Agenda of Council - 20 March 2018

N-logotype-black-wide Nelson City Council

20 March 2018

Page No.

Opening Prayer

1. Apologies

Councillor Matheson from 1.30pm

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Paul McIntyre, Fundraising and Marketing Manager, and Frans Dellebeke, Chief Executive, of Nelson Tasman Hospice

Paul McIntyre and Frans Dellebeke, of Nelson Tasman Hospice, will speak about the waiver/reduction of development fees for the new Hospice facility being built in Suffolk Road.

4.2 Mark Lile, Landmark Lile Ltd

Mark Lile will be speaking about the Special Housing Area applications on the agenda.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 22 February 2018 16 - 22

Document number M3286

Recommendation

That the Council

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 22 February 2018, as a true and correct record.

5.2 8 March 2018 23 - 26

Document number M3330

Recommendation

That the Council

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 8 March 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Council - 20 March 2018 27 - 37

Document number R9110

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Status Report - Council - 20 March 2018 (R9110) and its attachment (A1168168).

7. Mayor's Report 38 - 43

Document number R9097

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Mayor's Report (R9097) and its attachment (A1922838); and

Receives the Remuneration Authority Amendment Determination 2018; and

Updates the Nelson City Council Delegations Register to reflect that all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to Development contributions associated with the Nelson Tasman Hospice; the review of the development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 and the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw are referred to Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES

8. Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 13 February 2018

8.1 Theatre Royal Loan

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Agrees to take on the Nelson Historic Theatre Trust’s loan of $632,256 from the Nelson Building Society; and

Confirms that it expects the Nelson Historic Theatre Trust to repay the full loan amount (total $2,132,256); and

Agrees to increase the mortgage over the building to $2,132,256; and

Sets the loan repayment terms for the Nelson Historic Theatre Trust at $60,000 per year, payable quarterly (commencing in September 2018), with payment terms subject to review every five years.

9. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 22 February 2018

9.1 Nelson Tasman Hospice - Authority to Consider Development Contributions

This Report is Item 12 on this Agenda

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Considers the matter of the Nelson Tasman Hospice Development Contributions.

9.2 Authority to Review the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015

This Report is Item 16 on this Agenda

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Undertakes the review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015.

9.3 Resource Management and Special Housing Areas charges

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Approves the charges as under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (A1822386) to commence from 21 March 2018.

9.4 Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Undertakes the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

10. Community Services Committee - 1 March 2018

10.1 Greenmeadows Centre - referral of delegation

This Report is Item 15 on this Agenda

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Considers matters relating to the Greenmeadows Centre project.

11. Governance Committee - 8 March 2018

11.1 Policy Review: Appointment of Directors/Trustees of CCOs and CCTOs

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the reviewed and amended Nelson City Council Policy for the Appointment of Directors/Trustees of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations (A284857).

REPORTS

12. Nelson Tasman Hospice - Development Contributions 45 - 49

Document number R8896

Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Hospice - Development Contributions (R8896); and

Declines the request from the Nelson Tasman Hospice for waiving or reducing of development contributions for the new hospice; and

Suggests that the Nelson Tasman Hospice make a submission to both the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for funding for the project during their respective Long Term Plan consultations.

13. Special Housing Areas Requests January 2018 50 - 73

Document number R9066

Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Special Housing Areas Requests January 2018 (R9066) and its attachments; and

Approves 3D Hill Street North (A1923031), subject to the developer entering into a legal Deed with the Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall:

(i) design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Council’s infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and;

(ii) submit the approval of the urban design panel with any application for resource consent; and

(iii) satisfy the Group Manager Infrastructure that a wastewater system will be available to Hill Street North to service the SHA. The works and their timing shall be identified in the Deed and/or a Private Developers Agreement prior to the SHA being recommended to the Associate Minister.

Approves 2 City Heights (A1922971), subject to the developer entering into a legal Deed with the Council which requires, amongst other matters, approval by the Urban Design Panel, and that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Council’s infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 31 Tipahi Street (A1923200), subject to the developer entering into a legal Deed with the Council which requires, amongst other matters, approval by the Urban Design Panel, and that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Council’s infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 397 Suffolk Road (A1923185), subject to the developer entering into a legal Deed with the Council which requires, amongst other matters, approval by the Urban Design Panel, and that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Council’s infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA.

Approves that Her Worship the Mayor recommend those potential areas 3D Hill Street North, 2 City Heights, 31 Tipahi Street, and 397 Suffolk Road to the Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as amended by the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

14. Adoption of the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and Related Documents 74 - 80

Document number R9061

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Adoption of the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and Related Documents (R9061) and its attachments:

· Community Outcomes (A1901398);

· Council Activity Summaries (A1889191 and A1895587);

· Forecasting Assumptions (A1725210);

· Financial Strategy (A1816122);

· Infrastructure Strategy (A1816478);

· Statement on Fostering Māori Participation in Council Decision Making (A1703725);

· Revenue and Financing Policy (A1849376);

· Funding Impact Statement (A1911642);

· Rates Remission Policy (A1912191);

· Financial Statements (Accounting Information) (A1928909);

· Liability Management Policy (A1765543);

· Investment Policy (A1261457);

· Council Controlled Organisations (A1784915);

· Consultation Document (A1927914) be received and

Approves the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and related documents for public consultation and

Adopts the Community Outcomes (A1901398), Council Activity Summaries (A1889191 and A1895587), Forecasting Assumptions (A1725210), Financial Strategy (A1816122), Infrastructure Strategy (A1816478), the Statement on fostering Māori participation in Council decision making (A1703725), Revenue and Financing Policy (A1849367); the Funding Impact Statement (rates) (A1911642); the Rates Remission Policy (A1912191); the Financial Statements (Accounting Information) (A1928909); the Liability Management Policy (A1765543); the Investment Policy (A1261457) and the Council Controlled Organisations (A1784915) as supporting information for the Consultation Document as required by section 93 G of the Local Government Act 2002 and

Adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy (A1849376) and Rates Remission Policy (A1912191) for concurrent consultation with the Consultation Document under the provisions of section 82 of Local Government Act 2002, having considered all the reasonably practicable options and

Approves an extension to 23 April of the consultation period for the Statement of Proposal relating to the proposed contribution to the Waimea Dam project, in order to receive public feedback on the OPUS report, Drought Security – Maitai Dam and its supporting documents (A1928877) and

Adopts the Request for Further Submissions on the Proposed Contribution to the Waimea Dam Project and

Adopts the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document (A1927914) for a public submission process to run from 23 March to 23 April 2018 and

Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the documents being released for public consultation.

15. Greenmeadows Centre Budget and Programme Update

This report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be distributed separately.

16. Review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 81 - 154

Document number R8921

Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 (R8921) and its attachments (A1918429 and A1928523); and

Approves the adoption of the draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 and consultation document for concurrent consultation with the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

17. Further Delegations to the Hearings Panel - Other 155 - 164

Document number R8866

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Further Delegations to the Hearings Panel - Other (R8866) and its attachment (A1912628); and

Delegates the decision making on changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public consultation to the Hearings Panel - Other; and

Delegates the hearing of submissions and recommendation on proposed changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw requiring public consultation to the Hearings Panel - Other; and

Delegates the administering body functions under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 on proposed rights of way and other easements on reserves vested in Council to the Hearings Panel – Other.

18. Nelson Mountain Biking Economic study 165 - 201

Document number R8960

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Nelson Mountain Biking Economic study (R8960) and its attachment (A1905058).

19. Notice of Motion - Impact of Blockages to the Wastewater Network 202 - 204

Document number R9086

Recommendation from Councillor Lawrey

That the Council

Receives the report Notice of Motion – Impact of Blockages to the Wastewater Network (R9086) and its attachment/s (A1920088); and

Writes to the manufacturers and distributors of antibacterial wipes sold in New Zealand requesting that they change their products’ packaging so that it clearly states that the wipes should not be flushed down toilets; and

Writes to other councils to encourage them to write to the manufacturers and distributors of antibacterial wipes with the same request; and

Writes to supermarket operators Progressive Enterprises and Foodstuffs to request that they develop in-store signage alerting customers to the dangers of disposing of antibacterial wipes down the toilet.

Public Excluded Business

20. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting – Public Excluded Minutes - 22 February 2018	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
2	Council Meeting – Public Excluded Minutes - 8 March 2018	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3	Status Report – Council – Public Excluded – 20 March 2018	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
4.	Recommendations from Committees	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
5	Greenmeadows Centre Budget and Programme Update	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
6	Update – Statement of Understanding and city amenity matters	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
7	Haven Road property – further information	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)
8	Request for Proposals – Major Sporting Event	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)
9	Request for Leave of Absence	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council Meeting – Public Excluded Minutes - 22 February 2018

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)(a)

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

Council Meeting – Public Excluded Minutes - 8 March 2018

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)(a)

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

Section 7(2)(i)

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

Status Report – Council – Public Excluded – 20 March 2018

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)(a)

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

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Recommendations from Committees

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)(a)

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

Greenmeadows Centre Budget and Programme Update

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)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Update – Statement of Understanding and city amenity matters

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)(a)

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

· Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Haven Road property – further information

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)

Request for Proposals – Major Sporting Event

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)

Request for Leave of Absence

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)(a)

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

21. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

That the Council

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Note:

· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime. (delete as appropriate)

· Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

· Youth Councillors Reuben Panting and Max Schneider will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

· Members of Youth Council will be in attendance to meet Council during the morning tea break

Nelson City Council Minutes - 22 February 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Thursday 22 February 2018, commencing at 9.07am - to approve LTP Consultation Document to go to Audit

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies: Nil

Opening Prayer

Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.

1. Apologies

There were no apologies. Her Worship the Mayor advised that Councillor Fulton would be taking part in the meeting via audio link.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton joined the meeting via audio link at 9.10a.m.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor advised of one late item for the public excluded part of the meeting, and that the following resolution needed to be passed for the item to be considered:

2.1 Request for Refund of Financial Contributions for Stormwater

Resolved CL/2018/001

That the Council

Considers the public excluded item regarding Request for Refund of Financial Contributions for Stormwater at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, because it came to hand after the agenda was distributed and a resolution on the matter is required before the next scheduled meeting.

Noonan/Courtney Carried

3. Interests

Councillor Rutledge declared an interest in Natureland Wildlife Trust in relation to Item 6 – Audit of Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document.

