Agenda of Council - 15 May 2018

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	Tahuna Beach Holiday Park: Supplementary 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)(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)

Item 6: Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and Concurrent Consultations

Council

15 May 2018

REPORT R9180

Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and Concurrent Consultations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide supporting information and staff recommendations to assist with deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and concurrent consultations on the Revenue and Financing and Rates Remission Policies.

2. Summary

2.1 Council has heard submissions on the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and must now consider matters raised by submitters and new issues which have arisen which may impact on the Long Term Plan.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document and Concurrent Consultations (R9180) and its attachment (A1962326).

4. Background

4.1 The submission period for the Consultation Document ran between 23 March and 23 April 2018. 434 submissions were received, including 12 late submissions, and 162 people spoke at hearings on 7, 8 and 9 May.

4.2 142 submissions were made by organisations or their members. 381 were made by residents of Nelson, 36 by those from Tasman with the remainder from outside the Nelson/Tasman region. Over 75% of submissions were made online.

4.3 As well as the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan, related consultations included the Policies on Revenue and Financing and Rates Remission (including the Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Maori Freehold Land). Also consulted on at the same time were the Development Contributions Policy and the Waimea Community Dam extended consultation. These two consultations are discussed in separate reports to this meeting.

4.4 This report covers the main issues raised in submissions, ordered by activity category. Smaller or more submitter-specific issues and the proposed response to these submissions are covered in Attachment 1, the spreadsheet of responses to submitters. The attached spreadsheet does not duplicate material covered in the body of the report.

4.5 The report also contains sections dealing with the concurrent consultations on the Revenue and Financing Policy and the Rates Remission Policy. Finally there is a section at the end on Additional Decisions which reports on matters which have come to staff attention since the Consultation Document was developed and need a decision from Council as to any adjustment to the Long Term Plan budgets. Please note that all figures in the deliberations report are uninflated.

4.6 Recommendations are provided where a change to the proposal consulted on is suggested. If there is no recommendation then the project will remain as set out in the Consultation Document and supporting documents.

4.7 As in previous years, letters to submitters will be cleared with the Chair of the most relevant Committee (as allocated in the attached spreadsheet).

5. Discussion

Capacity Constraints

5.1 It is important to note that there are currently two vacancies in the Capital Projects Business Unit comprising one project management position and one engineering position. This is a risk factor for project delivery. Although some work can be contracted out it still requires a staff member to oversee it. Recruitments are underway but it can take several months to secure staff and then at least 3-6 months to become familiar with a new project and Council processes. Lower priority projects are allocated to the vacant positions to reduce the impact on the programme.

5.2 With a realistic annual capital budget set at $40 million, where projects or pieces of work are added by Council during deliberations they will need to be balanced by the removal or delay of lower priority projects.

6. Transport

RLTP amendments

6.1 The Regional Transport Committee meeting on 11 May is expected to make decisions which will have an impact on this Long Term Plan. An update on how the Regional Land Transport Plan impacts on the Long Term Plan decision making will be provided at the Long Term Plan deliberations meeting.

Saxton Growth Area: Transport

6.2 Wakatū Incorporation (19041) submitted on infrastructure funding at Saxton/Nelson South.

6.3 The submission states that there is demand for housing in the Saxton area where the submitter owns land, and that there are servicing constraints which need to be addressed to release further land for housing in this area. The submitter notes that development is taking place regardless of underlying zoning and that there does not seem to be sufficient infrastructure investment in the Long Term Plan to address the expected residential growth.

6.4 The City Development Team has identified that Saxton is the most feasible area for growth with an expected yield of 900 household units. This will alleviate the projected infrastructure shortfall for housing capacity in years 8-10 of the Long Term Plan identified as part of Council’s Urban Development Capacity assessments required under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity.

6.5 Four Special Housing Areas (SHAs) have been approved by the Council within the Saxton Growth Area, and two of these are now gazetted by the Government, with Council now processing one further expression of interest. Once they have all been gazetted they would authorise around 320 housing units within this growth area.

6.6 Water supply and wastewater capacity constraints raised in the submission are being addressed by Council in partnership with a developer via a private development agreement as a part of an earlier SHA approval within the Saxton Growth Area.

6.7 Council is aware of local transport constraints, and is sourcing the data needed to make decisions around the best projects to address these constraints via a Network Operating Framework (NOF) currently underway in partnership with TDC and the NZTA.

6.8 Currently a project titled Hill Street extension, previously in the Long Term Plan and Transport AMP had been removed. The project and funding still sits in the Regional Land Transport Plan. As a result of this staff recommend that a budget line be included in the Long Term Plan and that it be named “Saxton Growth Area Transport” until the NOF identifies solutions, and that funding for physical works of $15.6m (uninflated) be phased as below:

· Year 1 (18/19) $150,000 opex

· Year 2 (19/20) $150,000 opex

· Year 3 (20/21) $150,000 opex

· Year 4 (22/23) 1.17M capex

· Year 5 (23/24) 1.17M capex

· Year 6 (24/25) 4.42M capex

· Year 7 (25/26) 4.42M capex

· Year 8 (26/27) 4.42M capex

6.9 Staff expect that projects within the Saxton Growth Area Transport budget item would attract a 51% NZTA subsidy as well as growth funding from Development Contributions at 17% of the Council’s cost.

6.10 The impact of this decision on rates would be an increase of less than 0.5%. The impact on Development Contributions will be an additional $100 per housing unit over the ten year period, which is a 6% increase in the transportation charge from $1,420 to $1,520 per housing unit. The overall impact would be to increase the development contribution charge from $12,820 to $12,920.

6.11 The specific projects to be undertaken in years 4-8 of the Long Term Plan will be identified in detail by the NOF and business case processes within the next three years, and the Long Term Plan 2021-31 will be updated to reflect this.

6.12 Consideration has been given to the process for adding these projects given the amount of funding involved. Staff believe this addition has a relatively low level of significance. This assessment is based on the following points:

6.12.1 The projects are not, in and of themselves, strategic assets. The land transport network as a whole is regarded as a strategic asset, but not individual and relatively small components of it.

6.12.2 The projects will not involve any material change in levels of service. While service will likely be improved in the Saxton area, this criteria is aimed at decisions that, as a matter of policy, commit the Council to achieving a materially different level of service in relation to an activity more generally.

6.12.3 The decision is reversible. The bulk of the capex will not be committed until after the next Long Term Plan. Further, a resolution to adopt the Long Term Plan does not constitute a decision to act on any specific matter included within the Plan (see the Local Government Act 2002 s 96(2)). There will be no material impact on future generations (such as disposing of an irreplaceable asset).

6.12.4 The projects’ overall impact on the community will be modest in relative terms.

6.12.5 The projects are consistent with Council's strategic direction and in line with feedback from submitters supporting the priority given to Infrastructure. The Consultation Document provides that infrastructure is one of the Council's top four priorities and one of Council's objectives is to provide infrastructure to enable growth and development.

6.12.6 It is not expected that the projects will generate wide public interest. Council's share of the projects (approximately $6M) represents a relatively small increase to the amount of Council-funded capital expenditure already budgeted for in the draft Long Term Plan.

6.13 In terms of the Financial Strategy, the project increases overall debt by $8 million and the debt/revenue ratio from 116% to 121% at Year 10. The projects are funded consistent with the Financial Strategy using NZTA subsidies and development contributions with the balance from debt. The rates impact is mainly in years 7-10 of the LTP with the projects adding 0.5% to rates required but still within the rates cap set by Council.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees the transport projects added under the Saxton Growth Area have a relatively low degree of significance; and

Agrees, having regard to both the significance of the projects to be added and the matters in section 79(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, that

a. Council has sufficient knowledge of the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the projects to be added; and that

b. appropriate consideration has been given to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the projects to be added; and that

c. no additional consultation need be undertaken; and

Allocates $15.6 million capital expenditure and $450,000 operational expenditure for the Saxton Area Growth Transport projects to be delivered through an investigation phase 2018/19 to 2020/21 and a construction phase 2022/23 to 2026/27 in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Saxton Growth Area: Other Projects

6.14 Summerset (19140) and Wakatū Incorporation (19041) submissions requested that the following projects be included in the Long Term Plan:

(i) Upgrade of Hill Street North

(ii) Extension of water main from Suffolk Road to Hill Street North

(iii) Increase capacity of water line from Ngawhatu to Suffolk Road

(iv) Upgrade wastewater system/chamber at Elm Street

(v) Extension of wastewater Network from Daelyn drive to Hill Street North

6.15 These five projects will be funded and constructed by developers and vested in Council and thus will not be a cost to the ratepayer to construct. Including them in the Long Term Plan complies with Section 201A of the Local Government Act 2002, provides greater clarity and transparency and also allows Council to collect development contributions (the majority of the projects being 100% growth driven).

6.16 Including these projects in the Long Term Plan raises the development contribution charge by $390 to $13,210 (or to $13,310 if the Saxton Growth Area: Transport projects are also included).

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to include in year 2018/19 of the Long Term Plan the following projects:

· Upgrade of Hill Street North

· Extension of water main from Suffolk Road to Hill Street North

· Increase capacity of water line from Ngawhatu to Suffolk Road

· Upgrade wastewater system/chamber at Elm Street

· Extension of wastewater Network from Daelyn drive to Hill Street North; and

Marsden Valley Ridgeway

6.17 Submitter 19010 requests that the Marsden Valley Ridgeway upgrade be brought forward. The funds for the Upgrade of the Ridgeway/Marsden Valley Road intersection have currently been allocated based on an existing work stream.

6.18 It will not be possible to bring the work stream forward given resourcing requirements and uncertainty over the final design and consequent construction cost. A more accurate allocation of funding for construction will be possible in the next Long Term Plan.

Marsden Valley/Enner Glynn Valley

6.19 Submitter 19115 seeks inclusion of a proposed Marsden Valley/Enner Glynn Valley connecting road and for agreement to be reached that Marsden Park will be compensated for extra costs for provision of the higher standard of road connectivity.

6.20 The road in question forms the main access route from the main road network (Marsden Valley Road) into the proposed development and ultimately to Enner Glynn. This road will provide access and connectivity for both the proposed subdivision and adjacent future residential areas. It will provide a local, sub collector and collector role in the overall road hierarchy. To accommodate this function as a through road, it has been identified and designed as a Collector Road. It has not yet been added to the roading hierarchy through the Nelson Resource Management Plan (as it is a newly proposed/created road). The Nelson Resource Management Plan requires a connected road network and all subdivision is required to provide public through roads, to ensure a connected and efficient roading network is provided for the community.

6.21 The design of the road is determined by its function, and the standards for this are included in Council’s Land Development Manual with which all new subdivision and development is required to comply and which subdivision consent conditions require compliance.

6.22 Notwithstanding the minimum standards, all conditions of consent are also required to be fair and reasonable. This particular subdivision consent was processed by an experienced independent planner and qualified RMA Commissioner, who evaluated all conditions imposed (and with particular reference to this roading requirement) against this test. Through the design development process the design has been amended. The approved cross section shows a road reserve width of between 17.5m up to a maximum of 19.6m. The current Land Development Manual requires a road reserve width of 23m for a Collector Road, 18m for a Sub Collector Road and 16m for a local road. The road currently approved is 1.6m wider (at its maximum) than required for a sub-collector, 3.6m (and up to 5.5m) narrower than required for a Collector Road. It is essential for a development of this size, initially 220 lots (of which 23 are zoned suburban commercial and 187 residential) to provide adequate road infrastructure and it is the developer’s responsibility to provide this.

6.23 The requirement for the reduced width Collector Road to service this development is a cost that is internal to the development, enabling development of this site, and is both fair and reasonable and consistent with the approach Council takes to other growth areas.

6.24 It is recommend not to add funding for the Marsden Valley Road/Enner Glynn Valley Road to this Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Champion Road roundabout

6.25 Submitter 10941 raised the Champion Road roundabout.

6.26 The funds for the Champion Road Roundabout should align with that proposed by Tasman District Council (2019/20) and the adjacent development.

6.27 The funding of $150,000 is to be provided to Tasman District Council as it will spend the money. There are therefore no resourcing implications for NCC. The change will move funds currently in Year four of the Long Term Plan to Year two.

Recommendation

That the Council

Brings forward the $150,000 for the Champion Road roundabout from 2021/22 to 2019/20 to align with Tasman District Council funding.

Cycleways

6.28 The Nelson North Cycleway Collective (18928) requested Council support for more cycling and shared paths in the North Nelson area. The Collective is keen to work with Council, central government and other partners to advance new cycle connections.

6.29 Investigations into one of the routes of interest, through the Wakapuaka Sandflats Esplanade (submitter’s section 2), are programmed to commence during the next financial year, with construction planned for 2020/21. Investigations into linking this connection with the Glen are planned for 2020/21.

6.30 Staff will have ongoing liaison with the North Nelson Cycleway Collective on the Wakapuaka route and other parts of the cycle network in North Nelson.

Stansell Avenue

6.31 One resident of Stansell Avenue (18933) has requested Council action to address safety concerns due to speeding and the increasing volume of traffic. Staff have made Police aware of concerns with speeding and safety in this area and the Police have followed up with enforcement. Staff will be incorporating this work into the Speed Bylaw Review and undertaking an investigation in the near future to identify options. There is existing budget allocated for the work. The community will be consulted as part of the investigation.

Parking

6.32 Council consulted on raising parking fees to $2 per hour, after the first free hour. The few submissions on this proposal were supportive of retaining the first hour free and did not express concern about increasing the fee to $2 thereafter. Therefore no change is suggested to the proposal that was consulted on.

7. Water Supply

Waimea Dam

7.1 Several submitters commented on Council’s proposed contribution to the Waimea Dam. These matters are considered in a separate report.

