AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Works and Infrastructure Committee
Thursday 16 November 2017
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Councillor Stuart Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Luke Acland, Bill Dahlberg, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson (Deputy Chairperson), Gaile Noonan and Tim Skinner
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Order 12.1:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings
· At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.
· Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee
It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda. They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.
Works and Infrastructure
Committee
16 November 2017
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
Document number M2960
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 28 September 2017, as a true and correct record.
Document number M3066
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 31 October 2017, as a true and correct record.
6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure- 16 November 2017 18 - 20
Document number R8685
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 (R8685) and its attachment (A1150321).
7. Chairperson's Report 21 - 22
Document number R8698
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the Chairperson's Report (R8698).
Transport and Roading
8. Capital Expenditure Programme - Requests for Change 23 - 27
Document number R8185
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Capital Expenditure Programme - Requests for Change (R8185).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves with respect to project 2968 Orphanage Stream/Sunningdale Drive flood protection, that $84,159 from 2018-19 budget be transferred to the 2017-18 budget; and
Approves with respect to project 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade, that construction work be re-phased over two years and $1,116,729 from 2017-18 budget be transferred to the 2018-19 budget; and
Approves
with respect to project 2624 Nile Street East Stormwater and flood protection,
that construction work be re-phased to 2018-19 and $772,904 from 2017-18 budget
be transferred to the 2018-19 budget.
9. Consideration for Footpath Operation of Electric NZ Post Delivery Vehicles (Paxsters) 28 - 42
Document number R8458
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Consideration for Footpath Operation of Electric NZ Post Delivery Vehicles (Paxsters) (R8458) and its attachments A1853996, A1856532 ; and
Defers any decision regarding approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on Nelson City Council footpaths to when the outcome of the Hamilton City Council trial is known expected after July 2018.
Solid Waste
10. Waste Assessment and Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 43 - 145
Document number R8365
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Waste Assessment and Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (R8365) and its attachments (A1795347, A1822245 and A1831374); and
Approves the Joint Waste Assessment (A1795347) as attached to report R8365 as an assessment under section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act.
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the formation of a Joint Nelson City Council/Tasman District Council Working Party to advise both Councils on the review of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, subject to a reciprocal agreement by Tasman District Council; and
Approves the Draft Terms of Reference as per attachment A1831374; and
Appoints Councillors Walker, Barker and xxxxx as Nelson City Council members of the Joint Council Waste Working Party; and
Notes that the Joint Council Waste Working Party will report back to this Council’s Works and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be adopted by April 2018.
Public Excluded Business
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure 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 |
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure- Public Excluded - 16 November 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 |
Parkers Road Pump Station land exchange
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
12. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Re-admits the public to the meeting.
Note:
· Lunch will be provided.
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 28 September 2017, commencing at 9.00am
Present: Councillor S Walker (Chairperson) Deputy Mayor P Matheson (Deputy Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland, B Dahlberg, M Lawrey, G Noonan and T Skinner
In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk, I Barker and M Rutledge, Acting Chief Executive (D Hammond), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Manager Capital Projects (S Davies), Manager Roading and Utilities (P Anderson), Property Officer (M Wilson), Contractor (R Palmer), Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste (J Thiart), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) Governance Advisers (L Harrington and E Stephenson) and Youth Councillors (L Amos and C Hagan)
Apologies: Councillor Dahlberg for attendance and Councillor Skinner for lateness
1. Apologies
|
Apologies |
|
Resolved WI/2017/055 That the Committee Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Dahlberg for attendance and Councillor Skinner for lateness. Matheson/Lawrey Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
|
4.1 Malcolm Saunders |
|
Malcolm Saunders spoke of his concerns about NZ Post Paxster quad bike deliveries, tabled supporting information and answered questions regarding his submission. |
|
Attachments 1 A1829813 - tabled document - NZ Post Paxster Electric Quad Bike deliveries, proposal for usage around Nelson City |
4.2 Richard Sullivan
Richard Sullivan spoke about critical infrastructure risk with respect to the Marsden Point oil pipeline failure and relevance to Nelson
Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 9.17am to 9.19am.
Mr Sullivan highlighted the issue of critical infrastructure on his land, noting his concerns regarding lack of markings, exposed warning tape and previous breaches of a fibre optic cable. Mr Sullivan said that he had contacted Council in the past but that no officers had been out to inspect the site.
Mr Sullivan said that it was unclear who was responsible for routine maintenance and that he would welcome regular inspections to improve his ability to maintain the area.