Councillor Barker declared a potential interest if discussion took place on Tahuna Holiday Park in relation to Item 6 – Audit of Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document.

4. Public Forum

4.1 Kim Hall spoke to a petition regarding the installation of a pedestrian refuge on Main Road Stoke. Her points included:

· the petition represented the concerns of the wider community

· car parking was at a premium, the main road was essential to visit stores, with easy access from the main road

· the car park was built 20 years ago, there was a growing population

· the refuge was to be situated 52 metres from the closest traffic lights

· the existing crossing was the safest place to cross, this was a busy road in daytime hours

· the refuge would hinder emergency services in heavy traffic at the lights

· there was a danger of accidents with vehicles stopping for people on the refuge

· the Stoke business hub needed more carparks.

Her Worship the Mayor noted that construction of the refuge was underway, that a safety audit would be undertaken, and requested that the Chief Executive arrange for staff to communicate with Ms Hall regarding the rationale for the placement of the refuge.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 14 December 2017

Document number M3204, agenda pages 5 - 33 refer.

Resolved CL/2018/002

That the Council

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 14 December 2017, as a true and correct record.

Walker/McGurk Carried

6. Audit of Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document

Document number R8961, agenda pages 34 - 292 refer.

Further supporting documents were tabled.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, and Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, spoke to the report and answered questions relating to:

· Uniform Annual General Charge

· Priorities

· New Funding

· Forestry land

· Marae Maintenance Funding

· Commercial Differential

· CBD Enhancement.

Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, answered questions regarding Natureland. Group Manager Infrastructure Services answered questions regarding CBD Enhancement.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 10.06a.m. and returned at 10.19a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 10.13a.m. and returned at 10.23a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 10.14a.m. and returned at 10.16a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 10.25a.m. when discussion on Natureland took place, as he had declared an interest.

Attendance: The meeting was adjourned at 10.33a.m. and reconvened at 10.53a.m. Councillor Rutledge was not present.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 11.00a.m.

Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, and Senior Asset Engineer Phil Ruffell, advised the meeting that new information had been received regarding drought security and water supply that was relevant to the decision to make a contribution to the Waimea Dam. They recommended that the community be provided with the information and have the opportunity to make comment. The new information would be provided to the public in the suite of supporting documents to the Long Term Plan (LTP) Consultation Document.

Questions were answered on the process going forward and the meeting was advised that the Special Consultative Process that had begun would continue in parallel with the LTP consultation, and that the Long Term Plan hearings would have a section set aside for Waimea Dam submissions. It was agreed that the process would be further discussed at the 27 February 2018 Council workshop, where staff would present the full package of information and there would be an opportunity for a question and answer session.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting at 11.03a.m. and returned at 11.06a.m.

Senior Asset Engineer Phil Ruffell provided background information and answered questions on the Opus report, model and the City’s water requirements.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting at 11.36a.m. and returned at 11.40.am.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 11.41a.m. and returned at 11.42a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 11.42a.m. and returned at 11.44.am.

The motion was put.

Resolved CL/2018/003

That the Council

Receives the report Audit of Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document (R8961) and its attachments (A1784383, A1911418, A1889191, A1895587, A1816122, A1915276, A1816478, A1911642, A1703725, A1914817, A1896597, A1765543, A1261457, A1784915) and;

Approves the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and supporting documents for audit.

A division was called:

For

Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Acland

Cr Barker

Cr Courtney

Cr Dahlberg

Cr Fulton

Cr Matheson

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rutledge

Cr Skinner

Cr Walker

Against

Cr Lawrey

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 12 - 1.

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried

Attachments

1 A1920076 - Opus Report - Drought Security - Maitai Dam

2 A1918056 - Maitai Drought Study memo

3 A1920140 – Maitai Dam Drought Security Projections

4 A1920086 - Addendum 1 Medium Growth + Additional Demand

5 A1896597 - Draft Financial Statements

6 A1911642 - Draft Funding Impact Statement 2018-28

7 A1914810 - Draft Activity FIS

Councillor Barker requested that the minutes record a vote of thanks to emergency responders.

Vote of thanks to emergency responders to ex-cyclone Gita emergency events

Resolved CL/2018/004

That the Council

Moves a vote of thanks to the emergency responders at recent ex-cyclone Gita emergency events.

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried

7. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2018/005

That the Council

Confirms, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Mr Matt Conway, Partner, Simpson Grierson Local Government and Environment Group, remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 2 of the Public Excluded agenda Request for Refund of Financial Contributions for Stormwater, as he has knowledge that will assist the Council;

Notes, in accordance with section 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the knowledge that Mr Conway possesses relates to legal advice.

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried

Resolved CL/2018/006

That the Council

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker 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	Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 14 December 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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Request for Refund of Financial Contributions for Stormwater	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 14 December 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)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Request for Refund of Financial Contributions for Stormwater

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)(a)

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

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.58a.m. and resumed in public session at 1.38p.m.

8. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved CL/2018/010

That the Council

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Noonan/Barker Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.38p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

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	Nelson School of Music Earthquake Strengthening Funding	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	Nelson Festivals Trust - Council Appointment of Trustees	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item 9: Nelson Tasman Hospice - Development Contributions

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R8896

Nelson Tasman Hospice - Development Contributions

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide whether Nelson Hospice should be granted a waiver or reduction in development contributions for the new hospice building.

2. Summary

2.1 The Nelson Tasman Hospice has requested Council waive or reduce development contributions for the new hospital in Stoke.

2.2 The development contributions are $141,681.77.

2.3 It is recommended that Council decline this request and suggest the Hospice seeks funding by making a submission to the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

3. Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Hospice - Development Contributions (R8896); and

Declines the request from the Nelson Tasman Hospice for waiving or reducing of development contributions for the new hospice; and

4. Background

4.1 The Nelson Tasman Hospice is a non-profit charitable trust that provides end of life care for those with terminal illness. The service is provided free of charge. The Hospice is a regional facility serving both the Nelson and Tasman communities.

4.2 Due to expansion of the Manuka Street Hospital, the Nelson Tasman Hospice has been forced to relocate. The new Hospice will be located on Suffolk Road in Stoke.

4.3 Council officers received a request from the Nelson Tasman Hospice Trust for a waiver or reduction of the Development Contributions.

5. Discussion

Development Contributions Policy

5.1 Section 7 of the Development Contributions Policy lists development activities that are exempt from paying development contributions. This list includes activities such as Kindergartens, Play centres, integrated schools and specific social housing developments.

5.2 Also exempt, as required by the Local Government Act, are developments undertaken by entities of the Crown. Fitting within this description would be a public hospital.

5.3 The policy does not specifically list a hospice or hospital not operated by the Crown. Therefore the Nelson Tasman Hospice is not included in the exemptions.

5.4 Any waiver or reduction to the development contributions for this development will be as an exception to the policy.

Development Contributions Amount

5.5 Development contributions for the new Nelson Tasman Hospice have been calculated as being $141,681.77. This represents approximately 4% of the total development contributions collected in the 2016/17 financial year. This contribution will fund the infrastructure upgrades necessary to allow the Hospice to have essential services provided to it.

5.6 If a waiver or reduction is approved, the balance funds to provide that infrastructure will need to be borne by ratepayers.

Financial Contributions Amount

5.7 Financial Contributions for reserves and community services have already been waived. The financial value of these have not been calculated due to the costs in having the development and land valued but are estimated to be in the order of $30,000 in total.

5.8 The financial contributions were waived due to there not being any likely increase in demand for reserves or community services as a result of the Hospice development. The Nelson Resource Management Plan allows for waivers of this type to be made.

5.9 Council have therefore provided some financial assistance already to the development of the hospice in recognition that the demand on reserves by the Hospice is low.

Alternative funding assistance

5.10 An alternative method investigated was for Council to provide financial assistance with a grant from the Council Community Investment Fund to the Nelson Tasman Hospice. The hospice does not meet the criteria for this funding due the activity not aligning with the 2018/19 Contribution Areas and Priorities.

6. Options

6.1 Option 1 is that Council decline to waive or reduce the requirement for payment of a development contribution and encourage the Hospice to apply for funding via submission to the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2018-28 Long Term Plans.

6.2 Option 2 is that Council approve waiving or reduction of the development contribution.

Option 1: Decline request for waiver or reduction
Advantages	· Cost of growth related infrastructure continues to be funded by the developments that have an effect. · Reduced financial burden on ratepayers. · Consistency with the Development Contributions Policy.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Possibility of poor publicity.
Option 2: Approve request for waiver or reduction
Advantages	· Supports a community service.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May set a precedent for future applications. · Additional costs to ratepayers. · Inconsistent application of the development Contributions Policy.

6.3 Option 1 is recommended by Council Officers with a recommendation that the Nelson Tasman Hospice make a request for funding via a submission to the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2018-28 Long Term Plans. The purpose of development contributions is to fund Council’s significant investment in additional assets required to meet the demands of growth. If Council seeks to provide financial support for the Hospice, it is more appropriate for this to come from appropriate budgets via the Long Term Plan process.

Lisa Gibellini

Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommended decision is consistent with the purpose of Local Government in that it retains the integrity of the funding for growth related infrastructure requirements. The recommended option also allows Council to consider the matter of funding in the more appropriate forum of the Long Term Plan deliberations.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Option 1 as recommended is consistent with the Policy on Development Contributions and Financial Contributions – 2015.

3. Risk

Either option present some risk of damaging Council’s public perception. If Option 1 is approved, as recommended, Council may be seen as unsympathetic to those likely to use the Hospice services. If Option 2 is approved there is a risk that Council will be seen to be spending rates on non-core services. The risk for both options is likely to be low-moderate.

4. Financial impact

There is no cost to Council with the recommended Option 1. There will be costs to Council, ratepayers and developers if option 2 is adopted.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the recommended Option 1 does not have any financial impact or change Council services. Consideration of this matter via the Long Term Plan will allow for public engagement and transparency.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with any third party has been undertaken.

7. Delegations

Council has the power to decide this matter.

Item 10: Special Housing Areas Requests January 2018

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R9066

Special Housing Areas Requests January 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider requests for new Special Housing Areas (SHAs) received over the last quarter up until 30 January 2018.