8. Wastewater

Overflows

8.1 There was concern by some submitters about the wastewater issues that impacted on Tahunanui Beach over the summer. The summer issues with Tahuna Beach resulted in part from the extremely high tidal surge that inundated sewer pump stations in Monaco and Beach Road in Richmond. The impact of the surge was unexpected and has resulted in modifications being made to those pump stations to prevent a recurrence.

9. Stormwater and Flood Protection

Rutherford St Kindergarten

9.1 Several submitters raised a concern about the flooding of the sewerage system into the kindergarten and the impact this has had and will have on the kindergarten’s operation. These submitters requested that sewerage pipes on Rutherford Street be upgraded to cope with the weather events.

9.2 There is a programme of significant upgrade works for the wastewater network over the next ten years that are aimed at reducing the level of stormwater entering the network. While it will require some time to implement the programme it is expected that these works will see overflows being greatly reduced. In the short term Council will also investigate options for local pipework changes that can be put in place to reduce overflows on the site and funding can be considered in a future Annual Plan.

Tipahi Street/Eckington Terrace

9.3 A submission (18848) on behalf of Tipahi Street and Eckington Terrace was presented by two residents. They asked for improvements in stormwater, kerb and channelling and street lighting.

9.4 These residents have been requesting work on their streets over many years, and are clearly feeling frustrated at the responses received from Council. However Council has to appropriately prioritise its spending and there are still many streets in Nelson that do not have a complete reticulated stormwater network in place. Council is prioritising works for streets that allow multiple utilities to be worked on at the same time. Council has programmed stormwater works for Tipahi St -Eckington Terrace for 2025/26 - 2027/28. The timing will be reviewed as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Ariesdale Terrace

9.5 Residents of Ariesdale Terrace (18910) have requested an investigation of stormwater issues in the street given what they believe is a worsening situation. An upgrade for Ariesdale Terrace is scheduled for 2021/22-2022/23 but the residents suggest it would be more cost effective to schedule an investigation to define what works are needed and then adjust the planned work accordingly.

9.6 Staff support the idea of carrying out an investigation to try to identify sources of subsurface water without extensive excavations. If it can be achieved within existing resources this will be scheduled in 2018/19 and otherwise included in the 2019/20 work programme.

Bolwell Reserve drainage

9.7 One submitter (18913) has requested Council to investigate drainage from Bolwell Reserve which they believe has, during severe weather events, has been the source of water that flooded their house. While protecting private property from natural rainfall is considered to be primarily a private property issue staff will investigate surface stormwater flows from the reserve area and evaluate effectiveness of swale drains and likely cost of installation. If the project has a wider public benefit Council may consider including it in a future Annual Plan.

Queens Road

9.8 Submitters living on Queens Road (18969) have raised concerns about runoff to their properties that they believe is a result of an earlier roading project.

9.9 Council completed a joint stormwater and roading upgrade in 2012 that improved the stormwater control to the wider area. However it seems in this localised area there are ongoing problems. Staff will investigate the issues raised to see if it is possible to install local surface water controls on Queens Road to address the issue.

Blick Terrace

9.10 One submitter (18995) is experiencing flooding during heavy rain due to stormwater from neighbouring properties. Although the property is on a private driveway the owner would like Council to take responsibility for the works needed.

9.11 Council has a responsibility to maintain public utilities and ratepayers are rated for this work. However private or common private utilities are the responsibility of the property owner(s) as in this case.

Maple Street

9.12 Submitter 18144 raised an issue with the Arapiki stream which overflows its culvert beside their property and leads to flooding of the basement.

9.13 Staff are currently investigating options for resolving the issue and are hopeful it will be possible to resolve within existing budgets.

Strawbridge Square

9.14 Foodstuffs (18647) has requested upgrades to the stormwater network at Strawbridge Square to resolve flooding problems experienced by the Stoke New World supermarket.

9.15 An extra sump has recently been installed adjacent to the Stoke New World supermarket which should help ease the problems. A project has also been identified to upgrade the Strawbridge Square stormwater in 2021/22-2023/24 by increasing pipe size and changing kerbing. This work is anticipated to improve surface flows across the western end of the carpark adjacent the supermarket.

Fifeshire Crescent

9.16 Submitter 18675 has raised the problems they experience with stormwater runoff from the nearby road and neighbouring properties.

9.17 Council recognises the stormwater issue on hillsides and has a programme of investigations underway that will result in a schedule of upgrade works prioritised across the city in future years. Stormwater control in Fifeshire Crescent will be considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 following on from the investigations planned in the Port Hills Stormwater Strategy due 2020/21-2021/22.

Milton Street

9.18 Submitter 18779 is a resident of Milton Street and is concerned about flooding in the street after heavy rainfall.

9.19 A temporary solution to the issue has been constructed and the problem area will be monitored over the next twelve months. It is not recommended that the upgrade be brought forward as it needs to be aligned with a roading upgrade to install kerb and channelling. Shifting these projects would displace other priority projects.

Wakefield Quay

9.20 Submitter 18834 requested assistance with upgrading their existing stormwater pipes which receive piped stormwater from three properties above.

9.21 Council only considers financially supporting projects for public drains or where private drains are upgraded to meet Council's standards for public drains. Council can make a 50% contribution towards work that meets these standards, subject to budget being available. Staff will meet with the submitter to discuss the project further.

Konini Street

9.22 Two submissions (18901, 19027) have requested improvements to Konini Street.

9.23 Upgrading the Mount Street/Konini Street stormwater is programmed for 2017/18-2023/24. Any design work will be done in conjunction with the proposed road project.

Nayland Road

9.24 Submission 19057 is concerned about flooding on Nayland Road. Staff will investigate, through the operations and maintenance programme, these reports that there may be restrictions in the network that are contributing to the problem.

Arapiki Road

9.25 Submission 18951 raised concerns about flooding from an open drain and the scheduling of upgrades to the piped network to address this.

9.26 Council has a significant stormwater project for the Arapiki Rd/Maitland Ave/ Main Rd Stoke areas programmed for 2020/21-2023/24. This project is expected to remove a substantial volume of water from the Arapiki Rd drain. It is not recommended that the timing of the work be changed as this will require other priorities to be deferred. However staff will investigate the condition of the existing drain and see if there are any temporary improvements to reduce surface flooding in the interim. An option that might be successful is to raise one bank of the open channel to redirect water into the road reserve. Staff believe this could be achieved within existing budgets.

Hillwood streams

9.27 Landowners near the Hillwood streams (18979) believe that since the drains were reclassified as streams there has been insufficient cleaning, creating a flood risk.

9.28 It is noted that the Hillwood streams have not been re-classified. They are water bodies (streams) as defined under the Resource Management Act 1991.

9.29 Council has recently completed some clearing work in the Hillwood tributaries to maintain the waterway through the Glen Road culverts. Full length channel clearing has been discussed at a number of workshops and with residents and others. Any clearing would require resource consent. The focus is on managing specific sites where blockages occur. Additional modelling work is also being carried out to test the effectiveness of increasing the channel capacity at the top of the channels to protect against flows from shorter return period events.

Saxton Creek Upgrade

9.30 Summerset (19140) and Wakatū Incorporation (19041) submissions discuss the Saxton Creek Upgrade.

9.31 This project is already included in the Long Term Plan with Stage 2 construction estimated to commence in September 2018. The additional budget is required due to an increase in ecological requirements, ongoing legal fees and construction of a wider access bridge to Summerset Retirement Village.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves additional budget of $160,000 for the Saxton Creek bridge widening in year 2019/20

Alton St

9.32 A submitter (18240) has requested removal of gravel in the river bed near 37 Alton Street as they believe there is risk of flooding. Council is in the process of carrying out investigative work on all of Nelson’s waterways as part of Council’s risk based response to flooding. This work includes mapping changes in river channel cross sections to identify where there is gravel build up, which will then feed into the flood modelling. Where the modelling shows a substantial reduction in channel capacity as a result of gravel build up then that gravel will be programmed to be removed. If gravel in the stretch of the Brook Stream is shown as needing to be removed it will programmed accordingly under Council’s resource consent for gravel removal work.

10. Environment

Climate Change

10.1 A number of submitters have commented on climate change and Council’s approach or response to this. As discussed in a report to the 3 May Council meeting, Council is currently researching carbon emissions measurement and reduction programmes, and considering actions to support the community to adapt and respond to the effects of climate change. The baseline information will enable well informed and targeted emission reduction outcomes to be set by Council and the community and for actions that will make a difference to be undertaken.

10.2 There was also a submitter (18422) who requested a sea wall to protect property. The scope of this proposal is unlikely to be technically feasible or affordable. However the third stage of the coastal erosion work will assess options for dealing with coastal inundation. Council has committed to undertaking extensive consultation with the community over the next year or so on all climate change related issues, possible options and potential costs.

Regional cooperation

10.3 Local Government New Zealand hosts a Regional Sector Group for regional and unitary councils. At the meeting on 17 April some matters were raised which require a funding allocation.

10.4 To improve support for the group a Regional Sector Office has been proposed with $16,000 per annum requested from NCC with larger regional councils contributing more (total budget $500,000). This would fund appointment of an Executive Policy Advisor, to support regional and unitary council Chief Executives and staff in meeting national objectives and achieving coordinated responses on science and environment work.

10.5 In addition, as set out in submission 18977, it has been proposed that the Regional Sector Group should collaborate on a fish passage research and development programme. This would be useful for the sector and would test the effectiveness of remediation options as well as implement developed tools in trial catchments. A contribution from NCC of $10,000 per year for three years has been requested (our share of a total budget of $750,000).

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves operational funding of $16,000 per annum to support the Regional Sector Office and $10,000 per annum 2018/19 to 2020/21 to support collaboration on a fish passage research and development programme.

11. Social

Housing

11.1 A number of submitters raised concerns about housing (18830, 18851, 18924 18954, 18978, 19110, 19105). These concerns covered issues such as homelessness, affordability, planning rules, special housing areas and the quality of rental accommodation. There was a request for a Housing Strategy and a Community Housing Hui and a proposal for Council to develop temporary housing for those needing immediate help. Abbeyfield New Zealand (18843) signalled the need for more Abbeyfield houses in Nelson to cope with growing demand.

11.2 The Review of the Nelson Resource Management Plans (The Nelson Plan review) is considering a broader range of housing choices including how best to provide for comprehensive housing, papakainga, central city living, and second dwellings. The Draft Nelson Plan is scheduled for public release in early 2019. Council has also been undertaking ongoing monitoring of housing supply to meet requirements under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity.

11.3 Staff have also been participating in a housing workstream under the Top of the South Impact Forum which has councils and agencies working collaboratively on a range of housing issues including homelessness, social housing and emergency housing. A Community Forum is proposed for later in the year to discuss these issues and there are also immediate practical steps being taken e.g. multi-agency discussions to find solutions for individuals currently falling through gaps in the system.

11.4 In response to concerns nationally about homelessness the government has committed to no homelessness over winter and allocated $100 million nationwide for this project. The local Ministry of Social Development (MSD) office is working actively to house the homeless and NCC staff are working with MSD to identify individuals in need of assistance. Around 60% of the government funding is to expand the successful Housing First programme for dealing with chronic homelessness and those with multiple and complex needs. The Mayor has been in contact with senior officials at MSD and Housing New Zealand to urge that Nelson be included in the Housing First roll out, as a way to address our urgent and growing homelessness problem.

11.5 The Mayor has also hosted discussions with representatives from central government on how to expand Nelson’s access to social housing. As a result a partnership project is being considered by Housing New Zealand and will be reported to Council as soon as more details are available.

11.6 The concerns raised by submitters over housing are completely understandable given ongoing affordability issues and growing demand for social housing and other interventions. There are a number of workstreams underway, across a range of agencies, tackling the issues raised and submitters will be advised of this.

11.7 It is recommended that Council continues to actively participate in the workstreams above and invite submitters to attend the Community Forum and feed ideas into the process.

Warmer Healthier Homes

11.8 The Warmer Healthier Homes Steering Committee has requested Council continue its funding commitment to the project at current levels. There was also support from some residents (18849, 18865) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (19026).

11.9 The project has recently passed the milestone of 1,000 homes insulated in the region, 58% of which were in Nelson. The project prioritises people in need, particularly families with young children and people with respiratory and other health issues. The project is regarded as having been successful in delivering warmer, drier, healthier homes and improving health outcomes for the region. It is therefore recommended that funding continues at current levels to allow ongoing upgrading of the quality of accommodation for Nelson’s most vulnerable residents.

11.10 It is recommended that Council continues with the existing allocation of $100,000 per annum for the Warmer Healthier Homes project as included in the draft budgets.

Community Investment Fund

11.11 A submission (18826) from members of the Community Investment Panel requests that the $100,000 from the old Community Assistance Fund that was allocated to the Warmer Healthier Homes project be “returned” to the Community Investment Fund (CIF). The Panel members point to the Fund receiving significantly more funding requests than can be supported.

11.12 The Community Assistance Fund had a much broader mandate than the CIF’s community development focus (funding sports, environment, arts, events etc) so it does not seem unreasonable that the funding allocated at establishment was less than the full $428,700. Home insulation would have been eligible for support under the old criteria but not under the new CIF criteria, so Council chose to ensure that work continued by making $100,000 available per year. Council has also included an ongoing amount of $75,000 ($50,000 in year 1) for community events, which have not been eligible for funding since the change in criteria.

11.13 The CIF meets the needs of a smaller range of community projects than the previous fund and Council has made other funding allocations to support groups that are no longer eligible. In total the funding to community groups in this Long Term Plan will exceed the previous Community Assistance funding. It is true that some sources of funding for community groups are increasingly under pressure, however it is not appropriate to expect ratepayers to make up any shortfall from other funders.

11.14 It is therefore recommended that the CIF continue at its current funding level, increased by inflation annually.

Community Events

11.15 Overall submitters were supportive of the proposal to establish a contestable fund for community events with funding of $50,000 in 2018/19 rising to $75,000 (plus inflation) per annum thereafter.

