Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

18 May 2017

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 30 March 2017 8 - 12

Document number M2465

Recommendation

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 30 March 2017, as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 18 May 2017 13 - 14

Document number R7687

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 18 May 2017 (R7687) and its attachment (A1150321)

Transport and Roading

7. Tahunanui Cycle Network 15 - 68

Document number R6843

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Tahunanui Cycle Network (R6843), and its attachments (A1733699, A1737407, A1717577, A1737416, A1737426, A1746444); and

Approves progression through to detailed design and construction of Option 2 – Various Facility Types in the attached business case (A171577) and summarised in report R6843.

8. Maitai To Rocks Road Cycle Path - Approval of Route 69 - 101

Document number R6844

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Maitai To Rocks Road Cycle Path - Approval of Route (R6844), and its attachments (A1713781, A1724341, A1721138, A1721185); and

Approves, progression through to detailed design and construction of Option 2 as detailed in report R6844 – a Seaward Shared Path and Improved On-Road Commuter Cycle Lanes; and

Supports, the project be funded entirely by Central Government’s Urban Cycleway Fund, subject to the New Zealand Transport Association agreement; and

Notes, that New Zealand Transport Association will be seeking internal approval to lead the project delivery of the approved option 2, noting the requirement for Nelson City Council officers to still be involved.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves, removal of the $1,579,785 funding and $1,053,190 income line for this project from the 2017/18 Annual Plan, subject to New Zealand Transport Association internal approval for funding and leading project delivery.

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

9. Capital Expenditure Programme 2016-17 Quarter 3 Progress Report 102 - 108

Document number R6963

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Capital Expenditure Programme 2016-17 Quarter 3 Progress Report (R6963).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves, with respect to project 1098 Walkway Lighting programme, that the project be removed from the 2016-17 work programme, noting that $46,175 will not be spent in the current financial year; and

Approves, with respect to project 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade, that $1,000,000 of 2016-17 budget be transferred to 2017-18 budget to align with the scheduled construction programme; and

Approves, with respect to project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade, that $865,055 of 2016-17 budget be transferred to 2017-18 and that $305,195 additional budget be allocated to 2017-18 ; and

Approves, with respect to completed projects, that $799,117 from 2016-17 budgets is released as savings; and

Approves, with respect to projects continuing into 2017-18, that $3,045,121 of 2016-17 budget be transferred to the respective project budgets for 2017-18; and

Approves, with respect to completed stormwater projects, that $419,805 of 2016-17 budget savings be transferred to project 1100 York Stream Culvert upgrade 2017-18 budget.

Public Excluded Business

10. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Committee

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:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 30 March 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).
2	Status Report -Public Excluded - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 18 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)
3	Nelson City Roading Maintenance Contract 2017-2020 EC3855 - Tender Approval	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
4	Low Street road stopping - further update on process	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)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 30 March 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).

Status Report -Public Excluded - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 18 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)

Nelson City Roading Maintenance Contract 2017-2020 EC3855 - Tender Approval

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Low Street road stopping - further update on process

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)

11. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

That the Committee

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Lynda Ly and Fynn Sawyer will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee

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

On Thursday 30 March 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Present: Councillor P Matheson (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland, B Dahlberg, M Lawrey, G Noonan, T Skinner and S Walker (Deputy Chairperson)

In Attendance: Councillors I Barker, M Courtney and B McGurk, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Manager Capital Projects (S Davies), Team Leader Engineer (D Light), Team Leader Administration Advisers (R Byrne), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Youth Councillors (L Wilkes and J Riley)

Apology: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (for lateness)

1. Apologies

Her Worship the Mayor’s apology for lateness was noted.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chair advised that the Committee meeting would adjourn at 9.15am to allow a Council meeting to commence, and would reconvene once the Council meeting ended.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

4.1 Richard Adams

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 9.02am. Councillors Lawrey and Skinner joined the meeting at 9.03am.

Mr Adams spoke in support of the proposed improvements and one way concept for Church Street and suggested the changes would reduce antisocial behaviour and vandalism.

4.2 Gary Cox

Mr Cox spoke in support of the proposed improvements and one way concept for Church Street, and provided a handout (A1738090).

Mr Cox indicated that, should finance be a concern, businesses on Church Street would likely be open to working with Council on this matter. In response to a question, Mr Cox said he believed there was one occupied residence amongst the buildings on Church Street.

Attachments

1 A1738090 - Gary Cox Church Street Enhancement Group Handout

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 9.11am to 11.18am, during which time Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner left the meeting.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 16 February 2017

Document number M2328, agenda pages 7 - 12 refer.

Resolved WI/2017/009

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 16 February 2017, as a true and correct record.

Walker/Lawrey Carried

6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 March 2017

Document number R7366, agenda pages 13 - 17 refer.

Resolved WI/2017/011

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 30 March 2017 (R7366) and its attachment (A1150321).

Matheson/Walker Carried

7. Church Street Improvement - Concept Design Approval

Document number R7018, agenda pages 18 - 56 refer.

Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies, presented the report.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 11.21am.

Mr Davies responded to questions regarding catenary lighting, stakeholder feedback, design aspects, cyclist use of the area, contingency funds, closure of the street, and security cameras.

Several Committee members felt that discussions could be held with business and property owners regarding financial contribution towards catenary lighting to enable this to proceed.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 11.40am.

Resolved WI/2017/012

That the Committee

Receives the report Church Street Improvement - Concept Design Approval (R7018) and its attachments (A1719565; A1719554; A1569724).

Acland/Lawrey Carried

Resolved WI/2017/013

That the Committee

Approves the concept design as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1719554) of report R7018 for the improvement of Church Street that will allow detailed design and construction to proceed; and

Directs officers to engage in further discussions with business and property owners to establish if a financial contribution can be achieved to enable catenary lighting on Church Street, noting the budget limitation for lighting for this project.

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

8. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved WI/2017/014

That the Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Dahlberg/Lawrey Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 16 February 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).
2	Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 March 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)
3	Low Street - proposed road stopping	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)
4	Saxton Creek Upgrade - Stage 2 Property Negotiations	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 16 February 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).

Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 30 March 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)

Low Street - proposed road stopping

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)

Saxton Creek Upgrade - Stage 2 Property Negotiations

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.44am and resumed in public session at 12.26pm, during which time Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting.

9. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2017/015

That the Committee

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Matheson/Acland Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.26pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Works and Infrastructure Committee

18 May 2017

REPORT R6843

Tahunanui Cycle Network

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the cycle route and physical layout (facility type) and additional budget to serve the community of Tahunanui and to connect the existing principle coastal cycling network facilities located at the Airport and Tahunanui Beach.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Tahunanui Cycle Network (R6843), and its attachments (A1733699, A1737407, A1717577, A1737416, A1737426, A1746444); and

Approves, progression through to detailed design and construction of Option 2 – Various Facility Types in the attached business case (A171577) and summarised in report R6843.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves, a transfer of $220,786 from the 2016/17 financial year to the 2017/18 financial year; and

Approves, an additional funding of $435,000 ($290,000 New Zealand Transport Association/ UCF contribution) be included in the 2017/18 financial year.

3. Background

3.1 On the 26 November 2015 Council considered a programme of works for active transport as part of the ‘Out and About’ policy and resolved (Resolution No WI/2015/021):

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

· Tahunanui Cycle Network

· Rocks Road

· Rocks Road to Maitai

· Maitai Path

· Anzac Park Link

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

3.2 This report specifically covers the Tahunanui Cycle Network project.

3.3 For completeness the status of the other projects listed above are briefly covered below:

· Rocks Road to Maitai – Consultation completed and subject to a separate report to this committee on 18 May 2017;

· Rocks Road – Being delivered by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) – currently on hold as awaiting outcome of the NZTA Southern Link investigation;

· Anzac Park Link – Detail design underway and targeting completion by end of Mid 2017;

· Maitai Path – Included in Draft Annual Plan 2017/18 as ‘Maitai Connections, Maitai to Eastern Residential Areas’ for public engagement and concept design in 2017/18.

4. Discussion

4.1 This project is eligible for external Government funding from both NZTA through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) and the Central Government through the Urban Cycling Programme Fund (UCF).The current proposed funding for this project is split evenly between NCC, NZTA and UCF (33.33% each).

4.2 A condition of the UCF funding is that all UCF funded projects have to be substantively completed no later than June 2018.

4.3 The aim of this project is to provide a safe and efficient cycle route through Tahunanui for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists. This project is required to meet current and future demand for a connection along the coastal route between the airport and the CBD. The proposed route for the new cycle facility is shown in Attachment 1.

4.4 The project will benefit local children of Tahunanui cycling to school, commuters, and the recreational cyclists by linking existing components of the cycling network.

4.5 The proposal involves the upgrade of the existing road and footpath infrastructure on Bolt Road, Parkers Road, Roto Street, Green Street and Golf Road (refer to Attachment 2).

4.6 The Business Case (Attachment 3) describes in more detail the options, benefits, risks, costs, assumptions, previous route investigations, and drivers for the project.

4.7 The project supports objectives set out in the ‘Out and About’ policy by providing connections to existing facilities to improve routes for active travel and recreational journeys. This policy can be found on Council website.

4.8 The proposal is expected to reduce conflict between vehicles and cyclists by providing specific facilities, with more space for cyclists, and by slowing traffic speeds.

4.9 The route will provide a viable alternative to the use of State Highway 6 Tahunanui Drive for cyclists using the coastal route.

4.10 Other route options have been eliminated as they do not satisfy requirements for safety, connectivity, minimal loss of parking, avoidance of busy roads, cost and private land constraints. The preferred route is achievable in the required timeframes as set by the UCF funding criteria, whereas other options are not.

4.11 It is impossible for a single route to cater for the cycling demands of the whole Tahunanui suburb given the constraints, but the proposed route will provide an important link between existing facilities for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists for a significant portion of the area.

4.12 NZTA are currently investigating minor works projects to remove pinch points for confident cyclists on Tahunanui/Annesbrook Drive. Another project to investigate an off-road facility on Tahunanui Drive is planned through the LTP. Council has a future project to improve the current walking facility around the airport perimeter with a shared path. These projects would complement the proposed route in providing comprehensive cycle facilities for Tahunanui, and cater for cycling journey demands over a wider area than just the proposed scheme alone.

4.13 There are 4 options for the physical layout of the facility on each street within the project length. These are summarised below:

Type A: Two-Way Separated Cycle Path

The cycle path is independent of the footpath and traffic lanes and caters for cyclists travelling in both directions. The path is separated from the adjacent traffic lane by a physical barrier such as linear concrete kerb or planted strip. There is no parking adjacent to the cycle path on the traffic lane side, ensuring good visibility. Where adjacent berm areas are wide enough, parking provision can be installed to counter the removal of on-street parking spaces. Example is St. Vincent St.

Type B: Off-road Combined Path

The 3m wide two-way cycle path is immediately adjacent to the footpath, and delineated from the footpath by line-marking. The path is usually constructed through grass berm area, and with the footpath, the width can be a total of 4.5m.

Type C: Off-road Shared Path

The cycle path is constructed behind the road kerb and often utilizes space previously occupied by footpath and vegetated berm. Cyclists travelling in both directions share space with pedestrians on a 3m wide path. The path requires a buffer zone on both sides – adjacent to on-street parked cars and property fences.

Type D: Neighbourhood Greenway

There is no dedicated cycle path. Cyclists share the road space in a reduced-speed environment which relies on physical constraints/pinches and visual prompts to promote lower speeds. Speed tables or humps can be used. Used in quiet local residential streets. Spin-off benefits in terms of improved aesthetics through landscaping, and improved amenity through slower traffic speeds.

4.14 Attachment 4 graphically illustrates the different cycle facility types. (Reference: Christchurch City Cycle Design Guidelines 2013, and Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides 2014)

4.15 All these options have featured in the material examined in the consultation process with stakeholders and the public. Refer to Section 5 below, and Attachment 5, for further detail on submissions.