1.2 To agree that Her Worship the Mayor recommend to the Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development SHAs approved as suitable by the Council for consideration under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) as amended by the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

2. Summary

2.1 This report seeks consideration of SHAs at:

· 3D Hill Street North

· 2 City Heights

· 31 Tipahi Street

· 397 Suffolk Rd

2.2 The SHA request at 3D Hill Street North is zoned Rural Small Holdings Higher Density. The Nelson Housing Accord states a preference for SHAs to be established within existing urban zones. Development is currently occurring in this area and it is considered that this proposal is consistent with the three adjoining SHAs already approved for recommendation to the Associate Minister. For these reasons, the recommendation is that this request is recommended to the Associate Minister for approval. Officers provide some specific recommendations in relation to the provision of wastewater services to this area for this SHA.

2.3 This report provides an analysis of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of all proposed SHAs to be considered, along with identification of the permitted baseline (i.e. what could currently be allowed through the Nelson Resource Management Plan) for each site. This information is provided to aid Council’s consideration of the SHAs. Developers will present concepts for the proposed SHAs at the public forum where these are available.

3. Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Special Housing Areas Requests January 2018 (R9066) and its attachments; and

(ii) submit the approval of the urban design panel with any application for resource consent; and

4. Background

4.1 Council entered into a Housing Accord with the then Minister of Building and Housing on 11 June 2015 under HASHAA. The Accord has been extended three times and now terminates on 16 September 2021.

4.2 In order to meet its obligations under the Housing Accord, especially in relation to targets, Council can consider using Special Housing Areas as a tool under HASHAA. Under the Accord Council can recommend the creation of Special Housing Areas to the Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development.

4.3 To date the Council has recommended 37 SHAs to the Associate Minister with a total potential yield of 1481 residential units. Once a SHA has been approved for gazettal, applications may be made for a resource consent called a qualifying development. Applications for qualifying developments are assessed with specific provisions to meet the purpose of the HASHAA. To date, 32 qualifying development consents have been granted (this includes consents for some developments that require multiple or staged consents), and four sites are either under construction or complete.

4.4 As long as the Council is an Accord Authority, it can consider proposals for new SHAs and propose existing or future resource consents under the HASHAA.

4.5 The purpose of this report is to consider new SHA requests under the current Accord received by the Council over the quarter until 31 January 2018.

5. Discussion

5.1 Officers have received requests for four further SHAs. Details of the SHAs, proposed qualifying development criteria, and an early assessment of infrastructure requirements are provided in Attachments 1 to 4.

5.2 The criteria used to evaluate SHA suitability and each site’s assessment are also summarised in Attachments 1 to 4, along with a map identifying each area. The criteria include the HASHAA requirements that need to be satisfied (infrastructure is likely to be provided and that there is demand for housing), consistency with the Accord, and alignment with the Nelson Resource Management Plan.

5.3 Matters for consideration common to all SHA proposals are discussed in sections 5.4 to 5.6. Particular SHA requirements are discussed in the following sections 5.7 to 5.12. A summary of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of each proposal is provided in Table 1 in section 5.13 below.

Infrastructure Provision

5.4 Some sites already have sufficient infrastructure connections. Other sites require additional connection and/or capacity to be provided. Where there is no project in the Long Term Plan (LTP) the necessary infrastructure will need to be provided by the developer at the developers’ cost. Developers are able to seek that projects be included in the LTP and the Council can choose to consult with the community on their inclusion via the LTP process.

5.5 The Council can choose to require developers to enter into a Deed detailing infrastructure requirements that need to be met by the developer. Officers have evaluated the infrastructure requirements of each SHA and recommend that there is a need for Deeds for this group of SHAs to make clear to developers their responsibility in relation to ensuring sufficient infrastructure capacity/connection to support the development. A disadvantage with entering into a Deed is that it adds officer time and administration to the SHA process and has legal costs associated with it. However this is outweighed by the clarity the Deed provides in identifying who is responsible for costs to provide sufficient infrastructure to serve the SHAs.

Urban Design Panel

5.6 The Council’s standard Deed template also requires that Urban Design Panel approval is submitted to the Council with any resource consent sought under the HASHAA. The Deed specifies that the costs of the Urban Design Panel approval process are passed on to the applicant. Officers are aware that there has been one current SHA developer who has questioned the value of the Urban Design Panel process. That developer expressed concern over the scope of alterations proposed by the Panel. Many other developers have appreciated the expert advice provided by the Panel. Officers consider that the Urban Design Panel remains the most appropriate method to ensure quality of design in a process which avoids the regular Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) processes including hearings.

Saxton Area SHAs - 3D Hill Street North

5.7 3D Hill Street North is part of the rural zoned growth area between the previously recommended Saxton SHA, Ngati Rarua SHA and Saxton Creek, and has similar and interrelated infrastructure constraints.

5.8 Development is currently taking place in the area around 3D Hill Street North. There have been three other SHAs approved under the Nelson Housing Accord on land adjacent to 3D Hill Street North (1A Hill Street North was approved by the Council on 3 March 2016, and 3B and 3C Hill Street North on 21 September 2017) which are in either the Rural Small Holdings or Rural zone.

5.9 All development in this area is dependent on both public and private infrastructure investment. SHAs are able to be serviced for water, wastewater and stormwater as a result of the Deeds and Private Developers Agreements in the area. Currently the provision of the wastewater network to the SHAs in this area is dependent upon the main being brought out to Hill Street North from Daelyn Drive. Although Council has easements partially in place to facilitate the extension of the wastewater network to Hill Street North, the actual timing of the works are dependent upon a last very small stage of Daelyn Drive being developed. There is a risk that the last stage of Daelyn Drive acts as a spite strip and holds up the timely provision of wastewater services to the SHAs in the area.

5.10 Officers have had numerous conversations with the developer of Daelyn Drive to try to get timely provision of the wastewater network out to Hill Street North to satisfy the requirements of section 16 of HASHAA that infrastructure is ‘likely’ to exist for various SHAs in the area. Significant time has passed without this wastewater connection being achieved and therefore the officer’s assessment of whether it is ‘likely’ to exist to support SHAs in the area has changed. Officers consider that the Council approval to recommend the SHA at 3D Hill Street to the Associate Minister should be subject to the applicant entering into a Deed to ensure that the HASHAA requirement of ‘likely’ to have sufficient infrastructure can be satisfied by the timely provision of the wastewater network to Hill Street North. A recommendation that the applicant enter into a Deed to ensure that Council can be satisfied that a wastewater system will be made available to Hill Street North is included in this report. The recommendation also provides that the developers work with Council to identify timing and funding of works in the Deed and/or a Private Developers Agreement and that this occurs prior to the SHA being recommended to the Associate Minister.

Note: Make available means a pipe vested in Council and/or an easement in gross connecting to Hill Street North with the size of the pipe subject to specific design and large enough to provide capacity for adjacent areas with development potential.

5.11 Officers are unable to determine the precise transport implications of SHAs in the Saxton area on the Champion Road roundabout until resource consent applications are received. Officers are working with Tasman District Council to identify potential capacity enhancing solutions for the roundabout. HASHAA provides that the Accord Authority may notify infrastructure providers who have assets adjacent to the site during the resource consent process.

5.12 The Council is contemplating including this land in a future urban expansion area (rezoning) as part of the Nelson Plan. While this is not yet policy, this SHA request is not inconsistent with that future use nor with adjacent land use.

Advantages, Risks, and Permitted Baselines

5.13 Individual assessments of the four SHA requests are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: SHA Advantages, Risks, and Disadvantages, and the Permitted Baseline that applies under the NRMP
3D Hill Street
Advantages	The landowner is able to use non-notification and extra discretion provided for under the HASHAA to bring a qualifying development to market more economically than under the RMA, avoiding the need to apply for a non-complying resource consent or private plan change. Land is made available for an increased supply of housing in an area that can reasonably be expected to be developed for housing at some point in the medium-term. The development would provide approximately 15 additional dwellings compared to what currently exists on the site.
Risks and Disadvantages	If the SHA is not approved, the land is likely to be developed under the RMA process. This will result in a more complicated development process for the site inconsistent with adjoining SHAs. The site is zoned Rural Small Holdings and the community may not be anticipating intensive residential development of this site. There is a risk that the adjoining landowners are not supportive of the SHA. This risk is similar to that evaluated by Council for the three SHAs approved in this area. The Nelson Housing Accord has a particular focus on enhancing supply in existing urban areas. Officers consider that a SHA at 3D Hill Street is suitable as it has proximity to the existing Saxton SHAs, it is also close to services, schools and transport routes and has a low level of rural productive potential. This consideration is made on the basis of the recommendations regarding the specific Deed content are accepted.
Permitted baseline	One residential dwelling can be erected on the site. The Rural Small Holdings Higher Density zone allows an average site area of 10,000m²and a minimum site area of 5000m². Further subdivision of this site under the NRMP would be a non-complying activity.
2 City Heights
Advantages	This development site would be able to use the additional 4.5m building height sought above the permitted baseline for more intensive land use on the sloping site. The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA. The development would provide approximately an additional 5 dwellings compared to what currently exists on the site.
Risks and Disadvantages	There is a risk that the cost of developing infrastructure (road access and wastewater) to service the site may be uneconomic and the development does not proceed.
Permitted baseline	A similar density of lots can be developed on site under the Nelson Resource Management Plan as is proposed under the SHA (subject to geotechnical, road access, and landscape provisions) with a minimum site area of 400m², up to a maximum height of 7.5m with 40% coverage. Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.
31 Tipahi Street
Advantages	The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA. This development site would be able to use the additional 1.5m building height sought above the permitted baseline for more intensive land use. The development would provide approximately an additional 3 dwellings compared to what currently exists on the site.
Risks and Disadvantages	There is a risk that the costs of managing the stormwater effects on infrastructure may cause the development to be uneconomic and not proceed.
Permitted Baseline	The density proposed is higher than provided under the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) by approximately one dwelling (i.e. they propose four dwellings and would likely only get three under the NRMP). One dwelling per 400m² can be erected on this site (subject to stormwater and landscape provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage. Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.
397 Suffolk Rd
Advantages	The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA. The development would provide approximately an additional 6 dwellings compared to what currently exists on the site.
Risks and Disadvantages	If servicing is available and the SHA is not approved, the land may be developed under the RMA process and the standard residential development provisions of the NRMP. Development of the Rural Zoned part of the site will need to go through a non-complying consent process.
Permitted Baseline	A similar density could be achieved under the NRMP provisions. One dwelling per 400m² can be erected on this site (subject to geotechnical, road access, and landscape provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage. Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.