The Chairperson advised that he would have a discussion with the Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, to follow up on the issues raised.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
24 August 2017
Document number M2844, agenda pages 7 - 11 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2017/056 That the Committee Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 24 August 2017, as a true and correct record. Skinner/Matheson Carried |
Acknowledgement of Nellie Tuck
Councillor Matheson acknowledged staff member Nellie Tuck for her recent actions assisting with the rescue of a child. Her Worship the Mayor, Rachel Reese, presented Ms Tuck with a certificate in recognition of her outstanding community spirit, together with a bouquet of flowers.
Attendance: The meeting was adjourned at 9.36am and reconvened at 9.38am.
6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 28 September 2017
Document number R8411, agenda pages 12 - 14 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis answered questions.
|
Resolved WI/2017/057 That the Committee Receives the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 September 2017 (R8411) and its attachment (A1150321). Noonan/Matheson Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
Document number R8445, agenda pages 15 - 16 refer.
The Chairperson asked Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies to answer questions regarding project scheduling, winter construction rules, labour costs and the Queens Garden toilets.
It was agreed that the Chairperson’s report be referred to the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee for information.
|
Resolved WI/2017/058 That the Committee Receives the Chairperson's Report (R8445) and refers the report to the Audit Risk and Finance Committee. Noonan/Skinner Carried |
8. Car Park Dining Update
Document number R8124, agenda pages 17 - 21 refer.
Property Officer, Margot Wilson responded to questions about capital works costs, short and long term parking needs and licence-to-occupy fees.
In response to a question, the General Manager Infrastructure Alec Louverdis, noted the difference between outdoor dining and street stall licence to occupy agreements.
Attendance: Councillor Acland entered the meeting at 10.15am.
|
Resolved WI/2017/059 That the Committee Receives the report Car Park Dining Update (R8124) and its attachments (A1799325, A1799334 and A1799370), and; Requests the Chief Executive review the policy for charging of capital works for outdoor dining and fees for licence to occupy to ensure an equitable fee structure is in place. Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried |
9. Draft 2018-28 Transport Asset Management Plan
Document number R7177, agenda pages 22 - 67 refer.
Contractor, Rhys Palmer, Manager Roading and Utilities, Peter Anderson and Group Manager Infrastructure Alec Louverdis answered questions.
Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 10.26am.
The Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, noted that the Transport Asset Management Plan was a complex asset management plan, as it was influenced by a number of external drivers, including the make-up of Government, the review of the Regional Land Transport Plan, the pending consultation on the Regional Public Transport Plan and NZTS’s Programmed Business case for the Southern Link
Discussion took place regarding key issues, levels of service, officer assumptions and uncertainty about the Southern Link and Rocks Road until Central Government’s position was finalised.
Attendance: Councillor Acland returned to the meeting at 11.06am.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.07am and reconvened at 11.26am.
Acting Chief Executive, David Hammond, addressed the meeting to advise that, considering the complex issues, a strategic Works and Infrastructure Committee workshop would be held after the Central Government decision was made, and that an extraordinary Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting would then be convened for the Committee to further consider the Draft 2018-28 Transport Asset Management Plan and to make its recommendation to the 9 November 2017 Council meeting. It was therefore recommended that the matter be left to lie on the table.
Councillor Matheson, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved a procedural motion that the matter lie on the table.
|
Resolved WI/2017/060 That the Committee Leaves the item Draft 2018-28 Transport Asset Management Plan to lie on the table until the upcoming extraordinary Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting, once it is called. Matheson/Noonan Carried |
Solid Waste
10. Draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-28
Document number R8152, agenda pages 68 - 146 refer.
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste, Johan Thiart answered questions regarding funding, landfill charges and recycling.
|
Resolved WI/2017/061 That the Committee Receives the report Draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (R8152) and its attachment (A1828548). Lawrey/Skinner Carried |
Recommendation to Council WI/2017/062 That the Council Approves the Draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1828548) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28. Lawrey/Skinner Carried |
11. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2017/063 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: Acland/Noonan Carried |
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 24 August 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). · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. |
|
2 |
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - Public Excluded - 28 September 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 12.05pm and resumed in public session at 12.08pm.
Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to confirm the minutes and receive the status report, this business has been recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists.
|
Resolved WI/2017/064 That the Committee Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held with the public excluded on 24 August 2017, as a true and correct record. Matheson/Acland Carried |
|
Resolved WI/2017/065 That the Committee Receives the public excluded Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 September 2017 (R8412) and its attachment (A1812919). Noonan/Skinner Carried |
12. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2017/066 That the Committee Re-admits the public to the meeting. Noonan/Lawrey Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.08pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Tuesday 31 October 2017, commencing 12.01pm
Present: Councillor S Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland, B Dahlberg, M Lawrey, P Matheson (Deputy Chairperson), G Noonan and T Skinner
In Attendance: Councillor I Barker, M Courtney and B McGurk, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading (P D’Evereux), Council Roading Contractor (R Palmer) and Governance Adviser (Pamela White)
Apology/ies : Nil
Councillor P Matheson was not present at the beginning of the meeting.
