to reporting to Council for adoption. $40,000 was provided for a Marina Development Plan in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 which includes the overall design and layout of the Marina following the adoption of the Marina Strategy. Given the amount of work required to be completed, officers request that it be increased to $60,000.

11.5 In addition, it is recommended that the trailer boat storage yard be relocated to enable an improved access/parking layout around the proposed Sea Sports Building and boat ramp. This relocation should include fencing, lighting and security camera and would be unsealed. The cost of such a relocation is estimated at $35,000.

11.6 These four projects are supported for 2017/18 by the Marina Advisory Group. It is proposed that the marina boat ramp, Marina Development Plan and relocation of the trailer boat storage yard be charged to the closed Marina Account and funded over time by users.

Recommendation

That the Council

Increases the budget for the marina boat ramp to $330,000 in 2017/18; and

Increases the Marina Development Plan budget in 2017/18 from $40,000, included in the draft Annual Plan to $60,000 in 2017/18; and

Provides budget of $35,000 for relocating the trailer boat storage yard; and

Notes that these additional budget requests, above, are to be charged to the marina account and funded over time by users.

Curtis Street Footbridge (link to Manu Kau Reserve)

11.7 Several submitters requested that Council provide a walking and cycling path linking the end of Monaco View to the Orchard Stream Walkway near Curtis Street and noted concern with school children crossing the stream currently, noting that it is particularly hazardous in heavy rain.

11.8 This project was deferred during the preparation of the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 due to capacity constraints. Officers recognise there is an opportunity to significantly improve access to neighbourhood park facilities at Manu Kau Reserve from the neighbourhood directly north of Orchard Stream. As a result, funding for the project can be considered through the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

Dog Park

11.9 There was support for Council (submission 12303 and 12560) to provide a dog park. This suggestion was discussed by Council at a workshop on the Annual Plan 2017/18 in February and will be considered as part of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28 development.

Playground at Daelyn Drive

11.10 One submitter (12313) requested that a playground be included in the reserve at the end of Daelyn Drive that is being developed as part of the Saxton Creek upgrade noting that the area has a number of families and the closest bike ride is Saxton Field, which is difficult for children to bike to.

11.11 Officers consider that the future regional playground included in the development plan for Saxton Field would meet the needs of the Daelyn Community. This will be considered through the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28 development.

Tahunanui Beach toilets

11.12 One submitter (12289) requested funding in the Annual Plan for an upgrade to the toilets at Tahunanui Beach.

11.13 It is proposed to review the toilet provision at Tahunanui Beach over 2017/18. Council will consider including funding in the Property and AMP 2018-28 for an upgrade or replacement of the Lions Toilet Change Room (eastern end of Tahunanui Beach) starting with designs in 2018/19 and possible construction in winter 2019. This will be further considered through the AMP.

Maitai Ford

11.14 There were requests by submitters to have the ford across the Maitai River which, was recently removed, replaced to allow public access.

11.15 The ford removal was a Project Maitai/Mahitahi operation to improve fish passage in the river. It is expected that a bridge at the Almond Tree Flat area will be designed in 2018/19 and built in 2019/20 (year 2 of the Long Term Plan 18-2028). This funding will need to be confirmed through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

Barbeques

11.16 Submission 12282 requested that the barbeques at the Victory play area be cleaned more regularly. These were installed in 2013 through community fundraising and are currently maintained by the Victory Community Association. This model has worked satisfactorily to date, however given the barbeques are now an established and accepted Council asset it may be that they should be maintained under Council's existing cleaning contract. Officers recommend a discussion with the Victory Community Association to pursue this idea.

11.17 Submitters also requested that barbeques be provided at the Botanics (12657), Burrell Park in Tahunanui (12474) and as part of suggested Corder Park developments. Council owns seven public barbeques around the city, with one in the Maitai Valley, one at the marina, one at Victory and four in the Tahunanui Recreation Reserve. The last barbecue to be installed, at Victory, was built as a community project in 2013 and are presently cleaned by Victory Community Centre volunteers. Given the existing facilities at the Tahunanui Recreation Reserve, installing an additional barbeque in Burrell Park is not seen as a priority. Barbeques at the Botanics and other locations can be considered as part of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Corder Park

11.18 Several submitters requested that following growth in population in Atawhai, more should be done to improve the public amenities at Atawhai. Submitters request the development of Corder Park/Frenchay Reserve and requested amenities include public toilets, a drinking fountain, facilities or a play area for children, bike tracks or jumps, a barbeque area or a sports areas such as a basketball hoop. Several submitters also note that an area of the park is boggy and unable to be used currently.