6. Options

6.1 Council has the option of approving these SHAs for recommendation to the Associate Minister, or declining to recommend them to the Associate Minister.

6.2 If the Council decides to recommend any SHA proposals in this report to the Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development, it is recommended that they all be subject to entering into a Deed to ensure that the developer acknowledges that the costs and responsibility of providing appropriate and sufficient infrastructure connection and capacity to the sites is to be borne by the developer, unless it is a project included in the Council’s LTP, and also being subject to approval by the Urban Design Panel.

6.3 If the Council approves the SHAs in this report then they will yield approximately a further 27 residential units (net) on top of the already approved 1481 residential units enabled in Nelson under the HASHAA.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Officers have received requests for SHAs to be approved at 3D Hill Street North, 2 City Heights, 31 Tipahi Street, and 397 Suffolk Rd.

7.2 The Council as an Accord Territorial Authority is able to consider these requests for recommendation to the Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development.

7.3 Council Officers have evaluated the requests in accordance with the HASHAA and Nelson Housing Accord intentions and commitments and provided recommendations accordingly.

Alastair Upton

Senior City Development Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1: SHA 3D Hill Street North (A1923031) ⇩

Attachment 2: SHA 2 City Heights (A1922971) ⇩

Attachment 3: SHA 31 Tipahi Street (A1923200) ⇩

Attachment 4: SHA 397 Suffolk Road (A1923185) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This recommendation is consistent with Local Government’s role to provide efficient and effective performance of regulatory functions appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances by using the enhanced regulatory powers afforded under the HASHAA and the Nelson Housing Accord to enable the release of additional land for housing.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is largely consistent with the Nelson Housing Accord and the Community Outcome: Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.

3. Risk

Risks associated with this recommendation include matters of public perception. The principle risk arises due to the lower level of notification afforded under the HASHAA. Other risks exist that the credibility of the SHA programme, and by extension the Council, is undermined if approved areas are not developed due to uneconomic infrastructure requirements; or do not yield significant housing benefits. If SHAs recommended in this report are not approved then there is a risk that development of those sites is not enabled, and the goal of furthering the supply of residential units as part of the Housing Accord is not met.

4. Financial impact

The key financial impact of the SHA requests and recommendation process is the operational expenditure cost of its administration. There is no means for the Council to recover part or all of these costs from applicants and therefore this is a general expenditure of rates.

The costs of processing qualifying development consents are recovered from the applicants through charges, which are applied similarly to other consent fees.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The approval of SHAs located in existing residential zones is of low to medium significance because it does not significantly impact the community outside of immediate neighbours. The SHA proposed at 3D Hill Street (Rural Small Holdings Higher Density zoning) is of medium to high significance because the community would not necessarily anticipate development of that site under the intentions set out in the Nelson Housing Accord.

The establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will result in qualifying development applications, and at that time engagement with adjacent landowners will occur if the Council’s regulatory arm considers that they are affected. Overall, the establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will assist with increasing housing supply in Nelson which will be of benefit to the wider community.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

7. Delegations

No committee of the Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and therefore the matter needs to be considered by the Council.

Under Section 85 of the HASHAA, the Council’s Chief Executive is “a consent authority under the RMA and has all associated powers required to effectively carry out his or her functions for the purposes of [the HASHAA].”

Item 11: Adoption of the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and Related Documents

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R9061

Adoption of the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and Related Documents

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and related documents for public consultation.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Adoption of the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018 - 28 and Related Documents (R9061) and its attachments:

· Community Outcomes (A1901398);

· Council Activity Summaries (A1889191 and A1895587);

· Forecasting Assumptions (A1725210);

· Financial Strategy (A1816122);

· Infrastructure Strategy (A1816478);

· Statement on Fostering Māori Participation in Council Decision Making (A1703725);

· Revenue and Financing Policy (A1849376);

· Funding Impact Statement (A1911642);

· Rates Remission Policy (A1912191);

· Financial Statements (Accounting Information) (A1928909);

· Liability Management Policy (A1765543);

· Investment Policy (A1261457);

· Council Controlled Organisations (A1784915);

· Consultation Document (A1927914) be received and

Approves the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and related documents for public consultation and

Adopts the Request for Further Submissions on the Proposed Contribution to the Waimea Dam Project and

Adopts the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document (A1927914) for a public submission process to run from 23 March to 23 April 2018 and

Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the documents being released for public consultation.

3. Background

3.1 Every three years Council is required, under the Local Government Act 2002, to prepare and adopt a Long Term Plan (LTP) containing Council’s 10 year work programme including all the services and activities it plans to deliver and the estimated costs of those. Council is required to consult with the community on its 10 year plan through a Consultation Document.

3.2 The Consultation Document must “provide an effective basis for public participation in local authority decision-making processes” relating to the Long Term Plan. It needs to explain key issues, provide options for consideration and give information on how Council proposals will impact on rates and debt. It must also include a summary of Council’s Financial Strategy, its Infrastructure Strategy, changes to funding arrangements (which include changes to development contributions), changes to levels of service and changes to rates and debt levels.

3.3 The Consultation Document and supporting documents were approved to go to Audit at the Council meeting on 22 February 2018.

3.4 A revised Consultation Document (Attachment 16) is now ready for adoption. Changes to the document as a result of the audit process, legal advice and minor corrections are highlighted. A design version of the Consultation Document will be circulated separately.

3.5 The Consultation Document, when published, will include a report from the Auditor General confirming that it meets its purpose and discussing the quality of the underlying information and assumptions.

4. Discussion

Related Documents

4.1 Consistent with the process set out in the Local Government Act 2002, Council is consulting on the Consultation Document and a number of related documents. To simplify the process for the community a single submission form will be used for all feedback on the Consultation Document and related documents. Submissions will be heard on 7-9 May and deliberations will be held 15-17 May. Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 is scheduled for 28 June.

4.2 Some of the documents are provided as additional information to assist submitters, some require a special consultative procedure and others require consultation under section 82 of the Act.

4.3 As required by section 93G of the Local Government Act 2002 Council must adopt the Consultation Document after it has adopted the other documents which support it.

Waimea Dam

4.4 It is recommended that the Waimea Dam special consultative procedure be extended to allow public feedback on the OPUS report on drought security. All previous submitters have been advised of the opportunity to provide extra feedback and the wider public will be informed through the usual channels (Our Nelson, press release, public notice and Council’s website). Submissions would then close on 23 April. This process is a separate Special Consultative Procedure and would have its own hearings and deliberations during the time the Long Term Plan hearings and deliberations are held. The Consultation document is Attachment 15 (A1928877) and includes:

4.4.1 Request for Further Submissions on the Proposed Contribution to the Waimea Dam Project

4.4.2 Opus Report Drought Security - Maitai Dam Report

4.4.3 Peer Review Report on the Opus Report

4.5 With the extended timeframe for the special consultative procedure for consideration of a contribution to the Waimea Dam now overlapping with the Consultation Document, the Long Term Plan needs to be consistent with Council’s proposal. There is therefore now an amount of $5 million included in financial statements, in year three.

5. Consultation

5.1 Council is required to follow the special consultative procedure to seek public feedback to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (Local Government Act 2002 section 93 subsection (2) and section 83).

5.2 Council is also required to consult on a number of other matters at the same time as the Consultation Document. Some matters will be consulted on using a special consultative procedure, but for others the council can use its discretion so long as it considers the principles of consultation and information requirements set out in section 82 and 82A of the LGA 2002.

5.3 It is proposed that the following documents be consulted on concurrently with the Consultation Document:

· Development Contributions Policy (the subject of a separate report at this meeting)

· Revenue and Financing Policy

· Rates Remission Policy

5.4 The aim of the consultation process is to:

5.4.1 improve public awareness and understanding of Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-28

5.4.2 seek public views on the key issues, proposals and options for the long Term Plan 2018-28

5.4.3 meet statutory requirements for consultation on the Long Term Plan and related decisions.

5.5 The public will be made aware of the consultation through a range of means: flyers delivered to every household, articles in Our Nelson, press release, public notice and Council’s website.

6. Options

6.1 Council can choose to amend or delay release of the attached documents provided as supporting information or for parallel consultation but that would put at risk completion of the LTP within statutory timeframes. The documents have been developed as part of an intensive process to review and test the 10 year work programme in order to reflect Council’s views.

6.2 Development of a Consultation Document is a legal obligation under sections 93B and 93C of the LGA 2002. Council can choose to amend the Consultation Document or delay its release to the community but that would put at risk completion of the LTP within statutory timeframes.

7. Conclusion

7.1 It is recommended that the related documents and Consultation Document be adopted to support the consultation process for the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Nicky McDonald

Senior Strategic Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1901398 - Community Outcomes (Circulated separately)

Attachment 2: A1889191 - Council Activity Summaries (Part 1) (Circulated separately)

Attachment 3: A1895587 - Council Activity Summaries (Part 2) (Circulated separately)

Attachment 4: A1725210 - Forecasting Assumptions (Circulated separately)

Attachment 5: A1816122 - Financial Strategy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 6: A1816478 - Infrastructure Strategy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 7: A1703725 - Māori Participation in Council Decision Making (Circulated separately)

Attachment 8: A1849376 - Revenue and Financing Policy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 9: A1911642 - Funding Impact Statement (Circulated separately)

Attachment 10: A1912191 - Rates Remission Policy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 11: A1928909 - Financial Statements (Circulated separately)

Attachment 12: A1765543 - Liability Management Policy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 13: A1261457 - Investment Policy (Circulated separately)

Attachment 14: A1784915 - Council Controlled Organisations (Circulated separately)

Attachment 15: A1928877 - Waimea Dam Consultation Document (Circulated separately)

Attachment 16: A1927914 - Consultation Document (Circulated separately)

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Adoption of the Consultation Document and supporting documents is required under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Consultation on the Consultation Document and related documents supports all community outcomes.

3. Risk

Consultation reduces the risk that Council will fund services or projects that are not acceptable to part or all of the community.

4. Financial impact

Consultation will be undertaken within existing budgets. The financial impact of the Long Term Plan itself is as set out in the attached documents.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Consultation Document and supporting documents are of high significance because they set out Council’s 10 year work programme. Public consultation will follow using a special consultative procedure.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori will be consulted as part of the overall consultation process.