11.16 There was a proposal for a new community event (18930), Rideshare Week Festival. This will be considered by staff in 2018/19 once a dedicated travel demand management resource is in place.

Santa Parade

11.17 The Chair of the Nelson Santa Trust (17632), which runs the Santa Parade each year, has requested annual funding of $15,000 per year to allow some certainty around future funding for planning purposes.

11.18 Council could advise the Trust of the new community events fund and suggest it makes an application for multi-year funding. This would allow the Santa Parade to be assessed against other events and for funding to be allocated where it will deliver the greatest benefit.

11.19 Alternatively it could also be considered that this is a baseline event for the city which residents expect to see each year as part of the build up to Christmas. In this case it would make sense to allocate annual funding to recognise that status as a core event.

11.20 Staff recommend that the Santa Parade be recognised as a core event contributing to the vitality of the city centre.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves an annual allocation of $15,000 from the CBD Enhancement Fund (operational funding) for the holding of an annual Santa Parade.

RSA Funding

11.21 The Nelson Returned and Services Association submission (18811) requested Council funding assistance for ANZAC day commemorations as it is no longer able to meet costs from its own resources.

11.22 The ANZAC Day commemorations organised by the RSA draw a much wider attendance than just its membership. Interest in attending the ceremonies has grown over the years and it is not unreasonable for the RSA to request ratepayer support for an important event that serves the wider community.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves annual operational funding of $11,500 to support the Nelson Returned and Services Association (RSA) to deliver ANZAC Day commemorations, contingent on a funding contract being agreed between the RSA and Council.

Volunteer Nelson

11.23 Volunteer Nelson (18835) has requested that it be given its own budget line for ongoing funding to the value of $37,000 per year to cover its ongoing activities and its role organising the monthly Community & Whanau meetings.

11.24 Council has received previous requests for ongoing funding from Volunteer Nelson. Most recently, during consideration of the 2017/18 Annual Plan, Council advised Volunteer Nelson to request funding through the Long Term Plan so it could be considered against other social funding needs.

11.25 Volunteer Nelson makes the point that volunteers contribute a significant amount to the wellbeing of the Nelson community and with an ageing demographic the pool of younger volunteers is declining. Department of Internal Affairs data (Volunteering and Donating Indicators 2013) supports this, noting that the 30 to 50 year age group has typically had the highest volunteering rate. Although with greater numbers of retired residents there would seem to be potential to tap into this growing pool, trends suggest that immediate family care-giving needs may be absorbing any extra capacity here. At the same time numbers of older adults needing care and support are rising more quickly than can be met by the supply of volunteers. A project organised by Volunteer Nelson to attract more volunteers from the 60+ age group received $11,000 of Community Investment funding in 2017/18.

11.26 Another trend in volunteering is the changing expectations amongst volunteers, an increasing number of whom are wanting to interact with very professional operations and have high expectations about the type of work they will be undertaking. Capacity building of Volunteer Nelson and the voluntary sector could help them deliver better against these changing expectations and recruit new talent.

11.27 Rather than allocate ongoing funding for undefined objectives it is recommended that the Community Partnerships team engage with Volunteer Nelson and others in the voluntary sector to analyse areas of greatest need and bring back a report on the future directions in volunteering in Nelson and options for Council support. A small amount of funding is required to support this work and access expert advice.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves funding of $4,000 to support staff to work on volunteering in Nelson and how Council can support groups to respond to changing trends and demands.

Hospice

11.28 The Nelson Tasman Hospice is having to move from its Manuka Street site due to the expansion of the private hospital. It had previously requested the waiving of development contributions for its new build in Stoke (calculated at $141,681) and was referred to the Long Term Plan process instead. It is requesting a grant of $250,000.

11.29 It is noted that the hospice, as well as providing the facility at Manuka Street, now operates clinics in Motueka, Wakefield and Golden Bay. The hospice has also submitted to the Tasman District Council Long Term Plan requesting support of $250,000. 40% of the hospice clients are in the Tasman district and 60% (plus the facility) are in Nelson.

11.30 Given the important service the hospice provides to the Nelson community it seems appropriate that ratepayers provide support for the building of a new facility. As the new facility is also the base for support to the Tasman region it would be reasonable that the funds requested be shared between the councils. A sum of $150,000 is equivalent to 60% of the funding requested.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves operational funding of $150,000 for the Nelson Tasman Hospice for its new facility in Stoke, contingent on other fundraising being successfully completed and the project confirmed to proceed.

Bridge Street

11.31 Submission 18825 has requested funding of $22,000 to assist with the cultural development of Bridge Street, particularly around the Bridge Street Studios. This project has the potential for Council to partner with artists/businesses based in Bridge Street to create an improved daytime atmosphere in the area, in line with Council objectives. However, the nature of the proposal and how the funds would be used needs further investigation. It is therefore recommended that the City Development team reports to Council on priorities for use of the CBD Enhancement Fund (allocation of $200,000 capital funding and $70,000 operational) for 2018/19, including the potential Bridge Street cultural development project, as part of work on the CBD action plan/strategy that will be developed.

Recommendation

That the Council

Directs staff to report to Council on priorities for use of the CBD Enhancement Fund for 2018/19, including consideration of the Bridge Street cultural development project.

Ghost Light Theatre

11.32 The submission from Ghost Light Theatre (18909) requests ongoing annual funding from Council to cover its rent, currently $19,569.

11.33 Council previously approved a grant of $16,500 in 2017/18 to assist with the establishment costs of the theatre. This support recognised the potential for the theatre to contribute to city amenity.

11.34 There are existing contestable pathways for the theatre to apply for Council funding such as Community Investment where its work with youth might be eligible for example, or the Community Events fund, if the theatre was to continue to host elements of the Nelson Fringe Festival. Where possible it is more equitable for Council funding to be contestable to ensure that projects supported are those that will deliver the best outcomes for ratepayer investment.

11.35 It is therefore recommended that Ghost Light Theatre be encouraged to look for opportunities to apply to existing Council contestable funds.

Fresh FM

11.36 Fresh FM has also requested annual funding ($10,000) to support delivery of programmes for and about the local community. As Fresh FM works with a number of community organisations that are eligible for Community Investment Funding it is suggested that they apply in partnership to the Community Investment Fund.

Kirby Lane

11.37 Galen King from Kirby Lane (18793) submitted asking for support from Council for development of a pocket park and car parking area at 105 Bridge Street, expressing frustration with regulatory requirements.

11.38 Council has processed two consents for this development over its life. The original development was a mall, not complex, and achieved regulatory approval reasonably smoothly and within statutory time frames. The change in the proposal appears to be a result of a feasibility issue with the proposed development. The current proposal requires a resource consent however this has not been lodged.

11.39 Both the building and resource consents were granted by Council within the required statutory time frames (17 days for the Building Consent and 23 days for the Resource Consent including a 3 day s37 extension).

11.40 Resource consent was required for the proposed activities on the site. A Resource Consent was issued on 11 July 2016.

11.41 Since the issuing of the Building Consent, the submitter has changed their plans by removing the container building and instead proposing to provide car parking on one half of the site and an open space area including pocket park on the other half.

11.42 The new proposal includes different activities that as far as we know do not require building consent. Some works to pave the site involved meeting Council's asset management requirements when extra paving was added to the site, to control sediment entering Council's storm water system and this has been addressed.

11.43 The requirement to apply for resource consent to establish a private car park is not one that Council can waive in its role as Consent Authority under the Resource Management Act. If an activity breaches a rule in the Nelson Resource Management Plan, then in almost all cases a resource consent is required. There are some instances where a resource consent can be waived for minor or technical rules breaches, but they do not apply to this proposal.

11.44 As a response to this submission, staff are continuing to work alongside the submitter. Staff are in the process of negotiating a license to occupy so that the public can access the pocket park provided on private land, with Council paying a fee to the land owner. Council funding of around $16,000 has been set aside to provide play equipment for the pocket park.

Library

11.45 Many submitters (65) have written about the Elma Turner Library redevelopment, with around 90 per cent in support of redevelopment. A number of submitters shared their thoughts on what is needed in the upgrade. This feedback will be extremely helpful as the scope of the redevelopment project is better defined during 2018/19. Some of the key points raised by submitters included that the current location is ideal, the current available space is not adequate, that noise levels are unsatisfactory, that there is a shortage of study space and general seating areas and that public meeting space is unsatisfactory.

11.46 Co-location with other community groups and organisations was suggested by Citizens Advice Bureau, the local toy library and the Nelson Society of Genealogists. These co-location considerations will be included in the business case development.

11.47 The majority of submissions proposed incorporation of the space previously occupied by the Mediterranean Warehouse building into the Elma Turner Library’s footprint.

11.48 Those submitters that were not in support were largely opposed to the budget required for the redevelopment or considered that the current facility met their needs. There was comment made about demand for libraries declining, however user numbers at Elma Turner have been showing an increasing trend.

Recommendation

That the Council

Directs staff to prepare for Council consideration a revised Business Case for the Elma Turner library re-development, taking into account wider issues involving the development of the riverside precinct, technology change and the future of libraries.

Nelson Provincial Museum

11.49 The Tasman Bays Heritage Trust (19048) has requested that Council allocate $3-4 million funding for completion of a new regional collection facility within the next three to five years. This request suggests a division of costs of 25% for NCC, 25% for Tasman District Council and the remainder from fundraising.

11.50 There is a joint council working group considering this issue which has been asked to report back to the Joint Shareholders Committee. It would be appropriate to wait for the report from this group and more detail about the project and its timing before making any funding commitment. Staff will advise the Trust that Council looks forward to working collaboratively to find a solution to its regional collection facility.

Refinery

11.51 Submissions (18640, 18909, 18992) have supported Council’s feasibility study and business case for an Arts Hub extension at the Refinery using allocated funding for 2018/2019.

11.52 Once the feasibility study has been received, Council is likely to be asked to consider investing approximately $500,000 towards the $1.5 million estimated costs of the extension to create a Community Arts Centre, with the remainder sourced from Central Government and community fundraising in 2021–2023.

11.53 The extension is timed to coincide with earthquake strengthening planned in 2019-2021 with a total allocation of $417,118k in the draft Long Term Plan, consisting of 2019/20 $30,660 (design) and 2020/21 $386,458(works). The $200,000 referred to by submission (18640) was in the 2016/17 budget however the project did not go ahead and funds were not rolled over as costings were above budget estimates and a recommendation was made to delay the project until a decision is reached on a development plan for the site.

11.54 One point raised during hearings is that the planned location for the arts centre is on the edge of the central city and as a consequence may draw some activity away from the centre. This aspect will need to be assessed as part of the feasibility study.

11.55 This project also relates to the planned central spine pathway planned in the Rutherford Park Development Plan to run between the croquet courts and the Refinery. However the central spine is not scheduled within the ten years of this Long Term Plan, so the arts centre project would precede it and the relationship of the path to the building would be designed during the path construction project.

Marae Maintenance Contribution

11.56 Council proposed to contribute $30,000 in 2018/19 for the preparation of an asset management plan for the marae, to guide future works, and $20,000 each year after that.

11.57 The funding would support Whakatū marae to maintain its community infrastructure in a cost effective and efficient way and helps support this facility as an important social asset for the Nelson community as a whole. There were 14 submissions that commented on the proposal, most in support of the funding. Many highlighted the importance of partnership with Te Tau Ihu iwi and felt this was one way of strengthening the relationship.

11.58 It is therefore recommended that funding proposed in the Consultation Document be retained.

Education Nelson Marlborough

11.59 Education Nelson Marlborough has received three years’ funding from Nelson City Council and requests further funding.

11.60 Advice has been sought from the Nelson Regional Development Agency as to the value of further investment in this work (currently funded at $10,000 per year). It considers this to be useful work but expects that the group should be moving towards self-sufficiency. Additionally there is to be a Regional Development Strategy meeting in August which will involve Education Nelson Marlborough and Education NZ (the major funder) and will discuss the best delivery model.

11.61 It is therefore recommended that Council support Education Nelson Marlborough for a reduced amount of $5,000 with funding to be held until more information on the outcomes of the Strategy meeting are known. This information will also inform decisions about funding in future years which can be managed through subsequent Annual Plans.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves $5,000 to support the work of Education Nelson Marlborough in 2018/19, with funding to be confirmed by staff once the results of the Regional Development Strategy work is known.

12. Parks and Active Recreation

Mountain biking

12.1 Council received 59 submissions from mountain bikers and those supportive of mountain biking tracks in the region. The Nelson Mountain Bike Club (NMTBC), submission 18782, was made on behalf of its 3,000 members. NMTBC supported the priority given to mountain biking in the Consultation Document and requested additional funding for several projects. It believes additional funding is necessary to develop mountain biking trails and services in the region, so that the potential economic benefits to Nelson can be realised. To support its requests NMTBC provided information in its submission from a recently commissioned report from Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL). NMTBC also requests Council support its bid to host the Enduro World Series, an international mountain biking event.

12.2 The existing proposal is for funding of $10,000 and $100,000 alternating throughout the 10 year period for trail development by NMTBC. This was included as a placeholder as the NMTBC and staff discussions had not progressed sufficiently to be clear what funding was needed. It was expected that changes would be sought through a submission from the Club and this was signalled to the Mayor at an early stage.

12.3 NMTBC is proposing an increase of approximately $500,000 over the first four years of the Long Term Plan – about $430,000 of that is for more trail development and $80,000 (including $30,000 underwriting) for preparations for the Enduro Event.

12.4 Staff have met with NMTBC to discuss its capacity to undertake work to this value and the Club believes it can deliver the necessary outcomes, as guided by the Memorandum of Understanding with Council. Both the trail funding and the direct event support are considered necessary to prepare Nelson for hosting the international event.