1. Apologies
No apologies were received.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
There was no public forum.
Transport and Roading
5. Draft 2018-28 Transport Asset Management Plan
Document number R8532, agenda pages 4 - 56 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading, Paul D’Evereux and Council Roading Contractor, Rhys Palmer spoke to the report and responded to questions. Mr Louverdis noted that the Asset Management Plan was a ‘living document’ that could amended as needed.
Attendance: Deputy Mayor P Matheson joined the meeting at 12.16pm
There was a short adjournment for a point of clarification at 12.22pm. The meeting recommenced 12.24pm.
Cr McGurk left the meeting at 12.22pm.
Attendance: Cr Acland left the meeting at 12.28pm and returned at 12.30pm.
|
Resolved WI/2017/067 That the Committee Receives the report Draft 2018-28 Transport Asset Management Plan (R8532) and its attachments (A1849150, A1851775 and A1851685). Dahlberg/Noonan Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council WI/2017/068 That the Council Approves the Draft Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1851685) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and the Mid Term Review of the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021. Dahlberg/Noonan Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.39pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Item 6: Status Report - Works and Infrastructure- 16 November 2017
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 |
REPORT R8685
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure- 16 November 2017
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 (R8685) and its attachment (A1150321). |
Attachments
Attachment 1: Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - Public A1150321 ⇩
Item 7: Chairperson's Report
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 |
REPORT R8698
Chairperson's Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To update the Works and Infrastructure Committee on the recent progress of various projects within the 2017/18 capital works programme.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the Chairperson's Report (R8698). |
3. Discussion
3.1 I wanted to bring to the Committee’s attention several tender milestones over the last period.
2624 Nile Street Stormwater Upgrade
3.2 This project provides a new stormwater line within Nile Street East from Cloustons Bridge to Cleveland Terrace. As discussed in my previous Chairpersons report the construction period for this project has been extended to ensure competitive pricing in this current buoyant market.
3.3 This project will be discussed further as part of the Capital Expenditure Programme – Request for Change.
Queens Gardens Toilets
3.4 This project provides a new toilet facility in Queens Garden. The tender for this work is currently being evaluated.
LED Lighting Upgrade
3.5 This project is for the upgrade of Councils existing Street Lighting stock with new technologically advanced LED light fittings. This work is currently at tender.
Church Street Upgrade
3.6 This project provides an upgrade of Church Street and includes a pedestrian friendly environment with significantly reduced vehicle speeds. This work is currently at tender.
4. Conclusion
4.1 That the updates provided in this report are noted.
Stuart Walker
Chairperson
Attachments
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 |
REPORT R8185
Capital Expenditure Programme - Requests for Change
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To seek approval for changes to capital projects and/or expenditure.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Capital Expenditure Programme - Requests for Change (R8185). |
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves with respect to project 2968 Orphanage Stream/Sunningdale Drive flood protection, that $84,159 from 2018-19 budget be transferred to the 2017-18 budget; and Approves with respect to project 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade, that construction work be re-phased over two years and $1,116,729 from 2017-18 budget be transferred to the 2018-19 budget; and Approves with respect to
project 2624 Nile Street East Stormwater and flood protection, that
construction work be re-phased to 2018-19 and $772,904 from 2017-18 budget be
transferred to the 2018-19 budget.
|
3. Background
1.1 The issue of unfavourable market conditions was discussed through the Chairperson’s report at the Works and Infrastructure Committee held on 28 September 2017.
1.2 That summary followed a discussion between officers and the local Civil Construction industry. The Committee was advised as below and the Committee endorsed this approach.
· That officers would consider tendering contracts with a longer delivery period to ensure more of our local contractors can tender competitively for this work. This would lead to more competitive and affordable tendered prices.
· That officers will consider the benefits of an extended contract period for all contracts that awarded in the future.
1.3 The Chairperson’s report also noted that a negative impact may be that some construction work will carry over into the 2018-19 financial year.
1.4 This approach has resulted in successful tenders for two projects, with the subsequent requests for change included in this report.