7. Delegations

The Council has responsibility for considering the development of the Long Term Plan and its related processes.

Item 13: Review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R8921

Review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the attached draft Development Contributions Policy 2018.

1.2 To approve for public consultation, concurrently with the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, the attached draft Development Contributions Policy 2018.

2. Summary

2.1 This report outlines Council’s statutory obligations in respect of development contributions; and

2.2 Summarises the review process which has been undertaken in respect of the Council’s current policy – the Policy on Development Contributions and Financial Contributions 2015 (the 2015 Policy); and

2.3 Outlines the options for changes to the 2015 Policy; and

2.4 Recommends the adoption of a new policy for development contributions, (the draft Policy) subject to public consultation as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 consultation process.

3. Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 (R8921) and its attachments (A1918429 and A1928523); and

Approves the adoption of the draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 and consultation document for concurrent consultation with the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

4. Background

4.1 Under Section 102(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), every local authority must adopt a policy on development contributions or financial contributions. The current 2015 Policy was adopted by Council on 23 June 2015 as part of the Long Term Plan 2015-25. Section 3.3 of the 2015 Policy provides:

“It is anticipated that this policy will be reviewed, and if necessary amended, on a tri-annual basis as part of the LTP process.”

4.2 A review of the 2015 Policy has been carried out by Council officers with the assistance of consultants who have previously assisted the Council with a review of the development contributions policy. As part of the review process, there have been two workshops with development stakeholders to discuss current issues and receive their preliminary feedback on policies which should be retained or changed and three Council workshops.

5. Discussion and Recommendations

5.1 The review of the 2015 Policy has considered several issues:

5.1.1 Whether Council should continue to seek a contribution from developers for the cost to Council of capital expenditure necessary to service growth.

5.1.2 What the objectives of a development contributions policy should be.

5.1.3 If contributions are sought, whether they should come by way of development contributions under the LGA and/or as financial contributions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5.1.4 Whether contributions should be sought for all capital expenditure in respect of which contributions may be levied under the LGA, namely network infrastructure, community infrastructure and reserves.

5.1.5 Whether there should be any exceptions to the requirement to pay development contributions.

5.2 In addition to these issues, the review of the 2015 Policy has also involved updating:

5.2.1 The growth projections for Nelson City for the period 2018-28.

5.2.2 The development areas across the City, and the estimated number of developments within these areas across the period.

5.2.3 The budgeted capital expenditure on community facilities for the 2018-28 period.

5.2.4 The portion of that capital expenditure which can be attributed to growth.

Updates to growth projection and capital projects

5.3 Council prepared growth projections in 2017. These projections used the high series population projections and household estimates from the Statistics NZ September 2017. These projections have been used consistently across asset management planning, the infrastructure strategy, long term planning, National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity planning, and here in Development Contributions Policy. Any change in the projections adopted will mean an increase in the quantum of development contribution by $5K. A review and assessment of implications will also need to be made on all underlying planning documents.

5.4 Changes to growth forecasts from those included in the 2015 Policy include:

5.4.1 A significant increase forecast in capital expenditure for the 2018-2028 period.

5.4.2 An increase in capital expenditure is offset by a greater increase in forecast growth (from 2,000 Household Units of Demands (HUDs) to 3,500 HUDs).

5.5 Section 9 of the draft Policy contains appendices which provide details of growth; proposed capital projects and costs, and the proportions of capital expenditure attributable to growth for each activity.

Continuation of levying contributions from developments

5.6 Local authorities are not required to levy development contributions. Some councils choose not to levy them either because they have very limited growth-related capital expenditure, or because they wish to create an additional incentive for development. However the majority of councils (45 of 67 territorial authorities) do use development contributions.

5.7 The LGA provides that the purpose of development contributions is to:

“…enable TLAs to recover from development a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the capital cost necessary to service growth over the long term.” (s.197AA)

Therefore contributions may be required if:

“…the effect of the developments is to require new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity and, as a consequence, the territorial authority incurs capital expenditure to provide appropriately for (a) reserves; (b) network infrastructure; (c) community infrastructure.” (s.199)

5.8 Development and financial contributions are only a small source (approximately 2% of Nelson’s total revenue) as compared with other councils in New Zealand. The contribution levied on developers for network infrastructure under the draft Policy of approximately. $12,820/Household Unit of Demand (HUD) plus reserves is significantly lower than many other cities and districts, including Tasman District Council. If development contributions were to be removed altogether there would be an additional financial burden on rates or some other means to meet this funding gap. This is not considered to be fair or equitable for the purposes of the LGA as outlined in section 5.6 above, and accordingly the rationale behind the draft Policy is that those who cause the need for new infrastructure and services pay their share of that cost.

5.9 Under the 2015 Policy the development contribution charge is $10,570 plus financial contribution for reserves per HUD. If all recommendations in this report are adopted, the development contribution will be $12,820 plus reserves per HUD, or an increase of $2,250 (21%).

Recommendation - Retain development contributions
Advantages	· Ensures a fair and equitable apportionment of capital costs across the community to service growth.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May be seen by some developers as a disincentive to develop; however, the Council’s existing and proposed charge is significantly lower than comparable charges levied in other areas including Tasman District.
Remove development contributions
Advantages	· Decreases costs for developers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates a revenue shortfall that would need to be met from rates. · Placing the costs of growth on existing ratepayers lacks fairness and equity.

Policy objectives

5.10 The objectives of the 2015 Policy are to provide predictability on funding growth, transparency about how growth is funded, fair and proportionate payments, and to support Nelson City Community Outcomes.

5.11 Discussions reached a general consensus that more specific policy objectives would be beneficial in assisting with administering the policy, and in particular to provide further guidance in the exercise of discretions under the Policy. The objectives which are proposed are:

· Fairness;

· Simplicity and transparency;

· Certainty;

· Consistency;

· Statutory Compliance; and

· Contribution to Nelson City Community Outcomes.

Sources of development-related revenue

5.12 Council currently seeks contributions for developments which impact on infrastructure and community facilities from two sources. Development contributions are levied under the LGA to fund growth-related capital expenditure. Financial contributions have been levied by the Council for neighbourhood reserves. Under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017, local authorities will no longer be able to levy financial contributions from April 2022. It is recommended that for the 2018-28 LTP period financial contributions are no longer levied under the Resource Management Act, and that under the draft Policy that development contributions are levied for reserves under the LGA. See section 5.22 below for the impact of this change on development contributions charges per HUD.

5.13 Levying contributions from two sources adds time, cost and complexity to the development process for both Council and developers. Levying only development contributions under a new policy would simplify matters.

5.14 Removing the liability to pay financial contributions would mean the loss of up to $500,000 in revenue for neighbourhood reserves in the 2018-28 LTP period. However, even if the Council did decide to continue with financial contributions only the portion of that amount payable up until April 2022 (four out of the ten years’ worth) would be recoverable.

5.15 The loss of revenue from financial contributions would be offset by the proposed introduction of development contributions for reserves (which under the LGA means both general reserves and neighbourhood reserves). The forecast 2018-28 revenue from DCs for general reserves for the high growth scenario is $4.1m (see page 30 of the draft Policy). This is a significantly greater amount than the $500,000 that staff expect would be recovered via financial contributions over the equivalent period.

Recommendation - Remove financial contributions from draft Policy
Advantages	· Simplifies current framework, saving time and money for Council and developers. · Loss of revenue from financial contributions will be offset by development contributions. · Development contributions levied for reserves may be used for both neighbourhood and general reserves.
Risks and Disadvantages	· No statutory obligation to remove financial contributions until 2022.
Remove financial contributions in 2022
Advantages	· Expected revenue for neighbourhood reserves is received over the next four years.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Financial contributions are not popular with developers. · Cumbersome to administer. · Financial contributions levied for neighbourhood reserves may not be used for general reserves.

Capital expenditure for which development contributions are sought

5.16 Section 199 of the LGA provides that development contributions may be sought for capital expenditure on reserves, community infrastructure (community centres or halls, play equipment, and public toilets), and network infrastructure (roads and other transport, water, wastewater, and storm water collection and management).

5.17 The Council does not currently levy any contributions (financial or development) for community infrastructure under the 2015 Policy or otherwise. This means that the growth portion of community infrastructure is generally funded through rates.

5.18 Consideration has been given to extending development contributions to all community infrastructure, including reserves, and removing financial contributions for neighbourhood reserves.

5.19 While developers are comfortable with the status quo, the proposed Policy objectives of fairness and consistency require that whenever a development has a capital expenditure impact (i.e. requiring new assets to be created, or increasing the capacity of existing assets), the growth-related share of that capital expenditure should be met from those who cause the need. As discussed in section 5.8 above, the most appropriate means for the Council to achieve those objectives is considered to be through development contributions.

5.20 The expected revenue from a new development contributions charge for community infrastructure is $760,000 for the 2018-28 LTP period.

5.21 The expected revenue from development contributions for reserves is $4.1m, or a net increase of $2.6m if financial contributions for reserves is removed (see 5.12 – 5.15 above).

5.22 The proposed extension of the Policy to all types of community facilities including general reserves, coupled with the proposed removal of financial contributions, would mean that:

5.22.1 A new community infrastructure contribution of $280 per housing-unit-of-demand (HUD) is introduced to fund growth-related capital expenditure over the period of the LTP.

5.22.2 A general reserves contribution of $1,160 per HUD is introduced for all growth-related capital expenditure over the period of the LTP.

5.22.3 The current financial contribution for neighbourhood reserves is replaced by a development contribution. This contribution requires either provision of 40m² of land per HUD (being an amount consistent with Council’s current level of service for neighbourhood reserves), or the cash equivalent calculated according to local land values.

Recommendation - Extend development contributions to community infrastructure and all reserves
Advantages	· Provides Council with $760,000 additional revenue to fund the cost of all growth-related capital expenditure on community infrastructure. · Provides the Council with at least an additional approximately $2.6m (high growth scenario) over the LTP period for reserves (both neighbourhood and general reserves). · Is consistent with the LGA and is the approach taken by most other councils. · Is well-aligned with the Council’s proposed Policy objectives of fairness, consistency, transparency, and supporting Nelson Community Outcomes.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Adds additional minor cost to developers.
Status quo
Advantages	· Popular with developers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not introduce a new source of revenue for new community infrastructure, the costs of which would continue to be met by ratepayers. · Development contributions do not fund an additional approximately $2.6m for reserves of the 2018-28 LTP period. · Is not consistent with the approach of most other councils. · Lacks alignment with the Council’s proposed Policy objectives of fairness, consistency, transparency, and supporting Nelson Community Outcomes.