12.5 Mountain biking in Nelson has one of the highest rates of participation of any active recreation. The recent BERL report has also shown there is significant potential to develop our trails and services into a package that is highly attractive to tourists and thus can provide a substantial economic boost. The BERL analysis suggested that hosting an international event such as the Enduro World Series could be expected to have an economic impact for Nelson (ie excluding regional benefits) of $1.5 million in GDP and employment of 21 FTEs. It would also help establish Nelson’s credibility as an international mountain biking destination. Staff therefore recommend that Council allocates the extra funding for development of the trails as requested. While the events funding aspect would normally be referred to the Events Fund, staff understand this is already oversubscribed for the period in question.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves additional funding of $190,000 in 2018/19, $100,000 in 2019/20 and $210,000 in 2020/21 in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 as a grant to the Nelson Mountain Bike Club for trail development and preparations to allow hosting of the Enduro World Series in Nelson in 2021; and

Agrees that the release of each annual amount is contingent on achievement of outcomes as set out in a funding contract between the Nelson Mountain Bike Club and Council.

Great Taste Trail

12.6 Submission 19045, from the Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust (NTCTT) , makes a number of comments on cycling and trails in Nelson including the Great Taste Trail (GTT) from Tahunanui Beach to the airport, the off road trail from the Maitai Dam down the Maitai Valley to the proposed mountain bike hub, and the Dun Mountain Trail.

12.7 The detail of its requests for these three projects are set out in the submission, but in summary are as follows:

12.8 Funding for the GTT sections from Tahunanui Beach to the airport has been spread over two years 2018/19 and 2019/20. 50% funding of $402,000 has been confirmed from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The GTT is underway with final design and the Trust is confident that it can complete the works in one year, 2018/19. Staff support bringing forward this project so that it is completed in 2018/19. There are no major resourcing issues for Council as a result of this change.

12.9 An off road trail from the Maitai Dam down the Maitai Valley to the proposed Maitai mountain bike hub would traverse steep hillside properties, not all in Council ownership. Furthermore, a slip has occurred above the Maitai Pipeline preventing cycling and walking access (but not impacting the pipeline). A geotechnical report and design plan is required before a safe solution can be developed. This is estimated to cost $10,000. Once the report and plan are available a request for funding from MBIE and Council will be submitted to develop the trail. A provisional sum of $50,000 is recommended for 2019/20 subject to an equivalent contribution from MBIE.

12.10 Staff note that maintaining a grade 3 trail from Coppermine Saddle to Codgers is difficult, particularly after heavy rain events. If the trail is maintained as grade 3 then it is eligible for a subsidy from MBIE. Improving sections of track would make this more achievable. The alternative is that the track reverts to grade 4, but subsidies are not available for these trails. GTT estimates that to reshape the trail, install drainage cut offs and redirect surface water would cost approximately $100,000. It is proposed that this be shared equally between MBIE and Council.

Recommendation

That the Council

Brings forward Great Taste Trail funding of $204,400 for Council’s contribution to the Tahunanui Beach to airport section from 2019/20 to 2018/19, increasing the 2018/19 budget to $808,988; and

Approves $10,000 in 2018/19 so that a geotechnical report and design plan can be prepared for a proposed off-road route between the Maitai Dam and the Maitai Camp; and

Approves $50,000 in 2019/20 to develop the off-road route between the Maitai Dam and the Maitai Camp; and

Provides $50,000 in 2018/19 to renew the Dun Mountain Trail from Coppermine Saddle to the Maitai Dam and $50,000 in 2018/19 to reinstate the trail below the slip along the Maitai Pipeline; and

Notes that the capital expenditure share of these projects is subject to the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment confirming a 50% share of the project costs.

Natureland

12.11 The Natureland Wildlife Trust has operated Natureland since 2013 and in that time has received from Council $200,000 operational funding per annum plus a single grant of $200,000 capital funding. An additional $48,000 operational funding was granted following the Annual Plan 2017/18 consultation, to go towards increased staffing, including to meet Health and Safety requirements.

12.12 Natureland has requested Council support of $250,000 operational funding per annum and $250,000 capital investment over the period 2018 to 2023 (and a further $250,000 for 2024 to 2028). Submitters were of mixed views as to the value of this support.

12.13 To assist with development of the Long Term Plan staff requested a 10 year business plan which was considered by the Sports and Recreation Committee in November last year. An independent review of that plan was commissioned by Council to consider the business plan and its objectives against the outcomes sought from Natureland.

12.14 The Sports and Recreation Committee considered the review at its meeting on 3 April and recommended to Council that Natureland funding be considered as part of the Long Term Plan deliberations. The review was also made available to the public via the Long Term Plan consultation page on Council’s website.

12.15 The review noted that the Trust’s new business model focusses more on conservation and education than previously and felt that this was a more sustainable model given changing attitudes to zoos and the keeping of animals in captivity. The review found reasonable alignment between the outcomes Natureland is proposing to deliver and the outcomes that it would make sense for Council to fund. The Long Term Plan has Environment as one of its four priorities and Natureland’s activities can support at least two of the outcomes of the Biodiversity Strategy.

12.16 In keeping with the findings of the review it would seem reasonable to continue to provide operational funding at the current level of $248,000 per annum and to include this across the ten years of the Long Term Plan.

12.17 The business plan looks to continue capital spending in order to increase the number of exotic species on display as a necessary step to deliver the profile, revenue and fundraising opportunities necessary to support its conservation priorities. The review suggested other options for investment in the complex, such as enhancing the entrance and overall visitor experience, as was the possibility of a closer working relationship with Wellington Zoo.

12.18 The complex will need further capital works to maintain the momentum of the Trust’s renewal of Natureland. It is suggested that $50,000 capital be allocated in year one of the Long Term Plan to allow urgent priorities to be addressed while a revised capital programme is developed in collaboration with Council. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the review.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes $248,000 operational funding per annum is currently included in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 for Natureland Wildlife Park; and

Allocates $50,000 in 2018/19 for capital works, with further capital funding dependent on Council approving the outcomes to be achieved from a reviewed capital programme; and

Agrees that the release of each annual amount is contingent on achievement of outcomes as set out in a funding contract between the Natureland Wildlife Trust and Council.

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary

12.19 90 submitters commented on the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary and Council’s proposal to provide ongoing operational support of $250,000 in 2018/19, dropping to $150,000 per annum. The great majority of submissions were in support, reflecting the wide volunteer base and community support for the Sanctuary. Those that did not support the proposal were concerned about the ongoing cost of Council support.

12.20 Council has made a significant contribution to the Sanctuary, providing $1,036,000 in grant funding for the building of a pest-proof fence. It has also provided annual operational funding over a number of years. The benefits Council expects to be delivered to the community from this support include biodiversity gain in terms of birdlife and development of a significant tourism attraction for the region.

12.21 The existing proposal includes $250,000 operational funding for 2018/19 in recognition of the delays to opening that have left the Sanctuary Trust with less funding than expected. Council’s proposal is to reduce this funding from 2019/20 onwards as the Sanctuary should by then be receiving income from visitors.

12.22 During hearings the possibility of free access for local residents was raised. The Sanctuary Trust has advised that the best estimate it can provide at this point is that it would require an additional grant of $67,000 per year to achieve this. While the Trust would like to consider free entry to locals at some point in the future, at this early stage of development it cannot afford the loss of income. The lease does, however, require an annual open day each year during which Nelson residents have free access to the Sanctuary.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that the release of future funding to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust is subject to successful completion of a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Trust;

Agrees the release of each subsequent year’s funding will be contingent on achievement of outcomes as set out in a funding contract between the Sanctuary Trust and Council.

Sports code requests

12.23 In an effort to better understand the needs of sport codes and to assist in decision making for the Long Term Plan 2018-28, staff have been engaging with sport codes for over a year. The aim was to have an early indication of any requests for funding or other assistance over the ten years. The process commenced with meetings with the sporting codes hosted by Sport Tasman. Following these meetings, agreement with codes was reached on a set of criteria to assess projects on. The criteria focused on four areas: participation; funding; sharing of facilities; and wider benefits and potential.

12.24 The codes also responded to a survey gathering information on; goals, trends, participation levels, existing and proposed new facilities and funding requirements.

12.25 Workshops with the Saxton Field Committee and the Sport and Recreation Committee were held in 2017 to consider requests for funding submitted by sports codes. All codes that participated in this process have been informed of the status of their requests in the Long Term Plan. They were also invited to make a further submission to the formal Long Term Plan process should they wish.

12.26 The following sections outline the various sports codes requests to the Long Term Plan 2018-28, including requests made through the earlier consultation that was undertaken in 2017.

Tasman Rugby Union

12.27 During the sports code 2017 pre-consultation process, Rugby made several requests for improvements to its facilities at Trafalgar Park with several of these deferred to be investigated through the analysis of supply and demand of sports fields in the district. A request for a multi-use facility at the back of Trafalgar Park was not included in the Plan as the site is not considered appropriate for the requested facility.

12.28 A request was also made for corporate boxes at Trafalgar Park, and at its meeting 14 December 2017 Council approved, in principle, the proposal by the Rugby Union for construction of these facilities.

12.29 Work has also been undertaken to improve the grounds at Trafalgar Park, including completion of the replacement turf. Council is also in the process of developing an agreement with the users of the facility to ensure that the City gets best value from the use of Trafalgar Park as an outdoor events facility.

12.30 The Tasman Rugby Union submission to the Long Term Plan Consultation Document (18824) requests a re-levelling of the playing surfaces at Neale Park and replacement of lighting. The submission describes the surface of the fields as “undulating and the lighting as outdated, ineffective and unsafe”.

12.31 Neale Park is built on an old landfill and will continue to require topping up and relevelling. Work was undertaken this year using surplus material removed from Trafalgar Park. Although further relevelling over the next three years would improve these sports fields, this is estimated to cost $30,000 per year for three years, and is not a priority.

12.32 A number of lights situated at Council grounds are owned by sporting bodies, and have been funded over the years through external sources. The sporting bodies are responsible for maintenance and operating costs. The lights are not covered by Council’s condition assessments and staff do not have detailed knowledge of the assets. If replacement or improvement of grounds lighting is wanted then sporting organisations have access to funding sources for this work that are not available to Council. Notwithstanding this, staff propose to undertake a review of the ownership of lighting on Council grounds and consider whether ownership and responsibility should move from the sporting bodies to Council.

12.33 The lighting at Neale Park is owned by the sports codes. Staff agree that it is ‘outdated and ineffective’ but are not aware that it is unsafe. Until a review is undertaken staff do not support the request to fund the replacement or upgrading of lighting at Neale Park.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that staff will report back in 2018/19 on a policy for ownership and maintenance of lights on Council grounds.

The Champion Green Facilities Group

12.34 This Group (18744), supported by Tasman Wheelers (18193) and submitter 18656, requested that a pavilion be constructed at the Saxton Velodrome, as well as development of a Champion Green Sports Circuit.

12.35 These requests were considered during the 2017 sport code pre-consultation process. The view at that time was that the request for a facility at Champion Green required further investigation, but that options for a circuit could be explored in tandem with existing programmed works.

12.36 The Saxton Committee and Cycling Nelson, who are the key liaison points for the Velodrome, have now concluded that a higher priority for this part Saxton Field is to complete car parking and connection to Champion Road. Funding for investigating the pavilion is included in year nine of the Long Term Plan, and if it proceeds then the work would be undertaken in subsequent years.

Gymnastics Nelson

12.37 Gymnastics (18655) has requested a Council loan of $80,000 to be used to replace safety matting and to upgrade heating in the Nelson Gymnastics Club. It should be noted that Gymnastics Nelson has previously taken, and repaid, a loan to Council.

12.38 Funding for these projects are probably best made through alternative agencies. Gymnastics Nelson has indicated that it has commenced requesting funding from other sources, but it does not know at this time if its other requests will be successful.

Nelson Baseball

12.39 Baseball (18128) seeks funding for a 90 foot diamond made up of a back stop fence, an artificial turf infield and moveable mound, two bullpens, temporary back fencing and lighting at a total cost of $450,000, plus lighting.

12.40 This project was previously considered under the sport code pre-consultation process in 2017 where it was recommended that the need for these facilities be assessed against other priorities through the Spaces and Places Strategy underway as a collaborative project with Top of the South councils (Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough and Kaikoura), Sport Tasman, Department of Conservation and Sport NZ.

12.41 The code has resubmitted their request through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process. Staff propose that the code continues to liaise with the Tasman District Council Reserves Office for the provision of existing short term baseball diamond at Saxton Field. And, that it work with staff from both councils to prepare a case to the Saxton Field Committee for long term baseball facilities at Saxton Field.

The Nelson Hockey Association

12.42 Hockey Nelson (18878) supported funding in the Plan to replace the hockey turf. Hockey Nelson sought additional funding of $120,000 to bring forward the planned upgrade of the turf lighting system to new LED lights and control systems. Hockey Nelson has, through sponsorship and donations, obtained funding for the purchase of scoreboards, but requested Council’s contribution to complete installation including the framework for the LED screens, power cabling and design and set-up costs.

12.43 The request for installation of electronic scoreboards was identified by the Club as the highest priority request during the sport code process in 2017, and subsequently a grant to assist with the installation of electronic scoreboards has been included in the draft Long Term Plan. The request for the upgrade of turf lighting was also considered during this process, however as the project had been identified by the code as lower priority and more information was required to make a decision, this was not included in the draft Plan.

12.44 Subsequently the Association has made a submission for the lighting through the Long Term Plan 2018-28. In respect to this request staff are recommending that this be considered through the assessment of all floodlighting that is underway.

Volleyball

12.45 A user of the Volleyball courts at Tahunanui Beach (18803) noted that they use the facilities often, including during evenings and requested lighting be installed.

12.46 This is a new request which was not raised by Nelson Bays Volleyball during the sport code pre-consultation process undertaken in 2017.