4. Requests for Change
Project 2968 Orphanage Stream/Sunningdale Drive flood protection
4.1 This project addresses issues along Orphanage Stream in the Sunningdale Drive area. The April 2013 storm event (Q500) caused stream bank erosion, resulting in bank drop outs in two locations in the vicinity of 26 and 28 Sunningdale Drive. This project is being delivered in two parts: Part A design and construct flood protection measures at 26 and 28 Sunningdale drive, followed by Part B to design and construct flood protection measures along the length of the stream from 2 Woodford Lane to 48 Sunningdale Drive. Current budget phasing is:
2017/18: $73,649 - Part A
2018/19: $216,262 - Part B
Total budget: $289,911
4.2 Following detailed design of Part A, and initial design of Part B, cost estimates have been updated and a change to budget phasing will be required to continue with construction of Part A in the current year.
4.3 Approval is sought to bring forward $84,159 budget from 2018-19 to complete all Part A works, and detailed design for Part B, in the current financial year, with construction of Part B to continue as planned in 2018-19 with the remainder of the budget. Construction estimates for Part B are within the remaining budget, and so there is no change to the total budget provision for this work.
4.4 If approved, the adjusted budget phasing will be:
2017/18: $157,808
2018/19: $132,103
Total budget: $289,911
Project 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade
4.5 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.
4.6 A previous report to Works and Infrastructure Committee advised that construction was expected to continue through to the end of 2017-18, and approval was given to align budget with the expected construction timing as follows:
2017-18: $6,557,392
4.7 To minimise the risk of inflated construction costs at a time of unfavourable market conditions, tendering contractors were asked to consider the impact of a flexible construction programme. The tender has now been awarded, and the Contractor has nominated a schedule of work with construction concluding in 2018-19. A change to budget phasing will be required to enable this construction schedule.
4.8 Approval is therefore sought to transfer $1,116,729 from 2017-18 into 2018-19, to align with the proposed construction schedule as tendered.
4.9 If approved, the adjusted budget phasing will be:
2017-18: $5,440,663
2018-19: $1,116,729
Project 2624 Nile Street East Stormwater and flood protection
4.1 This project upgrades the Nile Street East stormwater system between Cloustons Bridge and Cleveland Terrace following flooding of some properties during the December 2011 rain event.
4.2 This project was originally tendered in September 2016 and received higher than expected prices due to buoyant market conditions, Council resolved on 23 March 2017 to increase the construction budget by $160,000 and to amend the construction phasing to 2017-18. Current budget phasing is:
2017-18: $777,904
4.3 Following discussions with the Civil Contracting industry the tender was re-let allowing a flexible construction programme, which resulted in more tenders being received than previously. Pricing from the preferred tenderer is within budget, on the basis of construction concluding in 2018-19. A change to budget phasing will be required to enable this construction schedule.
4.4 Approval is therefore sought to transfer $772,904 from 2017-18 into 2018-19, to align with the proposed construction schedule as tendered.
4.5 If approved, the adjusted budget phasing will be:
2017-18: $5,000
2018-19: $772,904
5. Tenders awarded for contracts over $1,000,000
5.1 The tender for construction works on project 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade has been awarded.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Changes are requested in this report to realign budget phasing.
Arlene Akhlaq
Project Management Adviser
Attachments
|
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 budget phasing support efficient and effective delivery of the projects referred to in this report. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The recommendations in this report amend the phasing of Long Term Plan budgets. |
|
3. Risk The recommendation for project 2968 Orphanage Stream/Sunningdale Drive flood protection reduces risks to Council and property owners where failures have occurred in the past, by enabling construction works to proceed in the current year. The recommendations for projects 1187 Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade, and 2624 Nile Street East Stormwater and flood protection, reduce delivery risks by enabling flexible construction schedules. |
|
4. Financial impact No additional budget is being requested. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement Re-phasing project budgets is of low significance as it is a change of timing to planned and approved expenditure, therefore no engagement is required. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Māori have not been consulted on the specifics in this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for storm water and flood protection, and waste water, and the power to make recommendations to Council on matters relating to these areas of responsibility. |
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 |
REPORT R8458
Consideration for Footpath Operation of Electric NZ Post Delivery Vehicles (Paxsters)
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the request from NZ Post to operate new electric delivery vehicles (Paxsters) on footpaths in Nelson.
2. Summary
2.1 NZ Post is part way through a roll out in most urban areas of New Zealand of new electric delivery vehicles to replace traditional ‘posties’ on bicycles.
2.2 NZ Post needs the approval of Nelson City Council (NCC) as Road Controlling Authority (RCA) to operate these vehicles on footpaths in Nelson City.