11.19 Council will consider any improvements for the Corder Park area through the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28.

11.20 A number of submitters also discussed the need for improvements to the cycling facilities through this Corder Park/Atawhai area, and this is discussed in the transport section of this report.

Kohatu Motor Park

11.21 Six submissions submitted in support of Kohatu Park, noting economic benefits to the region of such a facility. Both $40,000 and $50,000 were requested by submitters to support the Park, while other submitters asked for Council support to signal to other funders the importance of the facility or described the benefits of such a Park.

11.22 Tasman District Council has agreed to include the Motueka Valley Highway/Olivers Road intersection, which is the access to Kohatu Motorsport Park, in the 2017/18 minor improvements programme at a cost of $300,000 and has recently written a letter to Kohatu Motor Sport outlining its support for the facility.

11.23 Officers note that this request is for a regional project and the project should be considered for its regional merits through the regional funding process which would also look at the appropriate funding split between Nelson and Tasman. The project could subsequently be considered through the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

All-weather pitch

11.24 A number of submissions requested that Council consider providing an all-weather pitch for football and several of these submitters also requested that the pitch have lights. Submitters noted that an all-weather pitch would assist with development of young footballers, would mean sport could be played in poor weather, and is the approach that some other New Zealand cities, such as Wellington, have taken. Some submitters note that the pitch could be used by multiple codes or hired out to groups, while those organisations that have submitted in support of the pitch were from the football code.

11.25 Council will undertake a needs assessment as part of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan before this project is considered for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Hockey Reserve

11.26 Five submitters commented on toilets and rubbish facilities at Hockey Reserve. Some in favour, and some against the idea. One submission (12525) made reference to a petition and noted that there were 146 signatures at the time the submission was made. This submission noted that children currently use the surrounding area to go to the toilet as there are none provided at the site. The submission also noted that the reserve has a pump track and users of this track are also impacted by the lack of toilet facilities. The submitter describes the reserve as a popular reserve used by people that do not live in the immediate area and do not have access to a private toilet.

11.27 Conversely, there were two submissions asking that Council do not provide toilets at this reserve. One submission (12651) noted that residents were told that the playground was not intended as a destination playground when properties were purchased, toilets would be used by freedom campers, toilets could encourage the use of the playground by youths in the evening and possible mis-use of the playground equipment. This submission noted that local children go home to use the toilet and others don’t stay long enough to need one. The submitter made a comment about the upfront cost of providing the toilet and the ongoing maintenance cost. They were also concerned that toilets may lead to problems at the reserve which would impact on the neighbourhood. They also note that facilities are available in the campsite not far down the road. The submitter also noted that those adjacent to the playground were not consulted on the petition to provide toilets and the people requesting the toilets were not those living next to the playground.

11.28 It is generally not Council policy to install toilets at neighbourhood reserves, however Council acknowledges the popularity of this park and the issues raised in submissions and is looking at a range of options to address the issues. These options would include doing nothing or installing a temporary facility such as a portaloo on a trial basis.

11.29 Whatever the outcome of this work, the need for the facility will be reviewed once the Rutherford Park destination play space is developed as it is expected that the demand for the Hockey Reserve would decrease after this because people travelling to a playground would instead visit the Rutherford Park destination play space.

Pioneer Park fence

11.30 One submitter (12579) requested that Council provide a safer fence along the playground side of Pioneer Park along Washington Drive, and requests a full 1.2m fence with self closing gates along the Washington Road side of the playground.

11.31 Council officers consider that, given the safety aspects of this request, it should be carried out during 2017/18. It is expected that this request can be delivered from existing budgets.

Natureland Wildlife Trust

11.32 Natureland Wildlife Trust made a submission requesting additional funding so that additional staff members can be employed and animal-to-keeper ratios can be reduced at a cost of $48,000 for each year, as part of the Natureland funding

11.33 Since the agreement was established between Natureland and Council there have been changes in health and safety legislation. Natureland has made improvements during this time. Natureland has submitted to previous Annual Plans requesting further operational funding which was not granted as the current agreement is for $200,000 per annum. This agreement expires in 2018 and at this time further funding is not confirmed.