12.47 Staff recommend that this request be declined as Council is presently investigating extension to the beach volleyball area to provide additional court space. Lighting is presumed to be of a lower priority as it was not raised by the code in the pre-consultation process.

The Nelson Triathlon Club and Nelson Sea swimming and AdventureSwims

12.48 These submitters (18874 and 18696) noted the number of swimmers taking part in sea swimming and the success of the InterIslander Big Tahuna swim. The submitters noted the lack of access at all tide levels between Richardson Street Steps and the wharf and seek an access point in this area. The submitters also raise issues with conflicting use with the Yacht Club.

12.49 Staff recommend that this request be considered through the Haven Precinct project, and any funding required be added in a future Annual Plan.

Nelson Roller Sports Club

12.50 Roller Sports (19007) requested that the Champion Link road at Saxton Field be modified to a cul-de-sac and the circuit in the Champion Green be included in the Long Term Plan. The Group requested that Council reconsider a purpose-built closed sports circuit that can be used by cycling, skating, runners and walkers. This submission was supported by Athletics Nelson (19021) and other submitters

12.51 This request was considered during the sport code pre-consultation process in 2017. The view at that time was that options for a circuit need to be explored in tandem with existing programmed works due to budget constraints at Saxton. Since then money for a new road at Saxton (including car parking) has been proposed in the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28. If approved, the new road could potentially be used as a racing circuit as it has been designed to be wider than average. The first phase would be expected to be built later this year however it is not until the proposed second build phase, tentatively programmed for 2021, that the road would form the length for a circuit. The proposed road is located beside the velodrome.

12.52 In response the club has submitted through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 consultation process that Council reconsider including a purpose built closed circuit. This is not supported by staff given the relatively low membership numbers of Roller Skating and it not being a priority for Saxton Field at this time.

Nelson Netball Centre

12.53 Netball (19006) suggested a number of areas where it could work together with Council, including assessing the outdoor courts for new surfaces, an improved platform for a camera at the Trafalgar Centre, a permanent lighting rig at the Trafalgar Centre, improvements to the ground level of the Pavilion.

12.54 These are additional requests to the sport code process in 2017, where Nelson Netball asked for an upgrade of lighting and additional seating. The requested lighting and seating was supported and has subsequently been proposed through the draft Long Term Plan. $213,000 is included in Year four of the Long Term Plan for this work.

12.55 In relation to the subsequent requests through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process for the items noted above, staff recommend that assessment for renewal of the netball courts be undertaken in 2018/19 and assessment of facilities at the Netball Pavilion, particularly the long term suitability of the changing rooms and toilets, be undertaken through existing work programmes for Saxton Stadium.

12.56 Nelson Netball Centre also requests the maintenance and renewal schedule for all the assets at Saxton Stadium and within the Council area. Staff will meet to discuss this information with the Netball organisation.

Nelson Stand-up Paddle Boarding Club

12.57 The Paddle Boarding Club (19011) raised concerns with access to the water in various parts of Nelson.

12.58 This is a new request which has not been considered through the sports code pre-consultation process.

12.59 Staff recommend that better access to the Maitai be investigated through existing budgets and the Rutherford Park development project.

12.60 Staff have also considered whether improvements to the Rocks Road carpark could be undertaken. This would cost $10,000 and is not a priority.

Ngawhatu Pool

12.61 The users of Ngawhatu Pool (17927) requested that a therapeutic pool be built in the region to replace the loss of Ngawhatu pool.

12.62 The request from Ngawhatu Pool Users Inc was considered during the sport code pre-consultation process in 2017. The decision at the time was to include the request for the pool to be investigated as part of a district wide swimming pool review planned for 2018/19.

12.63 Realistically a purpose built therapeutic pool would be a significant capital project for the region. The cost of operating the facility would also be expensive. Therefore, staff are recommending that the Ngawhatu Pool Users continue discussions with other funding partners and explore opportunities for partnership with the Richmond Aquatic centre.

Basketball

12.64 Although Nelson Basketball did not make a submission to the Long Term 2018 Plan consultation, staff want to clarify its request made through the earlier sports code pre-consultation process for a second scoreboard at the Trafalgar Centre.

12.65 Funding for the additional scoreboard at the Trafalgar Centre has not been included in the Long Term Plan as it is not considered to be a priority at this time. If Council were to support the request it would need to include funding of at least $20,000.

Artificial Turf

12.66 Submitters (18906 and 19060) requested an artificial turf, potentially at Greenmeadows or Neale Park. A study completed in November 2017 found that an artificial turf, while potentially adding value for high performance sport, was difficult to justify as an investment to meet community demand.

Saxton Field Adjustments

12.67 Top of the South Athletics Charitable Trust (19108) outlined issues with the athletics track and requested that Council move funds allocated for the athletics track in 2020/21 and 2021/22 to 2018/19 to enable urgent resurfacing or replacement of the track. It also asked that Council immediately begin investigating the track resurfacing and full replacement options with the intention of having the solution completed before the end of February 2019, obtain certification for the re-surfaced or replaced track, consider re-orientation of the track and the provision of photo-finish infrastructure.

12.68 Requests in the Trust’s submission for the Long Term Plan 2018-28 were also considered during the sport code pre-consultation process in 2017. The view at that time was that the track reorientation could be considered when the track was due for resurfacing and certification obtained. The Trust also asked for a second pavilion-grandstand with storage and seating which was not supported as the budget for Saxton Field is limited, and there are higher project priorities.

12.69 The request to bring forward the replacement work on the track was considered by the Saxton Field Committee at its meeting on 4 May 2018. The Committee is recommending that the investigation work commence in 2018/19 and construction be undertaken in 2019/20. The request to undertake all the work 2018/19 is not recommended as staff will already be stretched to deliver the current proposed work programme for 2018/19. The Committee did not support funding for reorientation of the track as this would be an expensive undertaking requiring other investment such as a new grandstand.

12.70 To partly offset bringing this project forward, the Saxton Field Committee is recommending two other projects be delayed. These are set out in paragraphs below. It is appreciated that the sports codes affected will be disappointed with the changes, but it is important to prioritise spending at Saxton Field.

12.71 Velodrome lighting/shading $120,000 in 2018/19 - $60,000 each from Nelson and Tasman Councils. The Saxton Velodrome Trust is still in the process of raising its share of the first stage of the development and the Saxton Committee is therefore recommending that the lighting/shade shelter be undertaken in 2022/23, year five of the Long Term Plan.

12.72 Cycle/path development $20,000 in 2018/19, $200,000 in 2019/20 and 20,000 in 2020/21. The Saxton Field Committee is recommending that this work move out three years and commence in year four of the Long Term Plan (2021/22). The majority of this funding was proposed to link the hockey and softball area to cricket oval.

Recommendation

That the Council

Brings forward the $20,000 in 2021/22 and $880,000 in 2021/23 allocated for the resurface/replacement of the Saxton Field Athletics Track to 2018/19 and 2019/20 respectively; and

Notes that bringing forward the resurfacing project is contingent on the orientation remaining unchanged or the Top of the South Athletics Charitable Trust raising all the additional funding required; and

Delays the $60,000 contribution in 2018/19 for Velodrome lighting/shading until 2022/23; and

Moves the $20,000 in 2018/19, $200,000 in 2019/20 and 20,000 in 2020/21 for cycle/path development at Saxton Field to commence in 2021.

Kohatu Motorsport Park

12.73 This is an ambitious $26 million project in Tasman District. TDC has indicated its funding of the Motueka Valley highway/Olivers Road intersection as its contribution towards the project, as this is an important access point to the site of the Park.

12.74 As this is a project in the Tasman District it would be for TDC to take the lead in assessing the value of the project and whether it should be considered a regional project for funding purposes under the Regional Funding Forum. Staff are not recommending a contribution at this stage given the other funding requests from sports codes needing to be prioritised.

Coastguard vessel

12.75 The Nelson Volunteer Coastguard service (18769) requested $100,000 funding from Council to support its appeal raising funds for a new rescue vessel. The Coastguard service is run by volunteers and performs important work assisting those in trouble on the water.

12.76 The possibility of making a contribution from the marina account was considered as it seemed the most appropriate source. However consultation with the Marina Advisory Group (MAG) indicated there was not support. It was felt that individual contributions were more appropriate and the MAG therefore put the Coastguard service in touch with the Cruising Club to make a request for support.

12.77 There was also some uncertainty as to the cost of the project and whether a somewhat more modest vessel might meet the requirements.

12.78 Support for this project seems more appropriate to come from those most likely to benefit from the service, rather than all ratepayers. Staff will request the help of the Marina Advisory Group to encourage support for the appeal amongst marina users. However a small amount of rates funding could be allocated to recognise the important role the coastguard volunteers play.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates $20,000 funding in 2018/19 to support the Nelson Volunteer Coastguard appeal for a new vessel, contingent on other funding being successfully raised and the project going ahead.

Weir on Maitai River

12.79 A number of submissions (18310, 18651, 18971 and 18681) suggested blocking the entrance to the Maitai River to keep the water level constant and make the esplanade walk more attractive.

12.80 This is an idea that has been considered in the past by Council but has not been pursued because of the range of negative impacts that would need to be managed. There would be consenting issues relating to the environment, water quality, impact on flooding, sea level rise and long term maintenance.

Spotlight on Stoke

12.81 The Consultation Document asked for community input into the building of a Youth Park in Stoke. 26 submitters commented on this category in the Consultation Document. Those that were supportive of the proposed Youth Park wanted facilities for youth to use after school and in school holidays and were supportive of options to reduce issues outside the library. Support for youth workers to provide support and activities for Stoke Youth was also mentioned.

12.82 Those that did not support the Youth Park considered the money could be better spent elsewhere and were concerned about the trouble that may occur at such a facility. One submitter did not think the benefits would be sufficient for the cost. Nelson Grey Power was supportive of a Youth Park, with a budget of up to $500,000.

12.83 Locations for the facility mentioned by submitters included being close to Greenmeadows, the shopping area, the police station, at Ngawhatu Reserve and at Saxton Field. Also suggested was the facility being near or as part of library developments and community spaces. Other aspects submitters wanted Council to consider were good toilets, lighting, visibility, shade, areas for bystanders, activities for youth and proximity to bus stops.

12.84 The Nelson Youth Council (18764) and Youth Nelson (18783) were supportive of the facility and noted some benefits of the proposed facility. The Youth Council and Youth Nelson both suggested that involving young people, community and school representatives would be essential in order for the park to be well-received and for youth to have ownership in the project and community. Sport Tasman (19078) also suggested that working with and seeking views of young people was important and wanted the Youth Facility to be integrated with Saxton field activities. The Nelson Marlborough District Health Board (19105) encouraged Council to adopt the Youth Relevant Design approach that was used by the Canterbury Youth Workers Collective as it considers this was a successful approach in Christchurch.

12.85 Submitters comment that a facility for youth in the Stoke area would assist with minimising antisocial behaviour at Strawbridge Square.

12.86 Funding of $52,000 is provided for consultation and investigation of the Stoke Youth Park in 2019/20, $50,000 for design in 2020/21 and $480,000 for construction in 2021/22.

12.87 Staff recommend that this funding programme be brought forward to begin in 2018/19.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to bring the funding for the Stoke Youth Facility forward, to commence with consultation in 2018/19, investigation and design in 2019/20 and construction in 2020/21.

Grampians track

12.88 Submitter 18837 notes there is a small section of a track on the Grampians (above Collingwood Street) which is undeveloped and dangerous. The submitter requests Council construct a short zig zag around this portion of track urgently.

12.89 The existing track is well used by locals and visitors but is difficult to maintain and now badly damaged and is becoming a safety issue. The section of track referred to is steep with an average gradient of 1:4. A zigzag section is required.

Recommendation

That the Council

Adds $15,000 to 353172701492 in 2018/19 for zig zag section on Grampians main ridge track.

Paremata Flats

12.90 Submission 18900 raised a number of suggestions and comments about Paremata Flats reserve.

12.91 The contribution from Ian Price and Forest and Bird at Paremata Flats since 2007 has been outstanding, both in financial contributions for plants and in labour hours.

12.92 The Esplanade and Foreshore Reserves Management Plan 2008 for Paremata Flats recognises grazing to provide for other uses including pony club and events. Grazing is currently undertaken as a cost saving maintenance tool in the balance areas not planted. To increase planting further means the reduction of grazed areas, resulting in it not being cost effective for the grazier and a requirement for mowing at a cost of $38,000 per annum. Staff will contact the submitter directly to arrange a time to meet to discuss the status of the reserve and the riparian margins.

12.93 Of the seven 'actions' listed in the Management Plan six are either in progress or have been completed.

13. Economic

CBD development

13.1 A number of submissions were made on Council’s priority of CBD Development. These submissions discussed a range of issues and ideas for the central city. A number were concerned with the increase in empty shops on the main streets.

13.2 Council's work on CBD Development will include an action plan/strategy to identify key projects to leverage vitality and activity going forward. Part of this work will look at models and tools that have been used elsewhere, as the global change in retail environments is a common issue facing cities around the world. This will be provided to Council in 2019/20. In the current year work is underway in conjunction with the Nelson Regional Development Agency and Uniquely Nelson to get retailers and landlords to consider options for greater activation.

Upper Trafalgar Closure

13.3 A number of submitters commented on the Upper Trafalgar Street closure.

13.4 Upper Trafalgar Street was closed to traffic from 1 December 2017 until 31 March 2018. Restaurants and cafés extended their outdoor dining areas and Council provided seating and umbrellas for community use. Separate feedback was sought on the closure in March 2018 and the majority of submissions from that process were positive (320 positive out of 327 submissions). Thirteen additional submissions on this topic, largely supportive, were received through the Long Term Plan consultation.

13.5 A report outlining the results of the trial closure and options in relation closing Upper Trafalgar Street during Summer 2018/19 will be presented to Council in August, following the completion of a traffic assessment. (The long term plans for Upper Trafalgar Street will be assessed as part of a planned overall CBD assessment and options will be presented to Council once this work has been completed).