Inclusion of additional activities to network infrastructure development contributions

5.23 Council already levies a development contribution for network infrastructure and it is proposed to continue this under the draft Policy. It is also proposed to include two significant areas of capital expenditure to this contribution.

5.24 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) treatment plant upgrade: The NRSBU is a regional sewerage scheme jointly administered by the Council and the Tasman District Council. It services both Councils as well as industrial wastewater from three large companies. The capital costs associated with the pipe upgrade for the NSRBU have previously been included in development contributions, but the treatment plant upgrade has not. It is part of the Council’s total network infrastructure capital expenditure and therefore it is recommended that the growth-related portion of these costs be included in the draft Policy as a matter of consistency.

5.25 The addition of the NRSBU treatment plant upgrade to the development contributions policy would fund approximately $7.4m of capital works over the 10 year LTP period (in the high growth scenario). This represents around 42% of all the projected growth expenditure on wastewater over that period.

5.26 The proposed addition of the NRSBU treatment plant upgrade to the development contributions policy would mean that an additional approximately $2,070 per HUD is applied to the network infrastructure contribution to fund growth-related capital expenditure over the period of the LTP, out of a total of $4,880 per HUD for wastewater.

5.27 Stormwater Management Costs of Flood protection: Development contributions for network infrastructure are currently levied for stormwater collection and management. The Council currently only levies a contribution for stormwater management as it relates to the reticulated (piped) network. Stormwater management outside of this (for example, capital improvements on rivers or creeks to reduce flooding risks) have not been included. Climate change will have an increasing impact on the capital costs of managing stormwater, and as a result Council asset managers consider it appropriate to include these activities in the draft Policy.

5.28 A review of practices in other New Zealand metropolitan centres (including Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Hutt City, Wellington and Christchurch) highlights that a contribution for flooding protection is included as part of their stormwater management capital costs, and that a portion of this expenditure is required to service growth.

5.29 Council staff have considered the implications of including stormwater management for flood protection purposes in the draft Policy, and are satisfied that development contributions can be levied for the projects included in the draft Policy.

5.30 The addition of stormwater management for flood protection projects to the development contributions policy would fund approximately $4.8m of capital works over the 10 year LTP period (in the high growth scenario). This represents around 43% of all the projected growth expenditure on stormwater over that period.

5.31 The draft Policy is based on a single catchment, aggregated-cost-of-growth approach. A statement has been included in the Policy (section 6.1 of the attachment) weighing the administrative efficiency of a single catchment approach (used for all network infrastructure) versus the cost of implementing a more complex catchment model. Staff consider that a sub-catchment based hydrological model which would be needed for stormwater management would be unnecessarily complex and not significantly increase the degree of fairness or equity of the process. Therefore there is no proposed departure from the single catchment approach for stormwater.

5.32 The proposed extension of the Policy to include stormwater management for flood protection projects to the development contribution would mean that an additional $1,366 per HUD is applied to the network infrastructure contribution to fund growth-related capital expenditure over the period of the LTP, out of a total of $3160 per HUD for stormwater.

Recommendation - Include growth-related costs of NRSBU and the stormwater management costs of flood protection in network infrastructure development contribution
Advantages	· Provides Council with approximately $4.8m additional revenue (high growth scenario) to fund the cost of growth-related capital expenditure on stormwater infrastructure. · Provides Council with approximately $3.4m additional revenue (high growth scenario) to fund the cost of growth-related capital expenditure on the NRSBU. · Is consistent with the approach of most other councils. · Is well aligned to the draft Policy objectives of fairness, consistency, transparency, and supporting Nelson Community Outcomes.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Adds additional minor cost to developers.
Status quo – no inclusion
Advantages	· Popular with developers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Results in a loss of revenue which has to be sourced from ratepayers. · Is inconsistent with the approach of most other councils. · Lacks alignment to the Policy objectives of fairness, consistency, transparency, and supporting Nelson Community Outcomes.

Exceptions to development contributions obligations

5.33 In addition to developments which the LGA does not permit contributions to be levied, the 2015 Policy contains the following (full or partial) exceptions to paying development contributions:

5.31.1 The first 30 residential HUDs developed within the Inner City each financial year;

5.33.2 Developments which have low impact stormwater infrastructure;

5.31.3 Developments which are unable to connect to water or wastewater networks;

5.31.4 Developments which have water supplied by Tasman District Council;

5.31.5 A number of named entities;

5.33.6 Kindergartens and play centres;

5.33.7 Childcare and day care centres; and

5.31.8 Integrated schools.

Inner City Residential Developments

5.34 The inner city residential development exemption was introduced in the 2015 Policy with the objectives of intensifying development in the City, Centre which would in turn create a vibrant and attractive City, encourage residential intensification, enable a wider range of housing choice, and encourage higher density clusters around key commercial centres. The incentive has been well received by the development community.

5.35 It is acknowledged that there may be incidences where residential units (or portions of those units) that are exempt under this policy are subsequently re-used as short-term accommodation. Taking in to consideration the low likelihood of significant change in demands on infrastructure, and that the overall intensification objectives of the policy continue to be met, it is not considered necessary to introduce measures to address any subsequent changes of use provided these are within the bounds of what was authorised at the time that the development was assessed for development contributions. Any significant change of use from primarily residential to commercial activity would lead to a new consent and with that a new contributions assessment.

5.36 The policy objectives remain, and it is therefore recommended that the exemption should be retained. However, the merits of providing it rest on the assumption that once granted, the development should proceed within a reasonable period. Accordingly, it is recommended that the exemption is granted on the condition that construction commences within 12 months. If the condition is not met the exemption will no longer apply and a development contribution will be required.

Low Impact Stormwater Developments

5.37 It is also recommended that the low impact stormwater exemption should be retained. However, the current provision lacks detailed criteria for assessing impact. Accordingly, some drafting changes are proposed which provide greater clarity for the application of the exemption, and which mirror those used in the Tasman District.

Ad Hoc Exceptions

5.38 The Local Government Act provides for a reconsideration and objections process for development contributions assessments. These are not exemptions processes as such. Instead they provide formal processes for reviewing whether Council has applied its policy correctly.

5.39 If the Policy objectives of fairness and consistency are to be adopted, then it is important that no single development receives special treatment unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do so, and future developments which are substantially similar are treated in a similar manner. The past practice of making exceptions (albeit very limited exceptions) therefore runs the risk of the Policy being unreasonable.

5.40 It is not recommended that specific exemptions should be removed, as these are accrued rights which should not be retrospectively taken away. However, it is recommended that generic exceptions, such as play centres (which may have the same profit-making objectives as any other commercial development), should be removed. The replacement should be a very limited exemption which does not undermine the revenue goals or fairness and consistency objectives of the Policy.

5.41 The policy approach to exemptions from payment is not consistent throughout New Zealand local authorities, but a number of councils’ policies do provide for exemptions in very limited circumstances. Having regard to these, and the proposed policy objectives, it is recommended that future ad hoc listed exemptions are not provided for.

5.42 Instead it is recommended that a general power of exemption is provided for on the following conditions:

5.39.1 Exemptions are discretionary and only granted by the Council in exceptional circumstances; and

5.42.2 Officers may make a recommendation to the Council to approve an exemption, based on the Officer’s assessment of the request against a set of defined criteria; and

5.39.3 The Criteria to be applied to a request for an exemption being;

(a) whether the development is part of a not-for-profit entity; and

(b) any unique contribution that the development is making towards Nelson City Community Outcomes; and

5.39.4 Council officers have the authority to consider and decline an application for exemption, using the criteria listed above, with no further right of review; and

5.42.5 In the case that the criteria are met and a recommendation is made there is nonetheless no obligation on the Council or delegated committee to approve any exemption.

5.42.6 All requests for exemptions will be reported to the Council or a delegated Council committee on a quarterly basis.

Recommendation - General power of exemption
Advantages	· Allows for limited and principle-based exemptions. · Adopted by some other councils.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Results in some loss of revenue opportunities. · May result in an influx of applications for exemption. · In practice the processing of exemption requests will likely involve significant staff time especially if any decisions are made by Council that are inconsistent with the Policy
Status quo – listed exemptions
Advantages	· Provides certainty of exemptions being made. · Administratively simpler than general power of exemption.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Arbitrary – lacks a principles base. · Results in a loss of revenue opportunities.
No exemptions
Advantages	· Provides certainty. · Administratively simpler than either the status quo or a general power of exemption. · Adopted by some other councils. · Does not result in loss of revenue opportunity. · Aligned to Policy objective of consistency.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Potentially unpopular with community organisations and developers.

6. Options

6.1 The Council’s options for consideration are summarised below. It is recommended that Option 1 is adopted.

Option 1: Approve for public consultation, concurrently with the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, the attached draft Development Contributions Policy 2018
Advantages	The recommended Policy would allow the Council to: · Continue to ensure a fair and equitable apportionment of capital costs across the community to service growth; and · Align with forthcoming changes to legislation by removing the use of financial contributions; and · Collect new development contributions to fund community infrastructure; and · Collect development contributions for capital expenditure on growth-related costs of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit; and · Collect development contributions for capital expenditure on flood protection as part of stormwater management; and · Decrease risk to the Council’s revenue by reducing the scope for exemptions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The resulting increase in the overall charge compared to the 2015 Policy may be viewed by developers as a disincentive to develop; however the Council’s existing and proposed charge is significantly lower than comparable charges levied including those in the Tasman District.
Option 2: Reject the attached draft Development Contributions Policy 2018
Advantages	· No advantages as it’s a statutory requirement to review the policy every 3 years.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Rejection of the recommended Policy would mean that: · The Council would continue to collect both financial contributions and development Contributions where Development Contributions would suffice until a future review in 2022 if not before; and be able to collect. · Community infrastructure needed for growth would continue to be funded principally by rates. · The Council would face a funding shortfall for stormwater activities including flood protection projects, growth costs of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit, and community infrastructure works which would need to be met by general rates. · Exemptions, ad-hoc exceptions, and a stated provision for postponement of payment may expose the Council to the risk of legal challenge and to the risk of a loss of revenue. · New capital projects required to support growth would not be funded by development contributions.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The review of the 2015 Policy has concluded that:

7.1.1 Continuation of development contributions: Consistent with the approach taken in the majority of other local authorities in New Zealand, development contributions remain a fair and equitable source of revenue to fund the growth-related share of capital expenditure on infrastructure and community facilities in Nelson.