11.34 Through this Annual Plan, Council needs to decide whether to decline Natureland’s request for further funding, accept its request and budget $48,000 for this, or accept the request and alter the amount and/or require match funding.

11.35 Natureland is requesting both an experienced FTE staff member ($48,000) and a 0.5 FTE ($20,000 to $25,000) and is proposing that existing fundraising would contribute to the costs of the 0.5FTE. If Council requests match funding, the costs to Council would be $36,500, with the remaining $36,500 to come from Natureland fundraising.

Sports groups requests

11.36 Although Council is currently carrying out a Long Term Plan 2018-28 pre-consultation process with sports groups seeking information on the activities, trends, facility use, priority projects for each code, some groups have also provided a submission to Council’s Annual Plan.

11.37 Nelson Marching (12710) requested that Council provide funding, noting that marching in Nelson has decreased due to lack of funding. Nelson Bays Football made a submission (12444) highlighting the needs of the sport at various parks and outlining the needs of the sport moving forward. FC Nelson (12841) made a submission about the improvements desired at Guppy and Neale Parks. Nelson BMX Club Inc noted continued interest in a new, all-weather BMX track at Saxton Field and asked for additional assistance with track maintenance (12516).

11.38 These groups will be provided with further information about Council’s engagement with sports groups ahead of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and be invited to participate in this process.

11.39 Specific requests were made about the Trafalgar Park Turf renewal and the timing of this project as well as Neale Park. The Trafalgar Park sand carpet replacement is scheduled for October 2017, which gives the best opportunity for turf root growth prior to the 2018 winter season. A renovation of Neale Park will occur in conjunction with the Trafalgar Park sand carpet replacement, while other requests from FC Nelson and Nelson Bays Football in relation to these facilities will be investigated through the Parks and Facilities Asset Management Plan 2018-28.

Modellers Pond

11.40 In March, Council confirmed the preferred option for the Modellers Pond, which is to modify the pond at a cost of $1.2 million. At this meeting, Council also noted the contributions to the project from the Nelson Society of Modellers and established a Project Group and Terms of Reference. The Resource Consent has since been applied for.

11.41 Several submitters comment on the large expense of this pond for a small number of users.

12. Economic

Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA)

12.1 There was some concern that the economies envisaged by bringing agencies together had not eventuated and budgets were proposed to increase. Also that the economic development budget was being removed to allow this extra support.

12.2 The economic development fund has previously been used to provide support for unbudgeted economic development opportunities that come to the attention of the NRDA during the year. In most years the budget is not fully spent, and administering unprogrammed projects detracts from the programmed work. The new funding in this Annual Plan is to support the project NRDA has identified as its key focus area, the regional identity project. This is a more strategic use of economic development funding.

13. Corporate

Freedom camping bylaw

13.1 A number of submitters commented on problems with freedom camping in the city. They will be advised that Council has resolved to prepare a bylaw to address freedom camping with a view to having it in place in time for the next summer season. Consultation on the bylaw will occur before it is adopted.

13.2 Section 16 of this report outlines further information about the budget required for enforcement of the bylaw.

City amenity bylaw

13.3 There was concern raised about Lewis Stanton’s continued occupation of the site on Trafalgar Street. Other submitters comment on the proposed city amenity bylaw. These submitters have been advised that Council has drafted a City Amenity Bylaw which is open for submissions from 27 April to 29 May 2017.

Christmas display

13.4 There were a few submissions with mixed views on the proposal to fund an improved Christmas display in the CBD. Council allocated $100,000 in the draft Annual Plan for initiatives to improve the festive atmosphere of the central city during Christmas time, following comments from some visitors about the limited number of decorations and lack of memorable festive feel. Last year approximately $30,000 was spent on decorations and the Christmas Elves initiative.

13.5 Officers have investigated different kinds of Christmas displays, lighting, trees and decorations that have been used in other New Zealand cities. Lighting displays are not deemed to be the best option as they won’t be visible until late in the evening so won’t improve the Christmas feel of the city during the day. Lighting also comes with a high cost of both purchase and installation. Other cities have commented that lighting is more beneficial during the winter months, and this is something that Council could consider through the CBD enhancement in future years of the Long Term Plan. Lighting may also take more than one year to design and install, so funding would need to be allocated over two years.