13.6 In view of the positive feedback received on the trial closure, it is proposed that Council make provision for funding of the 2018/19 closure in the Long Term Plan. Planter boxes and community furniture used during 2017/18 closure will be reused for the 2018/19 closure but some of the planters, community furniture and umbrellas will need to be replaced.

13.7 The current estimate for the 2018/19 closure is: capex $21,000 and opex $50,000. Businesses that wish to extend their outdoor dining areas during the closure period will be charged licence to occupy fees. The estimated revenue that will be generated through these fees, assuming all the hospitality businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street participate, renders the 2018/19 closure cost neutral.

13.8 Businesses will be responsible for their own areas (furniture, shade etc.) and will also need to apply and pay for extensions to alcohol licences and resource consents for noise generating activities.

14. Corporate

Commercial differential

14.1 The proposed reduction in the commercial differential seeks to re-balance general rate funding between commercial and residential ratepayers. There were mixed views from submitters.

14.2 Since the commercial differential was introduced, the increase in residential rating units has far outstripped the proportional increase in commercial rating units. Over the years this has resulted in proportionally more residential ratepayers paying 75% of the general rate requirement but commercial ratepayers have not received the same degree of (natural) growth dilution. The reduction therefore seeks to address this.

Reduction in Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

14.3 The Consultation Document proposed that the UAGC be reduced from 15% of total rates to 14%. This is to reduce the fixed proportion of the rates so that the lowest value properties don’t see a steep increase relative to high value properties.

14.4 Some submissions commenting on this topic noted concern with the ability to pay, especially for older home owners that have lived in their homes for a long time. However the change from 15% to 14% was to keep the overall proportion of fixed charges the same as the previous year so there should be no change in the impact on older household owners.

15. Rates Remission Policy

15.1 The submission from Wakatū Incorporation (19041) requests the policy be amended to include specific reference to land held for cultural purposes but the title and objectives of the policy do make this clear.

15.2 There was a suggestion in one submission (18978) that the new exemption in the Rates Remission Policy for community, sporting and other organisations should reference the broader group of providers delivering “affordable, social and community housing”. As this broader term captures a wider range of activity that benefits the community it is recommended the change be made. The policy specifies the recipient of the exemption must be a registered community housing provider, so it is not available to non-charitable organisations. This change will not alter the estimate that the cost of changes to this element of the policy would be $12,000 per year if all eligible groups took up the opportunity.

Recommendation

That the Council

Amends the Rates Remission Policy to allow an exemption for groups delivering “affordable, social and community” housing.

Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land

15.3 The submission from Wakatū Incorporation (19041) suggests a change to wording about adding properties to the register. The intent is that properties will be added to the register upon application so it is suggested that the sentence “Council may at its own discretion add properties to the register” be changed to “Council will upon application and approval of the remission add properties to the register”.

Recommendation

That the Council

Amends the Policy on Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land to read under Conditions and Criteria section a) “Council will upon application and approval of remission add properties to the register”.

Rates Postponement

15.4 The submission from Wakatū Incorporation (19041) suggests that rates should be able to be deferred or discounted to such a time as a building is erected. However if Council wishes to encourage development this would be counterproductive as the current system acts as an incentive to build. It is also noted that service charges i.e. wastewater are not added to a properties rating assessment until completion of works and the issuing of a Code Compliance Certificate.

15.5 Civic House upgrade and additional staff

15.6 Several submitters commented on the proposal for the improvements at Civic House coupled with the need for extra staff resources. There was both support and opposition to these proposals. Those supporting it wanted to make improvements in order to retain and attract good staff and appreciated the need for adequate resourcing to deliver Council programmes of work. Those opposing most often commented that they would rather the funding was spent elsewhere. There were also some who believed better accommodation would not impact on staff retention.

15.7 It is recommended that Council retain the funding as proposed in the Consultation Document.

Accommodation business rating

15.8 Two submissions (18916, 18932) raised concerns about the level of rates paid by AirBnB or smaller bed and breakfast operations. The argument of these submitters is that any accommodation business should be contributing to the additional costs they create.

15.9 Under the current council rating policy because submitter 18932 (Shelbourne Villa) is operating a B&B with 4 rooms (ie 8 guests) they are paying 50% residential and 50% commercial. The submitter also has a high land value ($465,000) and is outside the inner city commercial zone (so will not benefit from the drop in the inner city commercial rates). The suggestions from the submitter about changing to a differential based off the residential rate would need to be consulted on as this is not contemplated in our rating categories.

15.10 If Council was of a mind to try to correct the perceived inequity, Council could amend the bands (see table below for current bands) for maximum number of guests to 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 so that the submitter would fall into the 75% residential /25% commercial band. We understand this will positively impact four guest B&Bs / hostels in the city. This would mean the table would change to 1-4 100% residential, 5-8 75% residential, 9-12 50% residential , 13-16 25% residential, any over 0% residential.

Maximum guests	Residential rate	Commercial rate
1-4	100	0
5-6	75	25
7-8	50	50
9-10	25	75
11 and over	0	100

15.11 Differentially rating Air BnB and similar accommodation providers would pose some challenges. Firstly, identifying the providers. Then, under the Rating Act, they must be operating that business on 1 July of the rating year (a loophole that is not difficult to take advantage of) to be rated accordingly. It is the nature of many of these accommodation providers that they only make their property available at times that suit them. Council could change rating policy to bring these properties into line with Bed and Breakfasts; requiring resource consents where the property accommodates more than 4 paying guests per night, or it could make policy specific to these types of business. Anecdotally, identifying and keeping track of these providers is extremely resource intensive.

15.12 In considering this issue in the past, Council has agreed that in terms of pressure on Council infrastructure, there is no difference between a property that is occupied as a residence and one that is occupied under short term lease agreements.

16. Additional Decisions

Stoke library behaviour

16.1 Stoke Library has been a focal point for youth antisocial behaviour for some years, culminating in November 2017 with an assault, public intimidation, drug dealing, fighting and breach of trespass notices. Library users and staff reported feeling unsafe as a result.

16.2 Council staff were unable to identify agencies that would provide services to the small group involved. Council subsequently employed security guards and youth workers to mitigate health and safety risks. No major incidents have occurred since these interventions.

16.3 The current cost of security guards is $23,000 per annum and $75,000 per annum for Youth Workers.

16.4 A Community Services workshop was held on 12 April 2018 to discuss options while agency partnerships are being built. The Committee broadly supported actions to build partnerships, mitigate the library health and safety issues, and provide meaningful outcomes for Stoke young people. The Committee also expressed support for flexible youth worker interventions, enhancing library services, a phased exit of security guards and an environmental assessment.

16.5 Council staff are currently building partnerships with government agencies and community organisations to improve youth services. Council youth initiatives such as the Youth Park and Youth Strategy will also contribute to a meaningful solution for these young people and mitigate the need for long term Council funded Youth Workers.

16.6 In the meantime, a decision is needed to consider Council resourcing for youth workers and security guards. It is suggested that the youth workers be retained and the security guards phased out over time. It is recommended that an allocation be made for the first three years of the Long Term Plan.

Recommendation

That the Council

Includes a budget provision of $50,000 per annum for the first three years of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 to provide youth worker and security guard interventions to deal with youth antisocial behaviour at Stoke Library.

Provincial Growth Fund

16.7 The new $1billion per annum Provincial Growth Fund provides an important opportunity for Nelson to access funds for proposals that can boost local economic growth. At the time the Consultation Document was developed staff were still working with the Nelson Regional Development Agency to understand the requirements of working with the Fund. It is now clear that extra resource is needed to prepare briefs for a range of projects that may be able to access the Fund. It is therefore recommended that $50,000 be allocated in 2018/19 to contract resources for this work.

Recommendation

That the Council

Includes an allocation of $50,000 of operational funding in 2018/19 for additional resources to work on projects related to the Provincial Growth Fund.

17. Spreadsheet of responses to submitters

17.1 All submitters will either be emailed or posted a response to their submission, following deliberations and the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 by Council.

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

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

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (A1962326), as amended, be used as the basis of responses to submitters on matters raised and to amend the Long Term Plan as necessary.

18. Options

18.1 Council is required to adopt a Long Term Plan 2018-28 by 30 June 2018. It has options for each decision it makes in relation to submissions but it needs to determine the 10 year work programme in time for adoption the end of the current financial year.

19. Conclusion

19.1 Submissions were sought between 23 March and 23 April. Council heard from submitters on 7, 8, and 9 of May. At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the changes to be used in preparing the final Long Term Plan for 2018-28. The Long Term Plan 2018-28 will be updated accordingly before going to a Council meeting on 21 June for adoption.

Nicky McDonald

Acting Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1962326 Long Term Plan 2018 - Spreadsheet to accompany deliberations report 3May2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The adoption of a Long Term Plan is required under the Local Government Act 2002 and deliberating on the submissions assists Council by determining the changes to make to the Plan following consultation.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Making decisions to respond to feedback from submissions supports all the community outcomes.

3. Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the community’s views of the services, projects, funding and policies contained within the Long Term Plan.

There is a risk that Council will make decisions as part of the deliberations that are not supported by some stakeholders however the thorough consultation undertaken mitigates this.

4. Financial impact

Decisions on submissions will determine the financial impact of the Long Term Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Long Term Plan is of high significance and a Special Consultative Procedure has been undertaken to seek community views.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have been consulted on the content of the Long Term Plan through a hui on the 20 October 2017 and subsequent sharing of further information.

7. Delegations

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

Item 7: Deliberations on a possible contribution to the Waimea Dam: Attachment 1

Council

15 May 2018

REPORT R8854

Deliberations on a possible contribution to the Waimea Dam

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a summary and outline the key issues and themes raised by submitters to the Statement of Proposal (SOP) for Nelson City Council’s proposed contribution to the Waimea Dam project (the Dam) as a basis for deliberation.

2. Summary

2.1 At its meeting of 18 October 2017 Council considered options relating to a possible contribution to the Waimea Dam project. It decided that a grant of $5 million (in addition to the $413,000 contribution to date) was its preferred proposal. A Statement of Proposal outlining this option was approved, with consultation open from 24 October 2017 to 24 November 2017.

2.2 Subsequently, officers commissioned a new report from Opus International Consultations (Opus) on drought security for Nelson City (attachments 1 and 2) for the purpose of understanding the impact of proposed new resource consent conditions. Council agreed to extend the consultation period until 23 April 2018 to give the community the opportunity to further submit on the Waimea Dam proposal in light of this new information.

Summary of submissions and Consultation Document submissions

2.3 The October SOP and subsequent extension of the consultation process received 127 submissions.

2.4 In March 2018 Council also approved the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2018-28. The financials included the proposed $5 million grant contribution to the Dam in 2020/21.

2.5 Fifteen submissions to the Long Term Plan Consultation Document referred to the proposed contribution to the Dam.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Deliberations on a possible contribution to the Waimea Dam (R8854) and its attachments (A1931132, A1941482, A1852265, A1852995, A1956263); and

Agrees to allocate $5 million for a grant to the Waimea Dam project in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 subject to the following conditions:

· A contract, approved by both councils, be signed at the time of the transfer of the funding assuring Nelson’s ongoing rights to access 22,000m3/day of water from the Waimea Aquifer and

· That the contract allow for the grant to be transferred into a shareholding in the Dam Company at any point in future

Notes that a new Engineering Services Agreement with Tasman District Council has been detailed in the Terms (A1778747) and exchange of letters between the Chief Executives of both Councils (A1847401) and this Agreement will be updated from time to time as circumstances require.

4. Background

4.1 The proposed dam has been discussed in previous Council reports, briefings and meetings, and detailed background on the Dam was included in the Statement of Proposal report to the Council meeting of 18 October 2017. (Attachment 3).

Outline of Council proposal

4.2 The SOP (attachment 4) proposed that Council contribute to the project by providing a $5 million grant to TDC. The $5 million would be funded by debt and if adopted it would not have any significant effect on Council’s Financial Strategy or put Council in breach of any financial prudence benchmarks.

4.3 Several alternatives were included in the SOP, these were; that Council purchase shares in the Dam Company, that the contribution be split between grant and equity, that no contribution be made, or that a different level of contribution be made to the project.

Opus Report

4.4 In 2007 Opus International Consultants (Opus) prepared a report for Council on the role of the Maitai dam in providing drought security for the city. This work was underpinned by a computer model that had been developed in 1996. At the end of 2017 a refresh of the 2007 report was commissioned for the purpose of understanding the impact of new resource consent conditions.

4.5 The first draft of this report concluded that the city might need an alternative water supply after 2053. Accordingly Council extended the consultation process to allow the public to make further submissions based on this information.

4.6 However, a peer review requested by Council, showed an error in the model which was putting compensation flow from the dam back into the river when river levels were high enough not to need this. The corrected model produced results that concurred with earlier staff advice (report to Council 18 October 2017), that Nelson did not have any shortage of water from its current sources in the foreseeable future. A new version of the report was made available to the public as part of the extended consultation process.

5. Discussion

Submissions

5.1 Public consultation using the special consultative procedure was undertaken from 24 October 2017 to 24 November 2017 and then extended until 23 April 2018. 127 submissions were received and hearings were conducted on 7 December 2017 and 7-9 May 2018. Councillors received a copy of submissions prior to the hearings, and a summary of submissions is attachment 5.

5.2 Note: The analysis of the submissions was made using the following process: Each submission, made to any of the three processes, is counted separately in the total, i.e. there were 127 submissions received. However, in analysing the views of each submitter, duplicates were removed, e.g. if a submitter supported funding the dam and stated this in two or more of the submission processes, their view counted as only one.

5.3 Thirty one submitters were in favour of the proposal and 27 were opposed. The remaining submitters were silent in relation to the proposal to contribute. However, 81 submitters, were in favour of the Dam (including 51 pro-forma surveys generated by the Hon Dr Nick Smith) and 10 submitters were against the Dam.