7.1.2 Removal of financial contributions: Administering a dual system of financial contributions and development contributions is unnecessarily cumbersome and consumes time and costs for Council and developers alike. Because financial contributions will no longer be capable of being levied past 2022, and because the same charges can be levied with a broader scope to include all reserves by way of a development contribution, it is recommended Council move to a single system with the draft 2018 Policy.

7.1.3 Scope of development contributions policy: Logic, consistency and fairness require that development contributions should be levied for all infrastructure covered by the provisions of the LGA. Accordingly, it is recommended that the gaps in the 2015 Policy – community infrastructure, general reserves, the growth-related costs of the Nelson regional Sewerage Business Unit, and the stormwater management costs of flood protection – should be remedied in the draft Policy.

7.1.4 Exemptions: While the objectives of fairness and consistency mean that like developments should be assessed in a like manner, there may be a small number of occasions where it is reasonable to exempt a development. Such exceptions, however, should be confined to exceptional circumstances and be based on principles which are consistently applied.

Lisa Gibellini

Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Attachment 1: Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 (A1925909) ⇩

Attachment 2: Consultation document for Policy on Development Contributions 2018 (A1928523) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommended Development Contributions Policy fits with the Purpose of Local Government (LGA 2002 s10) by providing a means for the Council to fund good-quality local infrastructure in a way that is effective and equitable, in so far that it enables the Council “to recover from those persons undertaking development a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long term”.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended Development Contributions Policy aligns with the following Community Outcomes:

· Our Region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

It is very likely that the recommended Development Contributions Policy 2018 will continue to achieve the Council’s objectives. It has been selected as the best mechanism to ensure the cost of growth is apportioned to those who have created the need for that cost. The outcome of this policy is to avoid the risk of funding deficit to meet the cost of growth network infrastructure and community facilities. Without this policy the cost of growth would have to be covered by general rates or by some other charge.

4. Financial impact

There may be an increase in operating costs of adopting the draft Policy versus the 2015 policy due to the more formal assessment of exemptions under a ‘general power of exemption model’. However this is likely to be off set by simplification resulting from the removal of financial contributions.

The draft policy:

· introduces additional growth expenditure for community infrastructure to be levied by development contributions; and

· increases the scope of growth expenditure on stormwater and wastewater activities to be levied by development contributions; and

· introduces revenue for all reserves infrastructure to be levied by development contributions; and

· removes revenue for neighbourhood reserves by removing financial contributions.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium-high significance due to the level of impact of Council’s revenue and costs decisions on the community. Therefore the Special Consultative Process will be used in tandem with the Long Term Plan notification process.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been engaged separately for this recommendation.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering Development Contributions and Financial Contributions.

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has delegated this matter to full Council for consideration.

Item 14: Further Delegations to the Hearings Panel - Other

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R8866

Further Delegations to the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To delegate the Council’s decision on changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw to the Hearings Panel – Other (in addition to the current delegation to the Planning & Regulatory Committee).

1.2 To delegate the Council’s administering body functions on rights of way and other easements under the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) to the Hearings Panel – Other.

2. Summary

2.1 The functions identified in this report are legally able to be delegated to the Hearings Panel – Other in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02) and the RA.

2.2 The main reasons to delegate these functions are to provide a quicker decision for the customer or for Council staff to make the changes sooner than the six week Committee cycle currently provides for and to administer the provisions in section 48 of the RA more effectively.

2.3 The proposed delegations meet all the outcomes identified in the policy regarding delegations (section 4.0 of the Delegations Register, see A1183061).

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Further Delegations to the Hearings Panel - Other (R8866) and its attachment (A1912628); and

Delegates the decision making on changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public consultation to the Hearings Panel - Other; and

4. Background – Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw schedules

4.1 The Nelson City Council Delegations Register identifies in section 2 the legal framework that enables the Council to delegate its responsibilities, duties or power to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body. Council’s Legal Advisor has confirmed the Council can delegate the functions described above.

4.2 Currently, proposed changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw are decided by the Planning and Regulatory Committee. A report requesting approval of changes goes to nearly every Committee meeting. The changes are largely minor and are the result of proposed parking and safety improvements or a development requiring a change of access location and subsequent on-street changes for example. The changes are largely uncontroversial in nature and have an associated low decision making risk.

4.3 Changes that are more controversial are decided by the Committee after staff have sought feedback from directly affected parties and included this information in their report and recommendation.

5. Discussion

5.1 Schedule 7 clause 32 of the LGA 02 sets out Council’s authority to delegate its responsibilities, duties or powers to subordinate decision-making bodies or officers for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business. The Council may delegate any of its responsibilities, powers or duties subject to specified exceptions. One of these exceptions is that the Council must not delegate the power to make a bylaw.

5.2 Under section 151(2) of the LGA 02 and section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), in making a bylaw, the Council may leave any matter to be regulated by Council resolution. Under clause 2.1 of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw, the Council is required to resolve to specify controls in schedules to the bylaw. Under section 2.2 of the Bylaw the Council may then resolve to change any of these specifications in the schedules.

5.3 The Planning and Regulatory Committee currently has the delegated authority from the Council to decide on changes to the schedules to this Bylaw. It is proposed to also delegate this function to the Hearings Panel – Other, a panel of three Councillors, for these decisions to potentially be able to be considered quicker than the six weekly Committee cycle provides for. Should any matter require community consultation and the hearing of submissions the Hearings Panel – Other can instruct staff to initiate this process. The Panel would then hear submissions and make a recommendation to Council. In those cases the Council would make the final decision. The Hearings Panel – Other can also decide to refer the matter to the Council if warranted by the significance of the proposed changes.

5.4 Matters that require limited consultation with affected parties would be decided by the Hearings Panel – Other if the parties are in agreement. If there is disagreement the same process for matters that require community consultation would occur.

6. Options

6.1 The preferred option is to delegate the decision making on the changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public notification to the Hearings Panel – Other, in addition to the current delegation to the Planning and Regulatory Committee (option 1). The other options are to do nothing and leave the decision making at the Planning and Regulatory Committee level (option 2) or to delegate the decision making entirely to the Hearings Panel – Other (option 3).

Option 1: Hearings Panel – Other also has delegation to decide on changes to schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (preferred option)
Advantages	· Decisions can be made quicker than the Committee and Council meeting cycle allows meaning an applicant can potentially gain this approval before applying for the associated resource consent(s); · Having the option to go to the Hearings Panel – Other or still be able to put a matter to the Committee or the Council for the more controversial matters, enables the decision making to be conducted at the appropriate level and more timely; · Most matters are uncontroversial and do not warrant consideration from the wider Council so there will be some saving of time for Councillors if the Hearing Panel can decide most matters.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Should the Hearing Panel decline an application the applicant may seek a judicial review of the decision (as is the current situation). Given most matters are uncontroversial this is unlikely.
Option 2: Do nothing, decisions on Parking and Vehicle Control Schedule changes remains at Committee level
Advantages	· More Councillors are involved in the decision making.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The six weekly Council meeting cycle may overly delay the approval process leaving uncertainty for when projects can commence; and · The separate approval process may frustrate some resource consent conditions if Council approval is sought after obtaining resource consent.
Option 3: Only the Hearings Panel – Other has delegation to make decisions on Parking and Vehicle Control Schedule changes
Advantages	· It is clear where the decisions are to be made; · It is quicker than the Committee and Council meeting cycle allows; · More certainty for consent applicants who may be able to secure Council approval prior to the consent application being lodged leading to less potential for one process to frustrate the other; and · Most matters are uncontroversial and do not warrant consideration from the wider Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Should the Hearing Panel decline an application the applicant may seek a judicial review of the decision.

7. Background – Reserve Act easements

7.1 The granting of rights of way or other easements on Council reserves is currently decided by the Council. The process is often triggered by an associated subdivision development that requires access or services such as underground pipes or stormwater detention ponds to be within land to be vested in Council as a reserve. Most proposals do not alter or damage the reserve or permanently affect the rights of the public in respect of the reserve so can be decided without giving public notice (section 48(3) of the RA, see Attachment 1).

7.2 If public notice is required a Committee of the Council (the Sports and Recreation Committee has done this in the past), receives a report and confirms public notification is required, hears any submissions and makes a recommendation to the Council.

8. Discussion

8.1 Section 48 of the RA enables the administering body of a reserve vested in it to grant rights of way and other easements for the purpose of access, services and any public purpose, subject to obtaining the consent of the Minister of Conservation. Before granting any right of way or other easement, the administering body must first publicly notify the proposal, unless the reserve will not be materially altered or permanently damaged and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve will not be permanently affected.

8.2 The administering body can decide whether or not to give public notice under the RA. If public notice is required the Hearings Panel – Other is the appropriate representative body for the Council to hear the submissions and to make a decision that is then put to the Council (as the delegate of the Minister) to give consent or not to the proposal. The Hearings Panel – Other can also refer the matter to the Council should wider involvement of the Council be warranted.

8.3 The Reserves Act 1977 defines an administering body as including a local authority that is defined as being a territorial or regional council and includes any other public body declared by another enactment to be a local authority for the purposes of this Act. The consent of the Minister has been delegated to the Council and this aspect cannot be further delegated. Currently the Council is functioning as both the administering body and the decision maker as delegate of the Minister.

9. Options

9.1 It is preferred to delegate the function of the administering body under the Reserves Act 1977 to the Hearings Panel – Other (option 4). The other options are to do nothing and leave the Reserve Act functions identified above at the Council level (option 5) or to delegate the administering body function to the Community Services Committee as Parks and Facilities are now reporting to the GM Community Services (option 6).