13.6 Projectors were also considered as an option, to project light onto buildings or screens. Projected light has a similar problem to Christmas lighting with it being dark too late, and has an added disadvantage of requiring expensive projectors and prepared content.

13.7 Retailers are not willing to contribute over this time as Christmas is the busy season and their efforts are focussed elsewhere. Uniquely Nelson have confirmed that a Christmas tree would be its preferred option.

13.8 A new, approximately 10m, artificial Christmas tree and tree decorations for Upper Trafalgar St could be provided within the allocated budget. Other cities have noted issues with Christmas trees needing to provide security from vandalism and to stop people climbing it, and to ensure that the tree is erected safely and held in place so there is no risk to the community of it falling.

13.9 It is recommended that Council purchase a Christmas tree and decorations with the funding and arrange for the placement, storage, security and installation. Any remaining funding should be used to add locally designed Christmas banners, and further explore Christmas options for future years.

13.10 If Council decides that the tree is the best option, the tree would need to be ordered shortly, and there is a possibility that the funding would need to be brought to 2016/17 to confirm the order.

Recommendation

That the Council

Confirms that the $100,000 included in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 be used to purchase a Christmas tree and decorations for Christmas 2017, noting that funding may need to be brought forward to 2016/17 in order to confirm the order for the tree before June.

Haven Precinct

13.11 Six submitters commented on the Haven Precinct, either in support of, or questioning the funding for the precinct. Council included $150,000 in the 2016/17 Annual Plan for early concept design and this work has been undertaken. Of the budget included in the Annual Plan 2017/18, $50,000 is for operational expenditure to continue concept design work and to prepare for engagement, $250,000 is for any detailed design of the precinct, and $300,000 is included to commence any potential capital enabling works at the precinct.

Nelson City Brass Band and City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band

13.12 Several submitters acknowledged Council’s support for the Nelson City Brass Band in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 and supported this. The City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band (12338), requested funding of $20,000 from Council for travel, maintenance of musical instruments, new instruments and uniforms for the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band. A number of separate submissions requested that Council support the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band, in the same way that Council supports the Nelson City Brass Band.

13.13 Council currently provides $13,000 to the Nelson City Brass Band to perform at Council and Civic events (Isel in Bloom, Masked Parade, RSA Remembrance Day Parade, Broadgreen Rose Day, Santa Parade and Carnivale, Lantern Parade, Carols by Candlelight and ANZAC day) which is part of an agreement with the Band. In addition Council made provision for a one-off grant of $20,000 in the draft Annual Plan as a contribution towards new uniforms for the Nelson City Brass Band. Although funding was included in the 2017/18 Annual Plan for band uniforms, the band has advised the Mayor that this funding will be required in 2016/17, in order to order the uniforms now. Officers consider that $20,000 will be able to be provided from savings made in existing underspent corporate activity budgets for 2016/17 for this request.

13.14 Nelson City Brass was first established in 1857. The major sponsor of the band is the Council, and the band is Council’s civic band. It is the only organisation within the community able to use the city’s crest as its emblem.

13.15 The City of Nelson Highland Pipe band was formed in 1924 and although does perform at civic events such as at the opening of the Trafalgar Centre, it does not do so regularly. It has not been supported in the same way as Nelson City Brass as it is not a ‘civic band’. Previously, before the changes to the Community Investment Fund, the City of Nelson Highland Pipe Band received $2,500 per year between 2011/12 and 2014/15 with an additional one off grant in 2013/14. This assistance can no longer be provided through Community Investment Funding.

Recommendation

That the Council

Retains $13,000 funding for the Nelson City Brass contract at Civic events; and

Funds the $20,000 for Nelson City Brass uniforms from underspent 2016/17 budgets in the corporate activity instead of through the Annual Plan 2017/18.

13.16 Since changes to community assistance funding were brought in a number of groups have expressed concern that because they do not fit within the definition of social development they are no longer eligible for Council support. These groups span a number of areas such as community safety, art, music, sport etc. There are examples among the submitters to this Annual Plan but officers are aware of others that are affected such as the rescue helicopter or the Nelson Symphony Orchestra. As part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28, Council might wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to have contestable funding available for other groups that deliver against outcomes that align with Council priorities.