4.16 The advantages and disadvantages of each cycle path type, together with an assessment of the suitability of each facility type for the different road sections along the route are detailed in Attachment 6. The officers recommendation is summarised below:

Route Section	Suitability of Cycle Facility Type for Each Route Section
Route Section	Type A Two-way Separated Cycle Path	Type B Off-road Combined Path	Type C Off-Road Shared Path	Type D Neighbourhood Greenway
Bolt Road, Trent Drive to Cohen Place	X	X	P	X
Bolt Road, Cohen Place to Parkers Rd	P	X	X	X
Roto and Green Streets	X	X	X	P
Golf Road	P	X	X	X

5. Stakeholder and Public Submissions

5.1 Options have been out for public consultation (ended 22 February 2017).

In summarising submissions, of which 60% support the route, the following preferences have been collated for the facility type:

Route Section	Cycle Facility Type
Bolt Road, Trent Drive to Cohen Place	Type A, Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Bolt Road, Cohen Place to Parkers Rd	Type A, Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Roto and Green Streets	Type A, Two-way Separated Cycle Path (with Landscaped Separation)
Golf Road	Type B, Off-road Combined Path. (Type A was a close second)

5.2 Bicycle Nelson Bays have provided modest support for the route but have also indicated a preference for a route which utilises Muritai Street and Pascoe Street via a crossing point on Parkers Rd.

5.3 Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust have provided support for the route but have also stated that an additional route around the airport perimeter should be developed, and have stated that the proposed route is a missed opportunity to provide a safe route to Tahunanui School for children.

5.4 Chris Allison (of Bicycle Nelson Bays, but as a private submission) states that the proposed route will not adequately address the need to provide a north-south link for the target largest group of ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists, and that an option using the Mitre10 site and Pascoe Street should be pursued.

5.5 Stuart Hughes (of Cycle Trails Trust, but as a private submission) has submitted in strong support for the proposed route and has offered to assist in technical aspects of implementation.

5.6 Submission from Youth Council (101 youth surveyed):

Type A facility over whole route – Preferred by 56%

Type B facility over whole route – Preferred by 13%

Type C facility over whole route – Preferred by 21%

Type D facility over whole route – Preferred by 5%

5.7 See Attachment 5 for a summary of submission feedback.

6. Options

6.1 There are three options detailed in the Business Case (attachment 4) and described below:

Option 1: Do-Minimum – Improve Signage
This option includes route-finding signage only, to link existing facilities located at each end of the route. Estimated Cost - $135,000 (NCC share $67,500)
Advantages	· Very low cost · No loss of parking
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will not deliver desired benefits · Will not provide safety benefits associated with separating cyclists from traffic. · Unlikely to propagate an increase in cyclist numbers, especially the ‘interested but concerned’ user group. · Unclear whether this option meets the criteria for UCF funding. Therefore assumed it’s funded under the Minor Improvements Programme (NCC – 50%: NZTA – 50%)

Option 2: Various Facility Types, Preferred Option

This option involves installing a cycle facility type appropriate to the local road environment, classification and traffic volume. As the route consists of different types of road and adjacent land uses, the recommended cycle facility type differs from one route section to the next. Facility types have been selected to retain parking where possible, and to alleviate safety issues resulting from conflicts between parked cars, accesses and property fences. Surface water drainage issues have been considered, particularly where private property is below road and berm level.

Route Section	Cycle Facility Type (as recommended by officers)
Bolt Road – From Trent Drive to Cohen Place	Type C - Off-road Shared Path
Bolt Road – Cohen Place to Parkers Rd	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Roto and Green Streets	Type D - Neighbourhood Greenway
Golf Road	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path

Estimated Cost - $1,290,000 (NCC share $430,000)

Advantages

· Safe alternative for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists on facility types which have been selected as suitable for the local roading environment.

· Reduction in crash risk.

· Existing parking is generally retained (overall loss of approximately 40 spaces).

· Roto Street and Green Street will benefit from reduced traffic speeds and improved aesthetics and amenity.

· The facilities selected will alleviate issues with visibility at accesses and intersections (Lessons from St Vincent Street will be applied).

Risks and Disadvantages

· Lack of consistency regarding facility type may cause slight confusion by users, but this can be overcome through route-finding signage.

· Approximately 40 parking spaces removed over whole route, comprised of:

· 15 spaces on Bolt Road between Cohen Place and Parkers Rd (daytime 20-40% occupancy, nighttime 10% occupancy)

· 15 spaces on Roto and Green Streets (5-10% occupancy day & night)

· 10 spaces on Golf Rd (daytime 40% occupancy, nighttime 60% occupancy during January to March peak motel season)

On the residential part of Bolt Rd and on Golf Rd, it is possible to install parking spaces in current wide berm areas, which helps to mitigate the loss of on-road spaces in these two sections. Currently on Bolt Rd, Cohen Place to Parkers Rd, there is 40% occupancy of these grass berm areas at night. On Golf Rd there is currently no occupancy of grass berms.

Option 3: Consistent Facility of Same Type

This Option involves installing a consistent cycle facility type for the entire route irrespective of road classification, local environment and parking demands.

In the public submissions response there was greatest support for a Type A facility over most of the route. Therefore, a Two-way Separated Cycle Path has been selected for this option.

Route Section	Cycle Facility Type
Bolt Road – From Trent Drive to Cohen Place	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Bolt Road – Cohen Place to Parkers Rd	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Roto and Green Streets	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path
Golf Road	Type A - Two-way Separated Cycle Path

Estimated Cost - $1,150,000 (NCC share $383,333)

Advantages

· Safe alternative for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists.

· Reduction in crash risk.

· Consistency of facility provides clarity to the target users.

· Route-finding will be very clear.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Some parts of the route will feature poor visibilities between cyclists and parked or manoeuvring vehicles leading to safety concerns; particularly Roto Street and Green Street where there are numerous accesses with less available width.