2.3 At a recent Accessibility for All Forum (A4A) the risks of operating Paxsters on footpaths were presented and considered. As a result the membership holds some reservations regarding the way the vehicles will be operated.
2.4 Staff recommend that Council defers the decision to approve the use of these vehicles on Nelson City footpaths until a Hamilton City based trial is completed and reviewed.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 NZ Post has sought and received NZTA approval for an exemption under section 2.13 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule to allow footpath access for these vehicles subject to approval from the relevant RCA.
4.2 At an August 2017 Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting Public Forum, NZ Post presented a proposal to introduce electric delivery vehicles (Paxsters) on the Nelson footpath network. Refer to Attachment 1 for a summary of the presentation.
4.3 The most significant issue for existing footpath users is safety and ensuring all users (especially vulnerable users such as those with mobility or other impairments) have priority of use of footpaths.
4.4 NZ Post has approached Tasman District Council (TDC) for similar approval. At its 29 June 2017 Engineering Services Committee meeting TDC considered and approved use of Paxsters on footpaths in Richmond. However following feedback from the Accessibility for All Forum, TDC has requested that implementation be deferred until NZ Post has supplied more information regarding incidents and risks to ensure the conditions of approval adequately cover these. NZ Post has since supplied the information requested to TDC and this has been considered by Council officers.
5. Discussion
5.1 Most RCAs throughout New Zealand have now approved NZ Post to use these vehicles following initial trials in Auckland and Lower Hutt in 2014. According to NZ Post, feedback from the trials was almost universally positive. There has been some feedback from the accessibility sector that the survey methodology limited opportunity for members of the blind or disabled community from being heard.
5.2 The standard agreement proposed by NZ Post states that any complaints from the public will be dealt with by the NZ Post customer call centre and that Councils will receive monthly reports regarding incidents involving any electrical delivery vehicles and other road users or property damage. Hamilton City negotiated additional clauses in the agreement and is undertaking a 12 month trial period of Paxster use on its network. It advised NCC Officers that there have been no issues in the two months that NZ Post have been operating these vehicles on Hamilton footpaths. Hamilton is the only Council carrying out dedicated surveys to gauge effects on pedestrians.
5.3 According to data released by NZ Post under the Official Information Act, Paxsters were involved in 30 crashes during the 2016 national launch year.
5.4 A draft Approval Document has been provided to council officers which outlines some key operational issues including guidelines for safe operation of vehicles, exclusion areas, complaints processes, engagement with stakeholders, and amendment and review conditions. Restrictions on where vehicles will be operated within Nelson include the CBD (Central City or Stoke), near schools, childcare centres, rest homes and hospitals during high traffic times. Nelson City has some footpaths which are too narrow for safe operation of Paxsters and these would be excluded from any schedule of approval. Council officers have the option of adding or deleting of any other specific exclusion to the final agreed schedule. The preliminary NZ Post schedules for exclusion are in Attachment 2.
5.5 NZ Post guidelines for operation include the following measures:
· Operators will maintain a safe speed on the footpath – maximum of 15 km/h for first 12 months, to be reviewed;
· Operators must give way to pedestrians, mobility devices or wheeled recreational devices being used on the footpath;
· Unattended vehicles will not block the footpath or vehicle entrances;
· Vehicles will not ride on grass verges;
· All operators should only enter or exit footpaths from driveways or other formed access points. The vehicle shall never be driven up or down the kerb;
· All operation shall be on the left-hand footpath of the road except in specifically identified areas.
5.6 The vehicles are fitted with cameras, enabling video of any incidents to be reviewed as well as verifying operating speeds.
5.7 NZ Post has an engagement with key stakeholders, and will be communicating directly with various groups and the media.
Accessibility for All forum (A4A) feedback
5.8 NZ Post presented to the A4A Forum on 4 August 2017.
5.9 The main concern from Forum members was that many people over the age of 65, or people that have accessibility issues, already face significant challenges when leaving their home. Members felt the perception of danger arising from even more traffic on footpaths needs to be seriously considered.
5.10 Age Concern has conducted research on reducing social isolation and loneliness and also concluded that if footpaths are perceived to be unsafe then this may stop people going out. It supports considering this issue in more detail before approval is given.
Road Controlling Authority (RCA) Shared Paths Forum
5.11 NCC officers regularly attend RCA Forums where the issue of Paxster operation has been discussed on numerous occasions.
5.12 At these forums it was agreed that RCAs consider standard conditions for approval of footpath operation of electric delivery vehicles by NZ Post including:
· be encouraged to seek a specified maximum speed less than 20km/h;
· specify hours of exemption;
· provide routine access to recorded vehicle data to allow proper monitoring;
· ensure that the RCA is convinced that a change in the perception of risk by more vulnerable network users did not diminish their rates of participation and lead to increased social fragmentation and isolation.