Option 4: Delegate the administering body function under the Reserves Act 1977 to the Hearings Panel – Other (preferred option)
Advantages	· More legal robustness in having clearer separation between the administering body arm of the Council (being a function of the Hearings Panel – Other) and the Council as delegate of the Minister compared to the current situation of the matter being administered and decided by the Council at the same time; · The Hearings Panel – Other is already set up to hear submissions on matters that require public consultation.
Risks and Disadvantages	· An additional step to the current practice in having the matter go to the Hearings Panel – Other before going to the Council may add time to the approval process.
Option 5: Do nothing, the administering body function under the Reserves Act 1977 remains at Council level
Advantages	· Potentially the decision will take less time with only one step rather than a two-step process.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduced legal robustness in having both the administering body role and the role of Council as the Minister’s delegate merged at the one meeting; and · Matters that require public notification will require submissions to be heard by the full Council also rather than have this function more efficiently carried out at a delegated level.
Option 6: Delegate the administering body function under the Reserves Act 1977 to the Community Services Committee
Advantages	· More legal robustness in having clear separation between the administering body arm of the Council (as a function of the Community Service Committee) and the Council as delegate of the Minister.
Risks and Disadvantages	· An additional step that will add time to the approval process; · Matters that require public notification will require submissions to be heard by the Committee rather than have this function more efficiently carried out at a delegated level.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The time efficiency advantages in being able to obtain Council approval quicker through the Hearings Panel – Other, greatly outweigh the minor risk of the decision not being accepted by an applicant. Staff or the Panel can still opt to put the matter to Council or the relevant Committee if the matter warrants a greater level of involvement by Councillors.

10.2 Based on the types of matters currently going to the Committee or the Council it is anticipated most matters can be easily decided on by the Hearings Panel – Other without posing any risk to the organisation.

10.3 Enabling the Hearings Panel – Other to decide on matters stated in this report will increase the Council’s efficiency and effectiveness or legal robustness for these processes.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1912628 Section 48 Reserves Act 1977 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations will provide more transparent or cost-effective options for households and businesses as approval can be achieved faster by fewer decision makers.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision making is unlikely to change community outcomes from the current situation as the impacts on places and people are still considered as identified in Council’s strategic documents. The only change is the decision will be either be made in a shorter timeframe or follow a more legally robust process.

3. Risk

Most matters are uncontroversial and present a low risk to the organisation. There is still the option to take the matter to Council or a Committee should the matter warrant more involvement.

4. Financial impact

There will be some staff and Councillor time saved in having the matter decided by a Panel of three instead of reporting to a Committee or Council.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the only impact on the level of service is faster decision making or a more robust process. Council could also rescind the delegation at any time. Therefore engagement with the development community will occur to inform them of any change to this process should it be approved.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

7. Delegations

The Council has the power to decide to delegate.

Item 15: Nelson Mountain Biking Economic study

Council

20 March 2018

REPORT R8960

Nelson Mountain Biking Economic study

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive a report by Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL) following their study into the economic benefits generated for Nelson from mountain biking activity.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Nelson Mountain Biking Economic study (R8960) and its attachment (A1905058).

3. Background

3.1 Nelson has seen a steady increase in mountain biking participation from both residents and visitors, and Council has sought to undertake research in order to better understand the benefits the activity can bring to the community. This will help to guide future financial decisions on relevant maintenance and infrastructure projects.

3.2 In May 2016 Council resolved:

“That $20,000 opex be allocated to extend the scope of the Off Roads Tracks and Trails Strategy to consider the potential economic benefits of developing mountain biking in the region and how to access these”.

3.3 Following an open tender process Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL) was engaged to undertake this work. Its report and findings are provided in Attachment 1.

3.4 The consultants will be in attendance at the meeting to present their report and answer questions.

4. Discussion

4.1 Mountain biking is growing in popularity both for local residents and as a tourist activity, and Nelson is increasingly being recognised as a mountain biking destination. Along with this participation trend comes requests for investment in associated infrastructure. To better understand the wider economic benefit that this investment may achieve, Council wanted an analysis to help determine where that level of investment should lie.

Objectives and methodology

4.2 The objectives of the Nelson Mountain Biking Economic Study were to provide a current estimate of the economic benefits to Nelson of mountain biking from both visitors and residents, consider potential economic benefits to be gained by further mountain biking development and provide recommendations on how to access those benefits.

4.3 The research focused on the number of people participating in mountain biking, where those people come from and how much they spend.

4.4 Expenditure was quantified based on whether it was attracted or retained. Attracted expenditure is the amount of spending that is added to the Nelson economy by mountain biking i.e. domestic and international visitors. Retained expenditure is spending by Nelson residents who would otherwise travel outside the region to participate in mountain biking, e.g. if they were unable to participate locally (and includes people who would otherwise not live in Nelson at all).

Key findings

4.5 BERL’s full findings are provided in Attachment 1. Findings are presented for the present situation and future scenarios, and show results for both Nelson City and the wider Nelson/Tasman region (the figures include consideration of the Great Taste Trail). Recommendations are also provided for future investment options to maximise economic benefits for the region.

Current snapshot

Nelson City

4.6 In total $8.5 million of direct new and retained spending in Nelson City will occur annually as a result of the mountain bike trails in the region. This direct spending will in the first instance generate $4.5 million in GDP and provide employment for 79 FTEs (Full Time Employees).

4.7 Once flow-on effects of this spending are taken into account (multiplier effects), the activity generates a total of $14.5 million in annual expenditure, $7.5 million in GDP and total additional employment of 106 FTEs.

Wider Nelson/Tasman region

4.8 In total $17.1 million of direct new and retained spending will occur annually as a result of mountain biking. This direct expenditure will in the first instance generate $8.9 million in GDP and provide employment for 158 FTEs.

4.9 Once multiplier effects are taken into account the activity generates a total of $30.5 million in annual spending, $15.5 million in GDP and total additional employment of 211 FTEs.

Future potential

4.10 Note that the scenario below assumes no gondola has been developed and no major event has occurred, but does assume the Maitai Recreation Hub is progressed as planned.

Nelson City

4.11 Conservative estimates show that overall in ten years’ time the direct expenditure within Nelson will measure $21.7 million annually, with $11.3 million of direct GDP being generated and the employment of 202 FTEs.

4.12 Once multiplier effects are taken into account, the total annual economic impact in ten years is expected to be $36.8 million in spending, $19.1 million in GDP and the total employment of 270 FTEs.

Wider Nelson/Tasman region

4.13 It is expected that in ten years’ time the direct expenditure for the wider region will measure $43.3 million, with $22.6 million of direct GDP being generated and the employment of 403 FTEs.

4.14 Once multiplier effects are taken into account, the total annual economic impact in ten years’ time is expected to be $77.5 million in annual expenditure, $39.5 million in GDP and the total employment of 538 FTEs.

Potential from an event

4.15 Crankworx in Rotorua is a week-long international mountain biking event. A similar event held in the Nelson region could add an additional spend of $3.4 million to the region, with a total economic impact on the region of $3.1 million in GDP and the employment of 42 FTEs.

5. Future investment and opportunities

5.1 BERL considers a key priority to be investment in trail head facilities, particularly in the Maitai Valley. Construction of the Brook Hub project is underway and on track, and funding is proposed in the draft Long Term Plan to investigate and construct a more significant recreational hub in the Maitai Valley. Officers will also consider providing additional minor facilities at other entrance points e.g. additional information signage, picnic tables, water fountains and rubbish bins. This work could largely be programmed within existing minor capital budgets.

5.2 A need for greater promotion of the region’s mountain biking offering was also identified, including developing a regional (Nelson-Tasman) approach to marketing and infrastructure development. Officers have a good working relationship with the Tasman District Council, Nelson Regional Development Agency and the Nelson Mountain Bike Club, and intend facilitating meetings in future to explore these opportunities.

5.3 A lack of uphill shuttle services was seen as another constraint. Council’s role in enabling vehicle shuttling is limited to providing concessions to operate within its reserve land. Shuttle providers are also required to seek permission from other landowners and forestry management companies.

5.4 The Mountain Bike Club will be submitting a proposal to host an Enduro World Series event in 2021. This will attract riders and their families from around the world and is expected to significantly raise Nelson’s profile as a mountain biking destination. The Club has rejected an offer to host the 2019 Enduro World Series in order to focus resources into insuring the infrastructure is in place for 2021. Several smaller international events are also being held in the interim.

5.5 At the time of writing the draft Long Term Plan proposed including $100,000 capital expenditure every second year (with $10,000 in the interim years) for new mountain biking trails. The Mountain Bike Club have indicated to officers that it is seeking $196,000 per year for the construction of easier grade trails to support the Maitai Hub and officers continue to engage with the Club in order to better define the scope of that request. The target trails for this funding would appeal to riders of all abilities, as well as other recreational users, and the club proposes matching this figure with its own resources to continue with the development of hand-built expert trails for which Nelson is becoming renowned for.

5.6 Future funding for new trails is a matter for consideration and confirmation through the Long Term Plan process, however officers note that trail maintenance budgets would also need revising if construction funding is increased. Officers are currently working with the Mountain Bike Club to develop a maintenance agreement for trails on Council land, which may also have a bearing on future maintenance funding.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Officers recommend the BERL report Nelson Mountain Biking Economic Study (Attachment 1) is received. Next steps will be to share the report with interested stakeholders including the Nelson Mountain Bike Club, Sport Tasman and Tasman District Council.

6.2 The Conservation and Landscape Reserves Management Plan is due for review in 2019, and the BERL report will provide useful guidance during this process. In addition the document will provide a useful reference when deliberating on Long Term Plan submissions.

Paul Harrington

Property, Parks and Facilities Asset Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1905058 - Nelson Mountain Biking Economic Study (BERL) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report ‘Nelson Mountain Biking Economic Study’ has been commissioned to ensure Council has information to inform funding decisions on the provision of cost-effective local infrastructure.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the following community outcomes:

Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities.

3. Risk

Receipt of the report ‘Nelson Mountain Biking Economic Study’ is unlikely to result in any risk for the Council.

4. Financial impact

Receiving the report does not create any financial impact.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Receiving the report is considered to be of low significance overall although some stakeholders have a greater level of interest.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been consulted in preparation of this report.

7. Delegations

The Sport and Recreation Committee has the delegation for considering matters in relation to mountain biking, however this report is being received by Council due to the availability of the consultants who authored the attached research. The Chair of the Sports and Recreation Committee is supportive of this delegation being passed to Council.