NMIT Campus development

13.17 NMIT’s submission outlined the development of a new plan for the campus and changes to pedagogy to future proof the Institute. The new campus plan offered opportunities to open the campus up to the community and provide a better interface with the CBD. NMIT is keen to develop the partnership with Council and work together on proposals that could be included in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

13.18 Instead of Council providing money for this project in 2017/18, it is recommended that staff resource be included to allow for a partnership to develop and so that projects can be considered through the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

13.19 The written campus plan will be provided to Council when it has been received from the NMIT board.

Saxton development

13.20 Submissions were received from Summerset Villages (Richmond) Ltd (12820) and Wakatu Incorporation (12732), in relation to infrastructure projects related to developments in the Saxton area. These projects are discussed below.

13.21 In relation to the projects identified in submissions, if they are not already included in Council’s current Long Term Plan, officers will be undertaking business cases to determine whether they should be proposed for inclusion in the next Long Term Plan. If developers wish to proceed ahead of the necessary infrastructure projects required to support that development being included in the Long Term Plan and constructed by Council, the developer(s) will need to construct those projects. In this situation a Private Developers Agreement could be entered into (if Council were of a mind to), which can specify any offset of the growth costs of those projects against Development Contributions.

Stoke foothills study

13.22 Council, through this Annual Plan, has included a budget to continue developing the business case of the transport improvements identified in the Stoke Foothills Transport Study. The study includes Hill Street to Suffolk Road, Hill Street North, roundabout upgrades, as well as other projects. This business case is intended to provide detailed information that can be used in preparing the Long Term Plan 2018-28. The projects will be prioritised and co-ordinated with Tasman District Council and considered for implementation through the Regional Land Transport Plan and Long Term Plan 2018-28 and both councils programmes under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity.

13.23 As noted, if developers wish to develop ahead of the projects being included in the Long Term Plan and constructed by Council, then the developers can choose to construct the projects themselves, and seek an offset against development contributions via a Private Developers Agreement.

Bridging of Ngati Rarua Street

13.24 Wakatu Incorporation requested that Council cover the installation of the 11.5m carriageway bridge across Saxton Creek at Ngati Rarua Street. Council plans to construct a 9.5m wide bridge which allows for a two lane carriageway and two footpaths and meets the sub-collector road standards in the Land Development Manual. This is sufficient standard to support residential development in the area.

13.25 Officers have contacted Wakatu Incorporation for further clarification about its submission in relation to the bridging of Saxton Stream from Hill Street North. Wakatu have clarified that they no longer request Council to make a change to the Annual Plan as a result of this part of their submission. The bridging of Saxton Stream from Hill Street North does not impact on their development.

Water supply

13.26 Wakatu Incorporation (12732) requested that the cost of the water supply from Saxton Road to Saxton Special Housing Area is met through Development Contributions under the Long Term Plan. This request will be considered through the Long Term Plan

13.27 Summerset (12820) requested that Nelson South be serviced by Council reticulated water as soon as possible. This request will be considered through the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

13.28 Officers propose that a water main from Saxton Road to the Special Housing Area be considered for inclusion through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and Development Contribution Schedule. As noted above, if developers wish to develop ahead of the necessary infrastructure projects required to support that development being in the Long Term Plan and constructed by Council, then the developer(s) will need to construct those projects. In this situation a Private Developers Agreement could be entered into (if Council were of a mind to), which can specify any offset of the growth costs of those projects against Development Contributions.

Elms Street Wastewater

13.29 Summerset Villages (Richmond) Ltd (12820) and Wakatu Incorporation (12732), requested an upgrade to the Elms Street wastewater network and that the upgrade be paid for through development contributions.

13.30 The proposed upgrade to the Elms Street sewer will be considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28. The more localised upgrade of the network through the Daelyn Subdivision will be accommodated as part of operational work when the works are constructed by the developer. As noted, if developers wish to develop ahead of the necessary infrastructure projects required to support that development being in the Long Term Plan and constructed by Council, then the developer(s) will need to construct those projects. In this situation a Private Developers Agreement could be entered into (if Council were of a mind to), which can specify any offset of the growth costs of those projects against Development Contributions.

Saxton Creek upgrade

13.31 Wakatu Incorporation (12732) and Summerset (12820) supported Saxton Creek upgrades and note a linkage with housing developments in the area. Work at Saxton Creek will continue through 2017/18.