Hamilton City trial
5.13 Hamilton City Council has set up a 12 month trial that started in July 2017 where a prior count of footpath users was undertaken and is compared with usage figures while Paxsters are in operation.
5.14 This trial follows advice from the RCA Forum that any RCA considering allowing electric vehicle use on footpaths should be able to monitor the effect on participation rates by the elderly or mobility aid users. No Other Councils have undertaken such surveys. Advice from Hamilton Council officers is there has been value in early engagement with the accessibility advocacy groups and some on-going involvement with the survey which has mitigated anticipated pushback.
5.15 Results from these surveys will guide future Hamilton City Council decision making around continued Paxster use. To date one survey has been carried out.
5.16 The trial is paid for by Hamilton City Council, costing approximately $6,000. CCS are contracted to carry out and analyse the surveys in Hamilton.
5.17 The draft agreement presented to NCC by NZ Post contains a clause in Appendix 6 that pedestrian monitoring via on-street footpath user surveys will be undertaken as in Hamilton.
NZ Post has been approached to gauge their interest in fully resourcing the survey work as part of the roll out and have agreed to prepare, undertake, analyse and provide results for surveys.
6. Options
6.1 Council has the option to approve, decline or defer operation of Paxsters. Officers recommend Option 4, deferral.
|
Option 1: Confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on Nelson City footpaths |
|
|
Advantages |
· Accommodates NZ Post business/clients’ needs. · Allows review in 12 months’ time · Meets calls for careful consideration and monitoring by accessibility groups. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Shared use of footpath may be unpopular with exiting users. · Potential health and safety risk · Cost of survey of footpath users and staff capacity for analysis of results. · Limited staff capacity to monitor NZ Post compliance with conditions of agreement. |
|
Option 2: Approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on Nelson City footpaths with NZ Post meeting all survey costs |
|
|
Advantages |
· Accommodates NZ Post business/clients’ needs. · Allows review in 12 months’ time · Meets calls for careful consideration and monitoring by accessibility groups · No direct cost to NCC with NZ Post responsible for cost of survey of footpath users and analysis of results. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Shared use of footpath may be unpopular with exiting users. · Potential health and safety risk · Possible delay in procurement and training of survey staff. · Limited NCC staff capacity to monitor NZ Post compliance with conditions of agreement. |
|
Option 3: Decline approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on footpaths. |
|
|
Advantages |
· Existing use of footpaths is left uncompromised · No potential new H&S implications. · No cost to Council for on-street footpath user survey. · No staff time required to carry out survey, or monitor NZ Post compliance. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Decision will be unpopular with NZ Post |
|
Option 4: Defer approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on footpaths to a future date when more information is available. |
|
|
Advantages |
· Council has a fuller picture of impact of allowing operation of electric vehicles based on another RCA experience. · No cost to NCC of carrying out trial surveys · Meets calls for careful consideration and monitoring by accessibility groups |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Nil to council · Delay to NZ Post |
7. Conclusion
7.1 There is still an element of the “unknown” on impacts of this roll-out on footpath users.
7.2 Accessibility groups and members of the public have presented their concerns to NCC.
7.3 Officers recommend that NCC defer any approval until more is known from the outcome of the Hamilton City based trail in July 2018.
Margaret Parfitt
Manager Roading and Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1853996 NZ POST presentation on Paxsters ⇩
Attachment 2: A1856532 Paxster Exclusion Zones ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The report recommendation considers current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. |
|
3. Risk The main risks for Council associated with Options 1 and 2 are potential safety concerns of footpath users. Based on the information provided by NZ Post, including its driver training requirements and vehicle operation guidelines, it is considered that the likelihood of there being an incident on Nelson City footpaths is extremely low. Risks are further mitigated by identifying and restricting vehicle use on specific footpaths at times of high use. Council may withdraw approval if it is dissatisfied with how NZ Post is operating the vehicles, in particular if there are safety concerns or other significant issues for other footpath users. |
|
4. Financial impact There are unlikely to be any major financial implications from this proposal. Trials on other similar road networks showed no additional wear and tear on footpath assets. Option 1 has a financial cost of approximately $5,500 plus staff time not currently budgeted for. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This proposal is considered of low significance although engagement with stakeholders and media is proposed to ensure footpath users and the general public are informed about these vehicles. The new Paxster vehicles will be noticeable, therefore engagement will be important so people understand the change and any concerns can be addressed. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Māori have not been consulted on this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for the road network including footpaths, and the power to make a recommendation to Council on matters relating to this area of responsibility. |
Item 9: Consideration for Footpath Operation of Electric NZ Post Delivery Vehicles (Paxsters): Attachment 1
Item 9: Consideration for Footpath Operation of Electric NZ Post Delivery Vehicles (Paxsters): Attachment 2
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 November 2017 |
REPORT R8365
Waste Assessment and Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Nelson City Council/Tasman District Council (NCC/TDC) Joint Waste Assessment.