· Significant reduction in parking - Overall loss of approximately 115 spaces comprised of:

· 45 spaces on Bolt Road between Trent Drive and Cohen Place (daytime 80% occupancy, nighttime 20% occupancy)

· 15 spaces on Bolt Road between Cohen Place and Parkers Rd (daytime 20-40% occupancy, nighttime 10% occupancy)

· 45 spaces on Roto and Green Streets (5-10% occupancy day & night)

· 10 spaces on Golf Rd (daytime 40% occupancy, nighttime 60% occupancy during January to March peak motel season)

As per Option 2, on the residential part of Bolt Rd and on Golf Rd, it is possible to install parking spaces in current wide berm areas, which helps to mitigate the loss of on-road spaces in these two sections. Currently on Bolt Rd, Cohen Place to Parkers Rd, there is 40% occupancy of these grass berm areas at night. On Golf Rd there is currently no occupancy of grass berms.

6.2 Officers recommend Option 2: Various Facility Types.

6.3 The recommended Option 2 differs from the community preference for a full-length Type A Separated Cycle Path facility due to on-site constraints such as traffic volumes, number of trucks, parking, available widths and road function and is summarised below:

· Bolt Road (Trent Drive to Cohen Place) - Council officers recommend Type C Off-road Shared Path, as this facility suits the available wide unused berm on Bolt Road and retains all parking and the on-road commuter cycle lanes.

· Roto and Green Street - Type D Neighbourhood Greenway suits Roto and Green Streets due to their low traffic volumes, residential land use and a local desire to encourage reduced vehicle speeds. Though two submissions on Roto Street supported Type A, two submissions on Green Street supported Type D. Council officer’s anticipate the removal of parking may have backlash from these local residents.

7. Finances

7.1 This project (along with several other projects for Nelson) is eligible for external Government funding from both NZTA through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) and the Central Government through the Urban Cycling Programme Fund (UCF).

7.2 A total amount of $3 Million UCF funding has been set aside for Nelson projects. A condition of the UCF funding is that all UCF funded projects have to be substantively completed no later than June 2018.

7.3 The current proposed funding for this project is split evenly between NCC, NZTA and UCF (33.33% each).

7.4 As reported to Works and Infrastructure in November 2015 (R4351), the following projects are subject to NZTA and/or UCF funding:

· Saltwater Creek Bridge (UCF);

· Rocks Road to Maitai (NZTA and UCF);

· Tahunanui Cycle Network (NZTA and UCF);

· Rocks Road – (NZTA and UCF).

7.5 There is a real risk that if the Works and Infrastructure Committee cannot reach a decision on the preferred option for this project then funding from the UCF would be lost as any delay in decision will severely limit officer’s ability to complete the project by June 2018. The implication of this would be that Council’s contribution would increase to 50% from the current 33.33% and this would have a negative impact on rates.

7.6 Funding for the implementation of this project is budgeted as follows:

· 2016/17 – $360,786

· 2017/18 – $496,595

7.7 The estimated cost for the preferred option 2 is $1.290 Million. Refer to the business case (attachment 3) for cost breakdown.

7.8 An additional $435,000 is required to cover construction cost contingencies due to present buoyant market conditions ($185,000), and unforeseen ground conditions and buried services ($250,000). Under the funding split, Councils’ contribution to this additional money is $145,000.

7.9 Requesting additional funding of $185,000 for the buoyant construction market is required now due to the time constraints set by the UCF funding. Any delay to achieve approval for additional money post tender will likely result in not completing construction by end of June 2018, and putting at risk the UCF funding contribution.

7.10 The 2016/17 forecast year end is estimated at $140,000 leaving $220,786 to be transferred into 17/18 financial year.

7.11 It is recommended that unspent budget of $220,786 be transferred from the 2016/17 financial year to the 2017/18 financial year to continue detail design and construction.

7.12 The preferred option 2 will add approximately $60,000 per annum in operational and maintenance costs, this cost will qualify for approximately 50% subsidy by NZTA.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The proposed route cannot cater for every cycle route desire, however it does provide an important linkage for the principle coastal cycle network. Any single route through Tahunanui is compromised by what is physically possible to construct, and the necessary timeframes to utilise the UCF funding.

8.2 There is a high risk that if the Works and Infrastructure Committee cannot reach a decision on the preferred route, then additional costs may need to be funded by Council if the project continues into the 2018/19 financial year.

8.3 The Indicative Business Case and associated Multiple Criteria Analysis supports Option 2, Various Facility Types for the following reasons:

· Best suits local road conditions, parking needs, traffic volumes, the developed environment and stakeholder submissions.

· Provides a route which feels continuous and reasonably consistent for the cyclist, whilst catering for the particular demands of local environs along the route.

8.4 This option differs from the community expectations in that facility Types C and D have been selected for two locations due to on-site constraints; being traffic volumes, parking, available widths and road function.

Paul D'Evereux

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: Coastal Cycle Route Overview(A1733699) ⇩

Attachment 2: Aerial Plan of Route (A1737407) ⇩

Attachment 3: Business Case (A1717577) ⇩

Attachment 4: Cycleway Types (A1737416) ⇩

Attachment 5: Consultation Feedback Summary (A1737426) ⇩

Attachment 6: Analysis of Cycle Facility Types (A1746444) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This project will link existing cycling infrastructure and promote active transport participation rates.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The 2015-25 Long Term Plan has set a target of 25% of all journeys to be undertaken by walking or cycling by 2018. The 2015-2021 Regional Land Transport Plan has set objectives to ensure the community has a range of travel choices and supports national strategies for energy efficiency.

The recommended scheme will contribute to these goals by appealing to a wide range of cyclists thereby promoting greater uptake of active travel modes, supporting Nelson’ Active Travel Hierarchy and Out and About policy.

3. Risk

It is likely that the recommended option will achieve the project objectives. However, as Tahunanui is a reasonably large suburb, the route may not cater for those that live some distance east of the route, or for those whose direct journey to school and amenities does not coincide with the route. Feedback from two Open Days confirmed that there was concern about the relevance of the route for trips to schools and colleges.

4. Financial impact

This project qualifies for 66.6% subsidy from the NZ Transport Agency (33.3% UCF, 33.3% NZTA)

Additional funds of $435,000 are necessary for Option 2 to proceed.