14. Rates, debt and affordability

Rates

14.1 A number of submitters urged Council to focus on core services and reduce spending in other areas in order to keep rates affordable. Some submitters compare rates increases to inflation.

14.2 The items included in the basket of goods measured by the Consumer Price Index represent the overall expenditure patterns of New Zealand households (items such as food, health, clothing and footwear). Such items are not directly relevant to, and do not reflect the expenditure patterns of local authorities.

14.3 Council costs are often considerably more than CPI or general inflation due to: increased capital expenditure generating more interest, depreciation, and maintenance costs; reductions in government funding where Council has decided to maintain service levels; and cost increases for significant items (such as insurance and construction) which are projected to increase at a higher rate than general inflation.

Commercial rating

14.4 Submitter 12435 submitted on the differences between rates being paid by inner city Bed and Breakfast businesses, compared to hotels and motels, noting that Council rates and water are the highest operating cost and increasing faster than inflation. Calculating the effect of rating policy on individuals is complex and where a change in policy may benefit some individuals, it will penalise others.

14.5 The commercial rating burden was also raised by other submitters.

14.6 Council is looking at the commercial rating burden as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and can consider this issue as part of this.

Staff costs

14.7 Some submitters expressed concern over the size of increases in the staffing budget.

14.8 The reason for the difference between the 2016/17 and 2017/18 budgeted staff expenditure is as follows:

· An increase in resource to meet legislative requirements in three areas: National Policy Statements, Health and Safety, and Public Records Act.

· An increase in resource in the property area (to manage Council’s property assets), the parks and facilities area (in part to provide succession planning for a long term staff member in this area), and in the infrastructure planning area.

· A change in the method of budgeting for cadets (students from NMIT undergoing work placement). These are now shown in base salaries budget line.

· A small increase as a result of the increase in library hours

14.9 Recent analysis has shown that Nelson City Council has a lower ratio of staff expenditure to overall expenses when compared with other comparative local government organisations.

15. Submitter information

Submitter clarification

15.1 Submitters were asked the organisation they represent when making their submissions. Some submitters have provided an organisation name, the organisation they work for or are a member of, however do not present the official views of that organisation.

15.2 For example the official submission from the NMDHB is 12750, of the Department of Conservation is 12720, Menzshed Wakatu is 12734, and the Brook Sanctuary is 12767.

16. Additional decisions

Exceptions reports

16.1 The usual process for reporting of exceptions to projects has continued during the Annual Plan development and consultation period, with reports being received by Committees and changes to project scope, timing and budgets approved by Council over this time. These approved changes will be included in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

16.2 In addition, further exceptions reports are in progress and scheduled on a number of another of other items, and these exceptions will continue to go through their regular processes of Committee and Council approval.

16.3 For the final Annual Plan preparation, it will be assumed that exceptions reports in progress will be approved by Council. This allows the best estimate of budgets to be included in the Annual Plan. Exceptions reports will still go through their regular process, and should any changes not be agreed by Council through this process, they will be changed in the 2017/18 operating budgets to reflect Council’s decision.

16.4 The exceptions are expected have little or no impact on rates or debt.

Freedom camping enforcement

16.5 Following the development of the freedom camping bylaw, if adopted, the bylaw will need to be implemented, by way of enforcement. It is expected that the freedom camping bylaw will be consulted on in 2017 and adopted before the summer in 2017/18. Enforcement would involve patrols, processing general complaints and general administration and is expected to cost $100,000 per year.

16.6 It is recommended that Council fund the enforcement of a freedom camping bylaw through this Annual Plan 2017/18 so that if adopted, the bylaw will be able to be implemented in the first summer of operation. If the bylaw does not go ahead, the funding would not be required.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that $100,000 be included in the Annual Plan 2017/18, as a provision, for enforcement of the freedom camping bylaw if the bylaw is adopted.

Museum street frontage

16.7 The Joint Shareholders Committee of 11 April 2017 considered the issue of the tinted windows at the museum and recommended that $15,000 be considered in the deliberations for the Annual Plan 2017/18 for this matter.