1.2 To approve a joint Council working party to review the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP).
2. Recommendation
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves the formation of a Joint Nelson City Council/Tasman District Council Working Party to advise both Councils on the review of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, subject to a reciprocal agreement by Tasman District Council; and Approves the Draft Terms of Reference as per attachment A1831374; and Appoints Councillors Walker, Barker and xxxxx as Nelson City Council members of the Joint Council Waste Working Party; and Notes that the Joint Council Waste Working Party will report back to this Council’s Works and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be adopted by April 2018. |
3. Background
3.1 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (Act) requires all councils to review their Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at intervals of not more than 6 years.
3.2 The current Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) is a joint NCC and TDC plan and was adopted by both Councils in April 2012, meaning the review is due by April 2018.
3.3 Section 51 of the Act requires the Councils to prepare a Waste Assessment prior to reviewing the JWMMP. The following information is required in the waste assessment:
· Description of existing services.
· Forecast of future demands.
· Statement of options to meet forecast demands.
· Statement of the Territorial Authority’s role in meeting forecast demands.
· Statement of Territorial Authority’s proposals for meeting forecast demands.
· Statement how these proposals will protect public health and promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation.
4. Discussion
4.1 NCC and TDC officers have prepared a joint waste assessment (Refer Attachment 1).
4.2 The assessment was reviewed by the Medical Officer of Health (MOH). The MOH comments are appended to this report at Attachment 2.
4.3 The MOH is pleased that the two councils continue with the joint approach adopted for the development of the previous plan and request that the councils consider including a section showing the progress made with the implementation of the current plan.
4.4 The progress made on the current plan will be reported and considered during the development of the next waste management and minimisation plan.
Key findings of the Waste Assessment
4.5 The Waste Assessment found that:
· Waste to landfill per capita has decreased from 642kg per person in 2009/10 to 598kg in 2015/16, while the national average increased.
· The total waste to landfill over that period has remained almost flat, with 59,556 tonnes in 2009/10 to 60,355 in 2015/16 (excluding waste from Buller District)
· There remains a significant volume of material being landfilled which could be diverted.
· Following the introduction of wheelie bins material recovered through kerbside recycling has increased.
Treatment options identified
4.6 The Councils have a range of options to meet (and manage) the demand for waste management and minimisation in the future. These options include provision of infrastructure and services, supporting services provided by the commercial and community sector, encouraging behaviour change by the community, regulating activities and collecting better data on waste and services.
4.7 The Waste Assessment includes a high-level review of the suitability of each of the options to meet demand, but does not recommend a specific set of options for the Councils to implement.
Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
4.8 A preliminary review of the existing JWMMP shows that the current plan is still largely fit-for-purpose, but needs to be updated to reflect changing trends and activities in the region. The document also needs to be updated to reflect the shared governance and new funding arrangements for the landfills in the region.
4.9 The terms of reference for the regional landfill requires the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) to operate in accordance with the JWMMP.
4.10 Officers are of the view that it makes sense that the Councils delegate a review of the JWMMP to a working party of councillors from each Council and include NTRLBU representation. The Joint Waste Working Party will advise the two Councils regarding the adoption of a new JWMMP.
4.11 The previous Joint Waste Working Party included three councillors from each council, representatives of the MOH and an Iwi cultural consultant.
4.12 This joint waste working party approach worked well in the development of the previous plan.
4.13 Any future joint waste working party should consider how best to engage with the community and commercial waste providers as part of their delegated work and be authorised to co-opt other parties identified with interest in the development of the plan.
4.14 Officers recommend that a joint working group be established to review the waste assessment and develop and implement a strategy that will allow the councils to adopt a new JWMMP by April 2018.