5.4 The main reasons set out by those who oppose the proposal to contribute to the project include the following:

5.4.1 Effect on rates rates: 11 submitters commented that a contribution from Council would result in a rates increase and/or that Nelson ratepayers shouldn’t subsidise irrigators, it should be user pays.

The proposed $5 million contribution from Council, funded by a loan over 25 years at an estimated interest rate of 5% would increase rates by $355,000 p.a. This would add 0.5% to rates. The overall rates rise in 2020/21, including the proposed contribution to the Dam, is estimated at 3.6%. This increase for that year is within Council’s Rates Cap.

5.4.2 The Cost of the Dam: 13 submitters thought that the Dam would be too expensive; that the cost of the project is uncertain; and that there is a risk of cost overruns.

If Council makes a grant then the majority of risk for any cost overruns lies with TDC and irrigators. However, cost overruns might increase the cost that Council would pay TDC for any water supplied. This risk would need to be managed through the negotiation for purchase of water from TDC.

If Council decided to purchase shares in the Dam, instead of making a grant, then Council would be exposed to any cost overruns, in proportion to its shareholding.

5.4.3 Nelson doesn’t need water from the Dam: 10 submitters commented that Council should fix leaks; could sell water to Richmond and industrial users and Council should build its own infrastructure to extract water from the Waimea Plains, which would be cheaper and NCC would own an asset.

The Opus report states that Nelson does not need an additional water source in the foreseeable future. However, if the Dam proceeds then Council does benefit, in as much as this would enable Council to delay the timing for laying new pipes to supply Nelson South.

Council’s Water Activity Management Plan includes continuing work to reduce water leaks, but this programme of work is not expected to deliver benefits on a scale and in a timeframe that would make a substantial difference to the volumes of water that could be supplied.

In addition the proposal that Council supply water to Richmond/industrial users, would require new infrastructure and furthermore the processing of the additional water through the Water Treatment Plant would require higher expenditure for filters and membranes.

Extracting water from the Waimea Plains to supply Nelson would only be an option if the Dam was built.

5.4.4 Environment: Eight submitters commented on environmental issues, including that the Dam would facilitate intensification on the Plains; increase nitrate in groundwater; reduce crop diversity; ruin the Waimea River and that the river flow will not recharge aquifers.

The environmental impacts of the Dam were covered in the 18 October 2017 report (paragraphs 6.54 – 6.58). In summary the environmental effects of the Dam were considered as part of the resource consent process. The management of nutrients through consent processes and nutrient management plans is TDC’s responsibility.

5.4.5 The Dam is not necessary: Six submitters commented that there is enough water in the aquifers; that less than 50% of allocated water is being used; that production on the Plains will not end without a dam, and that without a dam there will be innovation and water-efficient farming methods can be used.

The need for the Dam was set out in sections 4.8-4.9 of the 18 October 2017 report to Council. TDC has examined the need for a dam over many years, and commissioned numerous reports on options for supplying water. Changes to its Resource Management Plain make it clear that in times of drought there will be cease take orders issued and this will have a significant effect on irrigators, residential consumers in Tasman, Nelson’s supply of water from Tasman, as well as employment and businesses in the Nelson Tasman region.

5.4.6 Dam risks: Three submitters commented on geological issues, earthquake risk and risk of infill.

The management of the building and security of the Dam have been researched by TDC, which has stated that the dam is being built to withstand a 1 in 10,000 earthquake, and that it would take hundreds of years for even 10% of the Dam’s storage to be lost to sediment yield.

In relation to seismic failure, the design of the Dam is required to meet the newest engineering standards which were updated after the Canterbury, Seddon and Kaikoura earthquakes.

Dam designers, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd recently commissioned updated research from GNS Science on the seismic hazards of the Dam, and this report has been independently peer reviewed by OPUS.

The Tonkin and Taylor design report and the GNS report dated August 2017 are available online at waimeawater.nz

5.5 The main reasons set out by those in favour of NCC contributing to the project include:

5.5.1 Nelson Tasman needs a secure water supply: 33 submitters submitted that the Dam will provide secure water supply in times of drought, and that the aquifers will be recharged.

5.5.2 The Dam is a regional issue: 30 submitters submitted that the Dam will bring regional benefits; NCC and TDC should work together.

5.5.3 Industry on the Plains: 66 submitters submitted that the Dam was vital for horticultural industry; food production on Plains can continue.

5.5.4 Economic benefits: 76 submitters submitted that industry on the Plains creates jobs and supports other businesses; produce goes through the Port and Airport.

5.5.5 Nelson South: 12 submitters were concerned that TDC would stop supply of water to Nelson South if NCC does not contribute.

5.5.6 Urban growth: 62 submitters submitted that the Dam water supply was needed for future urban development.

5.5.7 Roding take: 9 submitters commented that NCC has a duty to contribute as NCC takes from the Roding which affects Waimea River; future applications will be challenged if no contribution.

Only five submitters to the extension of the consultation process commented on the Opus report. Two of these stated that Nelson has a secure water supply, and three that the Opus report was either flawed, had an incorrect starting point or used over-simplified assumptions.

5.6 Shareholding

5.7 At the 18 October 2017 meeting Council considered the advantages and disadvantages of each option for its proposed contribution. The two main options were making a grant or purchasing equity in the Dam, an alternative option of not making any contribution was also included. These are sections 9 – 11 of the 18 October 2017 report.

5.7.1 The majority of submitters concentrated their submissions on whether or not they supported the Dam, and not whether or not Council should make a contribution. Only a few submitters commented on the method of Council’s contribution, be it by way of grant or purchase of shares. Comments and analysis of those submitters who did comment on the grant or shareholder options follow:

Submitters in favour of Council purchasing shares in the Dam

5.7.2 One Submitter (14860) supported Council purchasing an equity share because they considered that there are “greater benefits to Nelson City Council to be a party sitting around the Dam Company table through a Council appointed Director looking after the shareholding investment of Nelson City Council. This will allow input into future decision making and will protect water supply options for Nelson City Council”.

5.7.3 Another submitter (14862) proposed that Council should delay making a decision on the dam for several years until wider water issues, including those at a Central Government level, are resolved. This Submitter then stated that notwithstanding this, their view was, “that working alongside TDC and with the wider region in a spirit of collegiality, is of the utmost importance.” They stated that they understood the sequence of decision making, and that NCC will decide on a Dam contribution before TDC decides on building the Dam. Therefore they supported that NCC contributing to the Waimea Dam, and proposed that Council do this through purchasing shares in the Dam Company.

5.7.4 There was a proposal from another submitter (14836) who suggested that Nelson and Tasman Councils create a holding company that owned and managed; water and wastewater services, investments, including Nelson Airport, Port Nelson and forestry assets, for the two Councils. And that this arrangement would provide the most benefits to all ratepayers of the Region.

Submitters against Council purchasing shares in the Dam

5.7.5 Submitter (14833) was concerned that by purchasing shares, Council’s operating costs would increase and therefore Council would be exposed to higher costs.

5.7.6 This view was echoed by another submitter (14846) who was concerned that “there would inevitably be cost over-runs on such a poorly scoped project. Shareholders will then be put under pressure to meet any shortfall in funding”.

5.7.7 The ongoing operating costs of the Dam were considered as part of the options section of 18 October 2017 report (paragraphs 10.2 – 10.3 and 11.1).

5.7.8 In summary, the costs for a shareholding in the Dam Company include approximately $92,000 per annum towards the operating costs of the Dam.

5.7.9 Staff have not considered creation of a Holding Company, as this is not proposed by TDC.

5.8 Opus Report

5.9 As mentioned above, staff commissioned a new report from Opus to clarify the future water needs of Nelson. The subsequent report showed that Nelson had sufficient water from current sources for the foreseeable future.

5.10 It should be noted that the Opus report extrapolated high and medium-high series growth rates over the period modelled. Reliable projections for the second half of the century are not available so modelling for this later period needs to be regarded as having a high degree of uncertainty.

Additional information

The following additional information was requested by Council on 7 December 2017, following the hearing of submitters.

5.11 What will it cost to get water from the aquifer to our boundary?

Council could either extract water from the Waimea Plains aquifers on its own account by installing its own wells, treatment and reticulation at an estimated cost of $17 – 20 million for up to 22,000 m³/day or contract to Tasman District Council to supply water to Nelson City through the amended Engineering Services Agreement. Significant upgrading of the Tasman District Council infrastructure is needed to allow larger volumes of water (greater than 1,000m³/day) to be supplied. No detailed costs for this are available at this point but early indications are that the capital cost would be in the order of $15-18 million, staged over time.

5.12 What will the Environmental impacts of the Dam be?

This was discussed in the 18 October 2017 report – paragraphs 6.54 – 6.58.

Options

5.13 Council, through its previous consideration of this issue determined that there was sufficient value to Nelson residents and ratepayers to justify a contribution to the Waimea Dam project, and this was the proposal made to the community. The value identified relates to:

5.13.1 Regional economic benefits, including increased business opportunities, employment and productivity in the region.

5.13.2 Savings in extra reticulation to supply the Nelson South industrial area

5.13.3 Delay in the need to commence pre-treatment (or more regular replacement of membranes) for water sourced from the Maitai Dam.

5.14 Having considered submissions Council needs to consider whether any of the points made are sufficiently compelling to suggest a change in which option is required. Council can choose option one and proceed with the proposal on which the public was consulted, making a contribution of $5 million to the project by providing a grant to TDC. It can decide to contribute to the Dam through purchase of shares in the Dam Company (option two). The third option is that Council can decline to make any contribution. Option one remains the recommended option.

5.15 Council may also wish to consider choosing option one, making a grant to the project, but with a condition that its grant may convert to a shareholding at some point in the future. This would avoid the necessity to pay operational costs for the Dam when Nelson is not taking any additional water but preserve the possibility of a shareholding in the future.

5.16 The advantages and disadvantages of these options have previously been discussed but are included here again for ease of reference.

Option 1 (preferred option): A one-off contribution by way of grant.

5.17 This option limits NCC’s risk. It would be a one-off payment in the 2020/21 year. There would be no further funding if the cost of the project is higher than budgeted and NCC would not contribute to the annual operational costs of the Dam.

5.18 NCC would fund the contribution through a long term loan over 25 years and repay the loan and interest from general rates. A $5 million loan at a 5% interest rate would cost $355,000 in interest and loan repayments per year.

Option 2: Purchase of equity in the Dam

5.19 This option has the advantage of reinforcing the public nature of the Dam project with a shareholding involvement from two councils.

5.20 NCC equity would include a share of the water supply from the Dam. This option would require Council to contribute an estimated $92,000 per year directly to the ongoing operational costs of the Dam from the time it becomes operational, even though NCC may not be taking any additional water and may never need to do so. The cost of the loan would be as for Option 1.

5.21 This option would also allow for TDC and NCC to jointly appoint a director to the Board. NCC would be responsible for 50% of the director appointment cost but the administration costs and directors’ fees would be included in the operational costs.

Option 3: No contribution.

5.22 This option would be selected if Council decided that the benefits from the Dam for Nelson were limited, and/or that there are other priorities that require Council’s funding.

Option 1: One-off Grant (preferred)
Advantages	· It is in-line with the Long Term Plan 2015-25 which provided debt “headroom” for Council to contribute to the Dam. · Limits risk to NCC and ratepayers, particularly if the cost of the Dam is higher than expected. · Lower risk in the long term if the irrigators have difficulty in refinancing the CIIL loan. · NCC can secure the arrangement for TDC to supply water to the Nelson South industrial area in accordance with the draft Terms. · No direct contribution to the annual operating costs of the Dam.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increases rates and debt. · Dam operating costs will be included in the Richmond Residential Rate and therefore included in the charges TDC makes to NCC in supplying Nelson South and in any additional future supply. · Accessing additional water, if required in the future, will require a capital investment in TDC’s network.
Option 2: Purchase of Shares in the Dam Company
Advantages	· Is in-line with the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan which provided debt “headroom” for Council to contribute to the Dam. · TDC and Nelson City Council will jointly appoint a director to the Dam Company board and through this NCC will gain a degree of influence and faster receipt of information.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would need to make a direct estimated contribution of $92,000 per year to the operational costs of the Dam. · Increase in rates and debt. · Exposes Council to higher risk of additional costs if there are difficulties with funding the Dam or refinancing the CIIL loan in 15 years time. · Costs associated with the appointment of the board member (joint appointment with TDC) · Accessing additional water, if required in the future, will require a capital investment in TDC’s network. · Note: If this option was selected Council would need to ensure that operating costs were not paid twice, through both the $92,000 contribution, and then through the purchase of water from TDC.
Option 3: No Contribution
Advantages	· No increase in rates or debt · No administrative costs.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not foster regional cooperation. · TDC may decide not to continue supplying Nelson South which might have consequential costs for Council. · The Dam might not proceed and therefore the anticipated benefits will not be achieved for the region. If the Dam doesn’t proceed, the provisions of the TRMP will come into effect and economic losses for the region will occur. · If the Dam doesn’t proceed, TDC will, in the short to medium term (three years), not be able to provide water to industrial users in Nelson South; Council will need to consider alternative higher cost options for supplying water to these users.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The proposed Waimea Dam is a major regional project. The size of the project, in terms of cost as well as economic and expected benefits, makes it a once in a generation project.

6.2 A grant of up to $5 million would seem an appropriate level of contribution, given the scale and benefits of the project, while at the same time limiting NCC’s exposure and risk to any project overruns and ongoing costs.