16.8 As discussed in the report to the Joint Shareholders Committee of 11 April, the current windows give an outside view that the museum is closed or has little activity inside. The Trust has investigated options and has decided that the windows need to be replaced, at a cost of $25,000. Council funding was requested for this amount. The Committee suggested that a contribution of $15,000 could be given to Tasman Bays Heritage Trust (TBHT) towards the replacement of the windows, however given the decision did not fall within the delegations of the Joint Shareholders Committee, the Committee instead recommended that the item was considered in the Annual Plan deliberations.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that $15,000 be included in the Annual Plan 2017/18 to provide to the Tasman Bays Heritage Trust for Museum Street Frontage improvements at the recommendation of the Joint Shareholders Committee.

Civic House accommodation

16.9 In March, Council approved the release of a request for proposal to consultancy advice to inform any upgrade of Civic House office space. The implementation plan and budget will be reported to Council before the contract is awarded and any information about changes to the budget will be reported then. A workshop will be held with elected members during the development of concept plans.

Youth funding

16.10 Youth funding (of $100,000) currently sits in the Parks and Active Recreation activity group of Council. Once the Youth Strategy has been adopted, the funding will be allocated based on the priorities that the strategy sets, and as a result will likely sit better in the Social activity of Council.

16.11 The funding will be moved from the Parks and Active Recreation activity to the Social activity as part of finalising the Annual Plan 2017/18.

16.12 Modellers Pond

16.13 In addition to the capital works described above, $20,000 budget was included in 2017/18 for maintenance and cleaning of the pond. This is insufficient for the level of maintenance required but was not increased in the draft Annual Plan due to the pending decision on the solution to the pond. Given the solution is now confirmed, officers recommend that additional maintenance funding be increased to $45,000 to ensure that the maintenance budgets will cover the costs of the pond’s cleaning.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to increase the modellers pond maintenance budget to $45,000 in 2017/18.

Hydrology monitoring

16.1 The hydrology monitoring budget line had been reduced in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 as officers considered at time the budget would not be required as a result of the recruitment of a water quantity scientist who could undertake the required hydrology monitoring. What was not appreciated at the time of making the budget change was the amount of $31,500 is for a contract with Tasman District Council wholly to deliver Council’s required civil defence warning of flood events which is integrally tied to the reporting required jointly across both Tasman and Nelson. From an efficiency perspective and also in terms of a highly functioning delivery of service for civil defence purposes it is considered prudent and necessary to retain this sum.

16.2 The hydrology monitoring budget will need to remain the same as the amount that was included in the Long Term Plan for 2017/18.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to reinstate the hydrology monitoring budget line to $31,500 in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

Marina pontoon renewal

16.3 The marina pontoon renewal budget was removed in error during the draft Annual Plan development process. Instead of reducing the budget, it was removed entirely. $50,000 will be required in 2017/18 for high priority renewals at the Marina.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to reinstate the Marina Pontoon budget line at $50,000 in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

Atawhai landfill

16.4 In May 2016 Nelmac reported the presence of methane in a building at the Nelmac nursery next to Founders. The risk assessment indicated that the methane gas build up is linked to the fact that the nursery is developed on top of an old landfill. Further investigation showed that the old landfill extended well beyond the nursery and that the risk of landfill gas escaping from the old landfill could affect other activities within the footprint of the old Atawhai landfill.

16.5 Council instructed FOCUS Environmental Limited to assist Council to investigate the old landfill in terms of the New Zealand closed landfill protocols.

16.6 It is recommended Council allow $30,500 in the budget for the six-monthly gas emission monitoring that will be required by the closed landfill management plan during 2017/18.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to include $30,500 in the Annual Plan 2017/18 for a monitoring of the Atawhai closed landfill.

Stoke development

16.7 There is a need for some updates to the Stoke Urban Design Strategy before this Strategy can be brought to Council for sign off. This work is estimated to cost $10,000. In addition, it is recommended that funding of $2,500 be included for an opening event at the redeveloped Greenmeadows Community and Sport facility, once it is complete. Additional community engagement on Spotlight on Stoke and other Stoke redevelopments have been estimated to cost an additional $8,000 in 201718. It is recommended that funding for these three items be included in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

Recommendation

That the Council

Includes $20,500 in the Annual Plan 2017/18 for updates to the Stoke Urban Design Strategy, an opening event at the redeveloped facility at Greenmeadows and further community engagement at Stoke.

These items were not included in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18.