There is a budget of $360,786 allocated to this project in the 2016/17 financial year for investigation and design, and $496,595 allocated in the 2017/18 year for construction. It is proposed to carry-over $220,786 from the 2016/17 year into the 2017/18 year.

Ongoing maintenance and renewal requirements will be subsidised 51% by the NZ Transport Agency and include line-marking, surface sweeping, vegetation control, surfacing renewal, sign renewal and maintenance of concrete structures.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. The work is contained within road reserve. Existing private accesses to the road corridor are retained, but additional consideration will be required by drivers where the access crosses the cycleway. Depending on the cycleway type selected, some parking will be effected.

Engagement has been carried out as detailed in Section 6 of this report. The airport frontage and proposals for the upgrade of the Bolt Road / Parkers Road roundabout will be subject to future engagement activities.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been specifically consulted on this project.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for considering cycleways and shared pathways with an active transport focus, and has the power to approve projects related to this area of responsibility.

Works and Infrastructure Committee

18 May 2017

REPORT R6844

Maitai To Rocks Road Cycle Path - Approval of Route

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve a cycle route to connect the existing Maitai Shared Path near Wildman Avenue, to the proposed Haven Precinct and existing amenities on Wakefield Quay.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Maitai To Rocks Road Cycle Path - Approval of Route (R6844), and its attachments (A1713781, A1724341, A1721138, A1721185); and

Approves, progression through to detailed design and construction of Option 2 as detailed in report R6844 – a Seaward Shared Path and Improved On-Road Commuter Cycle Lanes; and

Supports, the project be funded entirely by Central Government’s Urban Cycleway Fund, subject to New Zealand Transport Association agreement; and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

3. Background

3.1 On 26 November 2015 Council considered a programme of works for active transport as part of the ‘Out and About’ policy and resolved (WI/2015/021):

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

· Tahunanui Cycle Network

· Rocks Road

· Maitai to Rocks Road

· Maitai Path

· Anzac Park Link

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

3.2 This report specifically covers the Maitai to Rocks Road project.

3.3 For completeness the status of the other projects listed above are briefly covered below:

· Tahunanui Cycle network – consultation completed and subject to a separate report to this committee on the 18 May 2017;

· Rocks Road – Being delivered by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) – currently on hold as awaiting outcome of the NZTA Southern Link investigation;

· Anzac Park Link – Detail design underway and targeting completion by end of Mid 2017;

· Maitai Path – Included in Draft Annual Plan 2017/18 as ‘Maitai Connections, Maitai to Eastern Residential Areas’ for public engagement and concept design in 2017/18.

4. Discussion

4.2 NZTA have proposed an alternative funding and project management delivery scenario whereby 100% of the project is funded and delivered by NZTA/UCF because the project runs adjacent to the State Highway.

4.3 The proposal for the Maitai to Rocks Road includes the upgrade of the existing on-road cycle lanes and footpath infrastructure on SH6 Queen Elizabeth II Drive and SH6 Haven Road between the proposed Saltwater Creek Bridge and Wakefield Quay. Attachment 1 illustrates the route.

4.4 The aim of the project is to connect the existing Maitai River Pathway (via Saltwater Creek Bridge and adjacent underpass) to Wakefield Quay and Rocks Road, for both commuter cyclists and the ‘interested but concerned’ cyclist user. Cyclist safety at the Hay Street/SH6 intersection will be improved and pedestrians will also benefit from a more direct, and wider path facility in some design options.

4.5 The Business Case (Attachment 4), documents in more detail the history, investigations, drivers, options, risks and assumptions for this project.

4.6 The project implements objectives set out in the ‘Out and About’ policy by providing connections to existing facilities to improve routes for active travel and recreational journeys. This policy can be found on Council website.

4.7 To varying degrees, the three options proposed reduce conflict between vehicles and faster cyclists by utilising on-road cycle lanes; and between pedestrians and slower cyclists by utilising a 3m wide off-road shared-path.

4.8 Shared-path aspects of the project are consistent with the Maitai River Pathway facility to provide a safe, continuous and consistent journey for slower cyclists and pedestrians.

4.9 The project will link into the proposed Haven Precinct which is being delivered as a separate project. The proposed alignment of the cycle path through Haven Precinct is not in conflict with the draft concepts presented to date for the Haven Precinct. NZTA and Council officers will continue to collaborate to achieve the desired outcome for both parties.

4.10 The Saltwater Creek Bridge replacement is being managed under a separate project and is due for completion in the 2017/18 financial year.

5. Stakeholder and Public Submissions

5.1 Council sought feedback from stakeholders and the public on four Options via the Councils’ website (refer to attachment 2 for a more detailed summary of the feedback). Consultation commenced on 22 January and closed on 22 February 2017.

5.2 16 separate submissions were received and are summarised overleaf.

Submission in support of:

Concern with aspects of general route

Broadly supportive of route but no specific option preferred

Option 1

Do minimum, improve on-road cycle lanes

Option 2

Seaward Shared Path & Improved On-road Cycle Lanes

Option 3

Alternative route along Wildman Avenue and Vickerman Street

Option 4

Separated Cycle Lanes and Some Shared Path

No. of submissions and % support of youth council

10% youth council

14% youth council

67% youth council

5.3 NZTA have confirmed support for option 2.

6. Options

6.1 There are three Options detailed in the Business Case (Attachment 4). The Options are summarised below, and a plan showing the route is shown in Attachment 1. Each option is graphically illustrated on Attachment 3:

Option 1: Do-Minimum – improve on-road cycle lanes
On road cycle lanes currently exist and this option is to improve the layout of these on-road cycle lanes to a minimum acceptable design standard. This will predominantly involve the use of line-marking, to provide safety benefits for on-road cyclists. Provide a new shared path link from the Maitai Path to Wildman Avenue. Particular attention given to cyclist safety improvements at Hay Street/SH6 intersection. Estimated Cost = $925,000
Advantages	· Inherent flexibility regarding possible Southern Link investigation outcomes. · Addresses cycle crash risk at Hay Street intersection. · Reduced cycle crash risk along Haven Road.
Risks and Disadvantages	· On-road cycle lanes are unsuitable for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists. · Inconsistency with existing and proposed facilities to which this scheme connects. · Will not fully utilise UCF funding opportunity.
Option 2: Seaward Shared Path & Improved On-Road Cycle Lanes – Recommended Option
Widen existing 2m wide footpath to form 3.0m wide shared-path facility on full extent of seaward-side route between Maitai Path and Wakefield Quay to cater for Interested but Concerned cyclists. This work involves providing buffer zones and width standards in accordance with cycle facility guidelines. Improve the existing on-road cycle lanes, predominantly through the use of line-marking, to provide safety benefits for on-road cyclists – as per option 1. Particular attention given to cyclist safety improvements at Hay Street/SH6 intersection. Estimated Cost = $2,000,000
Advantages	· Safer on-road and off-road cycling facilities will provide choice and increase the number of cyclists travelling between the CBD and Wakefield Quay. · Inherent flexibility regarding possible Southern Link investigation outcomes. · Reduction in cycling crash risk at Hay St intersection and along whole route. · Shared path is consistent with existing and proposed facilities to which this scheme connects, e.g. Saltwater Creek Bridge. · Provides benefits for the greatest range of existing and potential users. · Supported by NZTA.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Two land purchases required to secure width for shared path (NZTA would own this land). One land purchase might be avoided, and will be confirmed during detail design. · Relocation of existing bus stops at Russell Street and Custom House. · Removal of 14 parking spaces.
Option 3: As Option 2 but with alternative route along Wildman Avenue and Vickerman Streets
To be assessed in conjunction with Option 2, but this option differs in that the City-end of the project is routed through some low volume Port roads. Estimate Cost = $1,910,000
Advantages	· Safer on-road and off-road cycling facilities will provide choice and increase the number of cyclists travelling between the CBD and Wakefield Quay. · Inherent flexibility regarding possible Southern Link investigation outcomes. · Reduction in cycling crash risk at Hay St intersection and along whole route. · Shared path is consistent with existing and proposed facilities to which this scheme connects, e.g. Saltwater Creek Bridge. · Provides benefits for the greatest range of existing and potential users.
Risks and Disadvantages	· One land purchase area to secure width for shared path (NZTA would own this land). · Relocation of existing bus stops at Russell Street and Custom House. · Removal of 14 parking spaces. · Utilises Port roads that are industrial in nature and isolated at night therefore reducing the appeal of the facility - CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). · Port roads could be part of future Port Nelson redevelopment.

6.2 Option 4 – Separated Cycle Lanes and Some Shared Path was used in the consultation phase, however it hasn’t been considered further. This option could only be constructed through to Russell Street and removed all the on-street parking on the seaward side of Haven Road. This options only goes part way to addressing the problem and comes at the highest costs. It addresses the immediate cycle safety concerns, but does restrict future State Highway use options by dedicating a part of the carriageway to cycle use.

6.3 The Indicative Business Case (Attachment 4) supports Option 2 – Seaward Side Shared Path. This option presents:

· The greatest number of benefits and will produce a high-quality facility which aligns with the objectives of the Out and About policy;

· Possible future road requirements on SH6 Haven Road can be well accommodated in physical layouts presented by Option 2 and Option 3. The seaward-side off-road shared path will secure a cycling and pedestrian route irrespective of how the road-space is formatted in the future;

· Current draft concept for the Haven Road Precinct can be well accommodated by Options 2 and 3.

7. Finances and Funding Options

7.2 As reported to Works and Infrastructure in November 2015 (R4351), the following projects are subject to NZTA and/or UCF funding:

· Saltwater Creek Bridge (UCF);

· Maitai to Rocks Road (NZTA and UCF);

· Tahunanui Cycle Network (NZTA and UCF);

· Rocks Road – (NZTA and UCF).

7.3 The current proposed funding for this project is split evenly between NCC, NZTA and UCF (33.33% each).

7.4 NZTA recently proposed the following:

· An alternative project funding structure whereby UCF would fund 100% of the budget.

· An alternative delivery mechanism whereby NZTA would project-manage the delivery of the project.

7.5 A total amount of $3 Million UCF funding has been set aside for Nelson Region projects. A condition of the UCF funding is that all UCF funded projects have to be substantively completed no later than June 2018.

7.6 The proposed 100% UCF funding structure proposed by NZTA will be sourced from within the total $3 Million UCF funding allocated for Nelson. The Rocks Road Cycle link project is being delivered by NZTA and is currently on hold (due to outcome from NZTA Southern Link investigation) and will not be completed before June 2018. NZTA are intending to reallocate a portion of this money to fully fund Maitai to Rocks Road Path Cycle Path.

7.7 This reallocation of UCF money and proposed delivery mechanism is subject to NZTA approval, of which is currently being sought within NZTA.

7.8 Officers recommend that the new proposal by NZTA is accepted due to the following:

· This would reduce the impact on rates for Nelson residents.

· NZTA would fully fund the shortfall of $126,753 based on option 2 proceeding to construction.

· NZTA would be responsible for funding and undertaking land purchase/negotiations. NZTA would legally own the additional land.

· NCC officers will still be involved and consulted upon during the future phases.

· Provide additional resource capacity for the 17/18 work programme.

7.9 There is a real risk that if a timely decision on the preferred option for this project is not made, then funding from the UCF would be lost (regardless on project management delivery mechanism). Any delay in decision-making will severely impact the completion of the project by June 2018. If council chose to continue funding and project delivery under the status quo, then a delay as per above would result in Council’s contribution increasing to 50% from the current 33.33% and this would have a negative impact on rates.

7.10 Current Council funding for the implementation of this project is budgeted for as follows and includes external subsidy of 66.6%:

· 2016/17 – $293,462;

· 2017/18 – $1,579,785.

7.11 The estimated cost for the preferred option is $2,000,000. Refer to the business case (attachment 4) for cost breakdown.