4.15 TDC took a reciprocal report to their Engineering Services Committee on the 5 October 2017. That report as well as this report was worked on jointly by both NCC/TDC officers. The TDC Committee resolved as follows:
That the Engineering Services Committee
1. receives the Joint Waste Assessment - Tasman District and Nelson City Councils report, RESC17-10-03; and
2. approves the Nelson-Tasman Joint Waste Assessment 2017, dated 26 September 2017 as an assessment under section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008; and
3. approves the formation of a Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council Joint Waste Working Party to advise both councils on the review of the Nelson City Council-Tasman District Council Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 (subject to a reciprocal agreement by Nelson City Council); and
4. approves the Terms of Reference for the Joint Waste Working Party attached to this report; and
5. appoints Councillors Bryant, Maling and McNamara as members of the Joint Waste Working Party; and
6. directs that the Joint Waste Working Party report back to the Engineering Services Committee to ensure that the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be adopted by April 2018.
4.16 TDC officers recommended that two councillors be nominated as Tasman District Councillors representatives for the Joint Waste Working Party. However, the committee resolved that they would prefer to nominate three members as this worked well during the previous Joint Waste Working party deliberations.
4.17 NCC officers had recommend at time of writing this report with TDC that Councillors Walker and Barker who represent NCC on the NTRLBU be NCC’s nominees on the Joint Waste Working Party.
4.18 However, now with TDC resolving to put three of their councillors on the Joint Waste Working Party it is only reasonable to offer that same courtesy to NCC councillors.
4.19 In principle NCC officers have no issue with three councillors being nominated from each council, but for continuity still recommend that councillors Walker and Barker be NCC’s nominees. The Works and Infrastructure Committee can nominate a further councillor.
4.20 Officers also support that iwi be approached to ascertain their interest in being part of the Working Party.
Terms of Reference (ToR)
4.21 Officers recommend that the joint waste working party be established to:
· review the Joint Waste Assessment
· review progress against indicators in the 2012 JWMMP, and
· consider community input and any need to meet with interested parties or co-opt additional members assist in the process.
4.22 NCC and TDC officers have developed a draft ToR for consideration (refer Attachment 3).
5. Options
5.1 The Council has two options with respect to the Waste Assessment – either approve or not the assessment undertaken jointly by NCC/TDC officers and recommend that the waste assessment be approved.
5.2 The Council has two options with respect to the review of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, either:
· Delegate a review of the JWMMP to a working party of Councillors and other members;
· Develop a separate Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for each Council.
|
Option 1: Development of a Joint NCC/TDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan using a Joint NCC/TDC Waste Working Party |
|
|
Advantages |
· This option was used successfully in the development of the last JWMMP. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· The waste industry operates freely across the district-city boundary and operates in a single market. · The NTRLBU is also required to act in accordance with a JWMMP and having two separate plans could cause conflicting objectives for the business unit. |
|
Option 2: Development of separate Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plans |
|
|
Advantages |
· Easier decision making. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· The waste industry operates freely across the district-city boundary and operates in a single market · The NTRLBU is also required to act in accordance with a JWMMP and having two separate plans could cause conflicting objectives for the business unit. |
6. Conclusion
6.1 The Council has a statutory obligation to review the JWMMP by April 2018 and both NCC and TDC officers have prepared a Waste Assessment to support this review.
6.2 The Joint Waste Assessment provides the basis for the review of the JWMMP.
6.3 The formation a Joint Waste Working Party consisting of both NCC and TDC councillors will create a mechanism through which the review and adoption of a new plan can be managed effectively and efficiently.
Johan Thiart
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1795347 Draft Nelson-Tasman Joint Waste Assessment ⇩
Attachment 2: A1822245 - Letter from MOH - Joint Waste Assessment ⇩
Attachment 3: A1831374 - Joint Waste Working Party - Terms of Reference ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The JWMMP is a key strategic document for waste management and minimisation in the region. It affects the management of Council services and provision of long-term infrastructure. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The review of the JWMMP needs to consider the long term objectives and policies for the region. It is a document that will guide waste management decisions by the Council over the next up to 6 years. |
|
3. Risk The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires the Council to review the JWMMP at an interval of no less than six years. The existing JWMMP was adopted in April 2012 and needs to be reviewed by April 2018. |
|
4. Financial impact The review of this plan will require professional advice, and this will be funded with existing budgets. Decisions made in the review and amendment of the JWMMP may have financial or budgetary implications for the Council in the medium to long term, but these impacts will be ultimately determined by the Council through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement Waste management and minimisation policy affects most people in our region every day. Recent history in the region has shown that at times commercial operators and the wider community have taken a significant interest in the decisions of the Council. The Councils will need to ensure sufficient opportunity for public engagement in the development of the plan. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Iwi will be invited to nominate representatives to represent iwi interest on the joint waste working party. Iwi will have the opportunity to make submissions for the consideration of the Councils through the special consultative process. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter. |