Stage Challenge

16.8 Council was approached earlier this year with a request to provide funding to support a youth performance event due to Stage Challenge being cancelled. Mayoral funds ($1,000) were provided to contribute a smaller alternative event, to be run this year by Nayland College. There was an expressed desire from the participating colleges for a larger ongoing youth performance event at the Trafalgar Centre, run by a third party.

16.9 If Council was of a mind to support such an initiative/event, the funding required would be between $25,000 and $30,000. This could be considered for support from the $100,000 allocated in 2017/18 for youth activities. The appropriate use of the $100,000 is to be considered following the adoption of a Youth Strategy and will be in line with Council’s objectives in that Strategy.

17. Spreadsheet of responses to submitters

17.1 All submitters will either be emailed or posted a response to their submission, following deliberations and the adoption of the Annual Plan by Council.

17.2 Those submissions or themes of submitter requests that have been discussed through this deliberations report will be responded to based on the discussion in this report and any additional discussion at the meeting as well as any resolutions made by Council. Those submissions or submitter requests that are not discussed in this report will be responded to using the suggested responses in the attached spreadsheet.

17.3 The spreadsheet contains those responses that are smaller, submitter specific or responses where the submitter is asking for additional information about a decision or project. Council may wish to make changes to the wording or any additional suggestions to the responses included in this spreadsheet before approving.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the spreadsheet in Attachment 1, as amended, be used as the basis of responses to submitters on matters raised and to amend the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 as necessary.

18. Options

18.1 Council can deliberate on the submissions to the Annual Plan 2017/18 and use any decisions from these deliberations to amend the Annual Plan 2017/18 before its adoption on 22 June 2017. It is recommended that Council either follow option 1 or 2 below.

18.2 Council could adopt the Annual Plan 2017/18 with no changes. This is not recommended as it would not take into account the submissions that were received.

Option 1: Resolve to make changes to Annual Plan in line with the recommendations in this report
Advantages	· Advice has been sought from officers on the ability to deliver these recommendations. · The Annual Plan 2017/18 will be updated to reflect resolutions made and the work programme for 2017/18 adjusted accordingly.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not all submitters will receive what they have requested in submissions.
Option 2: Alter the recommended resolutions before making them or make additional resolutions
Advantages	· Council can alter recommended resolutions or make additional resolutions in order to make changes to the Annual Plan that the community has asked for during consultation.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Further officer advice may need to be sought in order to make a resolution or recommended change that can be delivered. · Adding projects to the work programme may involve deferring other projects of a lower priority.
Option 3: Do not alter the Annual Plan following submissions
Advantages	· If Council considers no changes are required following submissions, this option can be considered. · No change to projects or financials from what was consulted on.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Feedback from submitters would not result in changes, and the public may lose confidence that they are being heard by Council.

19. Conclusion

Submissions were sought between 17 March and 18 April. Council heard submitters on 10 and 11 May. At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the changes to make to the Annual Plan for 2017/18, and the Annual Plan will be updated accordingly, before going to a Council meeting on 22 June for adoption.

Jane Loughnan

Policy Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: Spreadsheet of responses to submitters for issues not covered in this deliberations report (A1759788) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Adopting an Annual Plan fits with the purpose of local government as it sets out how Council will deliver and provide infrastructure, services and regulatory functions during 2017/18.

Deliberations on submissions allow Council to consider the community views on Council’s planned work programme for 2017/18 and make changes to the draft Annual Plan based on this feedback.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Annual Plan is an exceptions document, outlining changes from what was set out in year three of the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

3. Risk

Decisions through deliberations on the Annual Plan will provide direction to Council officers to amend the Annual Plan 2017/18 for adoption by Council on 22 June.

There is a risk that Council will make decisions on the Annual Plan in response to submissions that some submitters do not agree with or that there are insufficient staff resources to implement.

4. Financial impact

The rates rise proposed in the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 was 2.8%. This was in line with what was proposed for 2017/18 through the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

Decisions as part of the deliberations that require changes to budget for 2017/18 will impact on this rates rise.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Annual Plan is of high significance because it directly impacts on Council’s work programme and rates for the 2017/18 year. Appropriate consultation has been carried out on this matter.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori were consulted through the submission process on the Consultation Document.

7. Delegations

The preparation and adoption of an Annual Plan is a decision of Council.