7.12 If the decision is made not to go with total UCF funding, then Council funding will need to change to reflect timing of delivery of the project. The new funding split would be :

· 2016/17 – $130,000;

· 2017/18 – $1,700,000;

· Additional funding of $126,753 is required. Based on the current funding structure, NCC share would be an additional $42,251.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Funding is available from both the NLTF and UCF for this project. The UCF has to be spent by June 2018.

8.2 NZTA have proposed an alternative funding and project management delivery scenario whereby 100% of the project is funded and delivered by NZTA. Council Officers recommend that this proposal is accepted.

8.3 The proposal made by NZTA is subject to approval from within the NZTA organisation. This is currently being sought by NZTA officers.

8.4 The Indicative Business Case (Attachment 4) supports Option 2 – Seaward Side Shared Path. This option presents:

· The greatest number of benefits and will produce a high-quality facility which aligns with the objectives of the Out and About policy;

· Current draft concept for the Haven Road Precinct can be well accommodated by Options 2 and 3.

8.5 Public and Stakeholder submissions support Option 2.

8.6 If the Works and Infrastructure Committee cannot reach a decision on the preferred route, then additional costs may need to be funded by Council if the project continues into the 2018/19 financial year.

8.7 If the Works and Infrastructure Committee decide not to go with total UCF funding, then Council funding will need to change to reflect timing for the delivery of the project. The new funding split would be :

· 2016/17 – $130,000;

· 2017/18 – $1,700,000 (this includes an additional funding of $126,753).

Paul D'Evereux

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: Aerial Plan (A1713781) ⇩

Attachment 2: Stakeholder and Public Submissions Summary (A1724341) ⇩

Attachment 3: Cycle Facility Types (A1721138) ⇩

Attachment 4: Business Case (A1721185) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This project will link the existing Maitai River pathway (via Saltwater Creek) with proposed facilities and existing amenities at Wakefield Quay. It will improve the patronage and function of those facilities. Cycle paths achieve greater benefits when they are linked together to form a continuous consistent facility. The route has potential to attract people from further afield to use the bicycle as a valid transport option to access the CBD.

Option 2, as recommended, provides safer facilities for the largest number of patron types, minimises impacts on car parking and provides flexibility for future road layouts to be accommodated.

NZTA will own the asset with NCC managing the maintenance as per the operational partnership.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The 2015-25 Long Term Plan has set a target of 25% of all journeys be undertaken by walking or cycling by 2018. The 2015-2021 Regional Land Transport Plan has set objectives to ensure the community has a range of travel choices and supports national strategies for energy efficiency.

The recommended scheme will contribute to these goals by appealing to a wide range of cyclists thereby promoting greater uptake of active travel modes, supporting Nelson’s Active Travel Hierarchy.

3. Risk

Highly likely that the recommended option will achieve the project objectives.

There is a high risk that if the Works and Infrastructure Committee cannot reach a decision on the preferred route, then half of the project cost may need to be funded by Nelson City Council if the project continues into 2018/19 Financial Year (assuming Council continue with the status quo for funding and project delivery).

The recommended Option 2 requires two land purchase. One land purchase might be avoided, and will be confirmed during detail design. Delays associated with the purchase may affect program delivery.

An independent Stage 2 (Scheme Stage) Road Safety Audit has been carried out on the preferred option and issues raised are being worked through.

4. Financial impact

This project currently qualifies for 66.6% subsidy from NZTA (33.3% UCF, 33.3% NZTA). NZTA has proposed an alternative funding structure whereby NZTA will fund 100% of this project.

There is a budget of $293,462 allocated to this project in the 2016/17 financial year for investigation and design. Of this sum, if NCC continues to manage delivery then it is recommended that $163,462 be carried-over into 2017/18 to cover continuation of detailed design.

At present there is $1,579,785 allocated in the 2017/18 year for construction.

The recommended option has an estimated cost of $2,000,000.

If Council continue to fund this project then it is recommended that an additional $126,753 is allocated in the 17/18 works programme to complete construction.

NZTA will own the asset with NCC managing the maintenance as per the operational partnership.

Additional maintenance requirements will be limited to line-marking, surface sweeping, and some upkeep required to additional safety measures located at the Hay Street/SH6 intersection.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. The work is contained within the road corridor or on a strip of industrial land. The recommended Option 2 does not significantly alter private access to the road corridor or parking associated with residential and industrial uses adjacent to the road.

Engagement has consisted of letters to affected property owners and residents, and public consultation submissions through the Council website.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been specifically consulted on this project.

7. Delegations

Works and Infrastructure Committee

18 May 2017

REPORT R6963

Capital Expenditure Programme 2016-17 Quarter 3 Progress Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide performance monitoring information to the Works and Infrastructure Committee and to seek approval for changes to capital projects and/or expenditure.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Capital Expenditure Programme 2016-17 Quarter 3 Progress Report (R6963).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves, with respect to completed projects, that $799,117 from 2016-17 budgets is released as savings; and

Approves, with respect to projects continuing into 2017-18, that $3,045,121 of 2016-17 budget be transferred to the respective project budgets for 2017-18; and

Approves, with respect to completed stormwater projects, that $419,805 of 2016-17 budget savings be transferred to project 1100 York Stream Culvert upgrade 2017-18 budget.

3. Background

3.1 This report represents a summary for the period January to March 2017 provides:

· A summary of progress towards key performance indicators;

· Requests for approval for changes to the capital works programme;

· Summary of tenders awarded over $1,000,000 capital value.

3.2 Council set key performance indicators for the capital works programme for 2016-17, which relate to achievement of milestones for key projects, and to completion of physical works.

4. Progress Towards Key Performance Indicators

4.1 Key performance indicator “Projects within the capital works programme, for which business cases have been prepared, meet all milestones within the year” – Status: On track to achieve.

4.2 Key performance indicator “Greater than 85% of physical works of projects are completed by 30 June 2017” – Status: On track to achieve.

5. Requests for Change

Project 1068 Walkway Lighting programme

5.1 Regular budget provision is included in the Long Term Plan every 2 years for the walkway lighting programme, to provide additional lighting where a need for this is identified. This project is unrelated to the work to progress conversion of streetlights to LED.

5.2 Current budget and phasing is $46,175 in 2016-17.

5.3 As stated in the Asset Management Plan 2015-25, the approach to requirements for lighting is to review each request on a case by case basis. At this time there is no known requirement for lighting.

5.4 Approval is sought to remove the 2016-17 project and budget provision of $46,175.

5.5 A programme of work will be identified during 2017-18 for consideration through the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Project 1187 Neale Park Sewer pump station upgrade

5.6 This is a multi-year project that commenced in 2015-16 and includes the redevelopment and upgrade of the Neale Park Sewer pump station to reduce odour and to provide peak flow pumping requirements. This project is the second major project on the network and follows the recently completed Corder Park pump station upgrade.

5.7 The total project budget for the Neale Park upgrade is estimated at $6,680,460 and is currently phased as follows:

2016-17: $1,116,890

2017-18: $5,563,570

5.8 This budget and phasing was adjusted through the draft Annual Plan 2017-18. The tender for the works is now in progress, but was initially delayed so that learnings from the upgrade of Corder Park pump station could be incorporated into the contract specification. As a result, the construction phase is now expected to start in May 2017, continuing through to the end of 2017-18. As this revised timing does not align with the current budget phasing, a change is required.

5.9 Approval is sought to transfer $1,000,000 from 2016-17 into 2017-18, to align with the current proposed construction schedule.

5.10 If approved, the adjusted budget phasing will be:

2016-17: $116,890

2017-18: $6,563,570

Project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade

5.11 This is a multi-year project that commenced in 2012-13 to upgrade the storm water capacity of York Stream from the detention dam below the landfill through to the inlet of the box culvert in the grounds of Victory school, and to improve the secondary flow paths from this point to Salt Water Creek. Construction works have been completed in stages, with the remainder of the construction consisting of a major pipeline, and an intake structure.

5.12 The total remaining project budget is $1,994,913, currently phased as follows:

2016-17: $939,055

2017-18: $1,055,858

5.13 Revised construction cost estimates for both the pipeline and intake structure have revealed an estimated budget shortfall of $725,000

5.14 This work is seen as a priority due to the flood protection benefits to be gained, and so approvals are sought to continue with the construction works as programmed.

5.15 The following approvals are sought:

5.15.1 Include additional funding of $305,195 for this project in the 2017-18 annual plan;

5.15.2 Incorporate savings from current year storm water projects into the budget for the York Stream Channel upgrade. These savings are noted at 5.20 in this report and total $419,805; and

5.15.3 Transfer $865,055 from the current year project budget to 2017-18, to align budget phasing with the revised construction timing.

5.16 If approved, the adjusted budget and phasing will be:

2016-17: $112,000

2017-18: $2,601,608

Requests for budget savings and transfers from current year projects

5.17 At this stage in the year there are a number of projects with an actual or projected budget underspend, and a decision is required on these. Some projects are continuing to the next stage in 2017-18 and for most of these it is prudent to carry forward unspent budget in order to mitigate risks during the next stage. Other projects are complete and the underspend can either be released as savings, or allocated to another project.

5.18 There are 14 projects completed with a total underspend of $799,117 and approval is sought to release this amount as savings.

5.19 There are 27 projects proceeding to the next stage in 2017-18, which have total current year underspend of $3,045,121 and approval is sought to carry forward this amount into the respective project budgets for 2017-18.

5.20 There are 4 stormwater projects which have completed with a total underspend of $419,805, and approval is sought to carry forward these savings to the 2017-18 budget for project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade.

Tenders awarded for contracts over $1,000,000

5.21 No contracts over $1,000,000 that are within the Committee’s areas of responsibility were awarded during quarter 3.

6. Notice of Early tender

6.1 Officers will be early tendering the 2017-18 programme of work for Water pipe renewals, with award of contract intended for early July 2017. The early tender process was resolved by the Works and Infrastructure Committee on 14 March 2014, and includes the ability to tender work listed in a future Annual or Long Term Plan.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The fourth quarter report for April to June 2017 is scheduled for the Committee meeting to be held on 24 August 2017.

Arlene Akhlaq

Project Management Adviser

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Providing core infrastructure is a good fit with the purpose of Local Government.

The proposed changes in phasing support efficient and effective delivery of these projects.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation for project 1198 Walkway Lighting programme is a minor amendment to the Long Term Plan budget.

The recommendation for project 1187 Neale Park Sewer pump station upgrade amends the phasing of the Long Term Plan budget.

The recommendation for project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade amends the amount and the phasing of the Long Term Plan budget.

The recommendation for release and transfer of budget savings represents minor amendments to the Long Term Plan budget.

3. Risk

The recommendation for project 1187 Neale Park Sewer pump station reduces the risk of capacity problems, odour issues, and sewage spills into Nelson Haven, by enabling the construction to continue as planned.

The recommendation for project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade reduces the risk of flooding from York Stream, by enabling the construction to continue as planned.

The recommendation for transfer of budget savings supports risks management and mitigation across a number of projects.

4. Financial impact

Additional budget of $305,195 is being requested for 2017-18.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Project 1198 Walkway Lighting programme – no requirements for lighting are currently identified indicating the impact on the community is low. As the matter is therefore of low significance, no further engagement is required.

Project 1187 Neale Park Sewer pump station upgrade - re-phasing the budget is of low significance as it is a change of timing to planned and approved expenditure, therefore no further engagement is required.

Project 1100 York Stream Channel upgrade - re-phasing the budget is of low significance as it is a change of timing to planned and approved expenditure; the impact of the additional 2017-18 budget on Council debt, and the level of rates, is low, therefore no further engagement is required.

The impact of releasing and transferring the budget savings noted in this report have a low impact on Council debt and the level of rates, therefore no further engagement is required.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on the specifics in this report.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for the roading network, street lighting, traffic management control, water, wastewater, stormwater and flood protection, solid waste including landfill and transfer stations, and has the power to consider matters within these areas of responsibility, and the power to consider new expenditure not allowed for in Council’s Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, with a view to recommending adoption by Council.