Nicky McDonald

Acting Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Attachments

Attachment 1: OPUS report - Drought Security Maitai Dam and addendums - FINAL - 13 March 2018 (A1931132) ⇩

Attachment 2: OPUS report - Maitai Drought Study Executive Summary FINAL 29mar2018 (A1941482) ⇩

Attachment 3: Waimea Dam - Council report 18 October 2017 (A1852265) ⇩

Attachment 4: Waimea Dam - Statement of Proposal - FINAL for publication - 25 October 2017 (A1852995) ⇩

Attachment 5: Summary of submissions to the Waimea Dam consultation processes (A1956263) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

A contribution from Council would assist a dam be built that would provide for the long term water needs of the Waimea Plains, as well as residential users.

Furthermore the work undertaken by WWAC and TDC (and peer reviewed by Northington Partners and NZIER) suggests that the proposed dam would be: “Efficient and effective; and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances”

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Contributing to the project will align with the following Community Outcomes:

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, regional perspective and community engagement.

3. Risk

The main risk is that the cost of the Dam and operating costs might be higher than forecast. Council can manage this risk by making a grant rather than purchasing equity.

There are some environmental risks if the Dam goes ahead such as nitrate levels increasing in waterways. TDC is responsible for managing these.

If Council does not contribute to the project, it has a reputational risk from not supporting an important regional project. On the other hand, there is also a reputational risk if Council contributes to the project and it fails to deliver the forecast benefits to the region.

4. Financial impact

The cost of a loan would be $71,000 per $1 million borrowed over 25 years. A $5 million loan at a 5% interest rate would cost $355,000 in interest and loan repayments per year.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This is a major project with long term implications for the regional economy and a decision to contribute the project is of high significance. Accordingly a Special Consultative Procedure has been followed to ensure an appropriate level of community engagement in the decision.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not specifically been consulted on this report, although Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust Board put in a submission to support the proposed contribution.

7. Delegations

No committee has a specific delegation to consider this matter and therefore the decision rests with Council.

PDF Creator

Item 8: Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2018

Council

15 May 2018

REPORT R9229

Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist Council in considering submissions and making decisions on the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018.

2. Summary

2.1 The report covers the main issues raised in the feedback received on the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018. The main issues are:

· Explanation of policy changes

· Clarification of transitional period

· Reserves development contributions

· City centre waiver

· Retirement villages

· Exemptions for private public partnerships

· Delayed payment

· Saxton Growth Area

· Werneth (Area 20) and Wastney Terrace (Area 21)

· Procedural and administrative issues

2.2 The proposed change in the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 that has received the most submissions is the addition of a development contribution for reserves. The report addresses these submissions by evaluating a number of options for reserves contributions.

2.3 Council heard submissions on the Development Contributions Consultation Document and 2018 Draft Policy on 8 May 2018.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2018 (R9229) and its attachments (A1964099, A1966064); and

Directs that officers bring back an amended Development Contributions Policy to the 21 June Council meeting based on the decisions made in this deliberations report, as follows:

Additional wording be added to the explanatory note on Page 6 and minor amendments throughout the Policy as shown in Attachment 1(A1964099); and

Area 21 Wastney Terrace is moved from Table 4 Development areas not catered for under this policy to Table 3 Development areas catered for under this policy; and

No change is required to Area 20 Werneth; and

Examples of the operation of the statutory cap for reserves contribution are added to the Policy to better illustrate the operation of s.203(1) of the Local Government Act 2002; and

Additional wording be added at the end of section 1.2 ‘Transition between policies’ of the 2018 Policy on Development Contributions as shown in Attachment 1 (A1964099); and

The draft proposed methodology for reserves development contributions is approved; and

Examples of the operation of the statutory cap are added to the Policy to better illustrate the operation of s.203(1) of the LGA; and

Additional wording be added at the end of section 1.2 ‘Transition between policies’ of the 2018 Policy on Development Contributions:

“Where an application had been received prior to 1 July 2018, notwithstanding anything in the Nelson Policy on Development Contributions and Financial Contributions 2015, the following financial contributions shall no longer be payable:

a) The financial contribution of 0.5% of building value that is payable under Table 3 of the 2015 Policy in respect of reserves for residential and non-residential developments; and

b) The financial contribution of 2% of estimated building value that is payable for infrastructure in the 2015 Policy.”

Notes that as a consequence of decisions on the Long Term Plan amendments may be required to the projects listed in the Development Contributions Policy and the overall quantum of the contributions sought.

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 purpose of development contributions is to enable territorial authorities to recover a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the capital costs necessary to service growth over the long term.

4.2 Financial contributions were introduced with the Resource Management Act in 1991, and Council starting taking financial contributions for water, stormwater, transport, wastewater and reserves in July 2004 when Chapter 6 of the Nelson Resource Management Plan(NRMP) become operative. Development contributions under the LGA have since been used by Council to recover capital costs on transport, water, wastewater and stormwater projects necessary to service growth since 2007.

4.3 Currently contributions for reserves only are taken through the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) as a financial contribution under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The contribution taken is 5.5% of the value of each additional lot at section 224(c) subdivision time, and then a further 0.5% of the value of the new house (minus $95K) at building consent time. The current system takes a contribution from both the developer and the home owner, based on the value of the land and the value of the dwelling.

4.4 Financial contributions under the RMA are able to be imposed by Council to avoid, remedy, mitigate or offset adverse effects relating to activities. Financial contributions, unlike development contributions, do not have to pass the LGA requirement of being a fair, equitable and proportionate portion of the capital costs necessary to service growth over the long term.

4.5 The current financial contributions system which determines the amount of reserves contribution required to be paid based on the value of a house is not considered to be fair nor proportionate. Take an example of two neighbours building new houses. One household builds a $750K house and their neighbour a $450K house. How is it fair or proportionate for each household’s contribution to be based on the value of their house? The Nelson community’s demand, or effects on, reserves does not in any way relate to the value of their house.

4.6 Since 2007 Council has taken contributions for network infrastructure as a development contribution under the Local Government Act after the introduction of that system in 2002. The main reason the LGA development contributions system, and subsequently the RMA financial contributions system, was reviewed in 2013 was because the financial and development contributions regime was criticised as being complex, difficult to understand, and applied inconsistently around the country.

4.7 The current provisions under the 2014 amendments to the LGA on development and financial contributions were put in place to ensure that the way Council finances infrastructure is appropriate to meet future demands, does not have undue impact on growth or housing affordability, and is fair, equitable and a proportionate portion of the capital costs necessary to service growth over the long term.

4.8 The Nelson City Council Parks and Reserves Activity Management Plan sets out the levels of service for neighbourhood and regional reserves. For neighbourhood reserves the level of service adopted by Council is for a neighbourhood reserve to be provided within 800m walking distance (or 10m minute’s walk) of 99% of residential households, and to provide 1.7Ha neighbourhood reserves per 1,000 residents (84Ha for 50,000 people in 2015 AMP). The Activity Management Plan provides a map showing where these levels of service are not yet met, and therefore where Council is interested in purchasing land for neighbourhood reserves as new suburbs and intensification occurs.

4.9 How this level of service is provided in practice is specified in Council’s Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM). The LDM requires that a Neighbourhood Reserve be at least 2500m² in area, with at least 1250m² of that being flat and useable land, along with a number of other standards requiring safety, accessibility etc. Both the Parks and Reserves Activity Management Plan and the Land Development Manual seek to provide good quality reserves critical to the health and wellbeing of both people and the environment, and to meet the level of service sought by the community.

4.10 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.”

4.11 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 2012 Development and Financial Contributions Policy.

4.12 As part of the review process, there have been two workshops with development stakeholders to discuss current issues and receive their preliminary feedback on what should be retained or changed. Feedback from stakeholders was workshopped with Council three times.

4.13 Council adopted the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 and consultation document on 20 March. Public feedback was sought on the draft Policy between 23 March and 23 April 2018. Hearings were held on 8 May for those submitters wishing to speak to their submissions.

4.14 This report makes recommendations for changes to the draft policy resulting from consideration of submissions. Legislation requires that a Policy be adopted by 30 June 2018.

5. Discussion

5.1 Council received 15 submissions from people/organisations during the consultation period. Council heard from 13 submitters who spoke at the hearings on 8 May 2018.

5.2 This report covers the main issues raised in the feedback received in the following order:

· Explanation of policy changes

· Clarification of transitional period

· City centre waiver

· Retirement villages

· Exemption should exist for private public partnerships

· Delayed payment

· Saxton Growth Area

· Werneth (Area 20) and Wastney Terrace (Area 21)

· Reserves Development Contributions

· Procedural and administrative issues

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

5.4 Key issues raised by the submitters are detailed below and officers recommendations are provided below each submission topic.

Explanation of Policy Changes

5.5 An explanatory note at the front (page 6) of the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 was provided to explain what the substantive changes between the 2015 and 2018 Policy are. A number of submitters have commented that the explanatory note needs further detail to explain why the changes are proposed/made. Officers have added the reasons for the changes in policy to the explanatory note and minor explanatory amendments throughout the policy which is contained in the amended policy in Attachment 1.

Recommendation:

Additional wording be added to the explanatory note on Page 6 and minor amendments throughout the Policy as shown in Attachment 1 (A1964099).

Clarification of Transitional Period

5.6 Submitter 19104 Coastal View Lifestyle Village Ltd has proposed that the transitional provisions (Section 1.2) should be amended to make it clear that variations to resource consents which do not increase the number of Household Units of Demand (HUDs) should not be assessed under the new Policy.

5.7 Officers do not consider any change is necessary to the 2018 Policy in response to this submission. Development contributions are not imposed as conditions of resource consent under the Resource Management Act (RMA). They cannot therefore be changed as part of a resource consent variation under Section 127 of the RMA.

5.8 Development contributions are a function of the Local Government Act (LGA), not the RMA. Section 198 of the LGA clearly states that a development contribution must be consistent with the policy that was in force at the time that the application for a resource consent, building consent or service connection was submitted.

5.9 Officers recommend that no changes are required to the policy to address the issues raised by this submission as they are regulated by provisions of the two applicable Acts (LGA 2002 and RMA 1991).

Recommendation:

No change is required to the transitional provisions of the Draft Policy for Development Contributions 2018 Policy.

City Centre Waiver Time Limit

5.11 Submissions have been received from Trevor Garnett (18695) and GP Investments Limited (19023) on the proposed change in time restrictions for eligibility for the city centre waiver. The proposal is to reduce the requirement that building must be started within 12 months from issue of waiver, instead of the current 24 months.

5.12 Submission 18695 was in support of the city centre provisions. Submitter 19023 requests that there should be a discretion to extend the 24 month period where “substantial progress has been made and continues to be made.” The waiver only requires that construction has commenced within 12 months, not for the development to be completed within this time. Officers consider that the 12 month timeframe strikes a reasonable balance between the need for the developer to deliver the project and the Council’s goal of accelerating city centre intensification.

5.13 If there are occasions when a developer has made genuine efforts to progress the development but has not got it to the point of construction after 12 months, then the general discretion under section 4.3.5 of the policy can be applied.

Recommendation:

No change is required to the city centre waiver provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2018 Policy.

Retirement Villages

5.14 A submission was received from Summerset Village Ltd (19089) that seeks that all retirement village units should be assessed as 0.5 HUD irrespective of the number of bedrooms they contain, as they typically have a lower occupancy than other residential dwellings.

5.15 The submitter also seeks to exclude or reduce the contribution made by retirement villages for other services such as reserve land because residents within the villages have less requirement for them.

5.16 The Policy already provides an element of fairness for all types of small residences on the same title by using bedroom numbers as a proxy for levels of occupation (i.e. 3 or more bedrooms = 1 HUD; 2 bedrooms = 0.75 HUD and 1 bedroom = 0.5 HUD). This reduction is available for retirement villages which contain many dwellings on one title, and subsequent minor units on the same title as the original house in standard residential areas.

5.17 One of the objectives of the draft Policy is consistency; i.e. that like developments should be treated in a like manner. It would be inconsistent with this objective to provide retirement villages a benefit (a lower development contribution) that is not accorded to other residential developments which may also have lower occupancy (e.g. a retired couple living in a 3 bedroom house that is not within a retirement village).

5.18 The policy cannot be based on the premise of whether any particular HUD makes use of the infrastructure created by developments, but rather that they have access to that service and may choose to use it at any time. Accordingly, Council has to develop its capital assets based on, and in proportion to, potential demand, and the cost of that asset must be proportionately shared amongst those creating that demand.

5.19 For the same reasons, the cost of creating any other asset, including roading, reserves or community infrastructure, must be shared proportionately to those who have access to that asset or service, irrespective of whether any development or any one HUD may actually use the service or asset.

Recommendation:

No change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2018 Policy for retirement villages.

Private Public Partnerships

5.20 Foodstuffs (South Island Properties Ltd) (18786) submitted that there should be a general development contributions exemption for public private partnerships (PPPs) that “result in the betterment of public/community and overall civic improvements.”

5.21 The submission contains little detail on the reasoning behind the arguments advanced, and does not link it to either the objectives of the Policy or the s.197AB principles in the LGA. The submission is more related to issues of urban growth and planning, whereas a development contributions policy is simply a tool for collecting funds for the creation of certain Council assets.

5.22 Officers consider that the financial details of any private public partnership should be agreed outside of the development contributions policy. That while Council may choose to acknowledge benefits to the community from such partnerships via other financial or partnership arrangements, this is not a matter for the draft Development Contributions Policy 2018. The Policy seeks to collect contributions to pay for expenditure on infrastructure to support growth, not to provide grants for community partnerships.

Recommendation:

No change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2018 Policy in relation to private public partnerships.

Delayed Payment

5.23 Marsden Park (18847) submits that payment of development contributions should be at the building consent stage and not at subdivision (i.e. at the time of the issue of the certificate of compliance under s.224(c) of the Resource Management Act (RMA)). The submission is based on the argument that it is at the former stage when there is an increase in demand for Council infrastructure, and therefore it is at that time that a development contribution can be reasonably charged.

5.24 The capital cost to Council occurs not when actual demand increases, but the point at which Council is required to expend capital to build the infrastructure in response to that future demand. The timing of payment at the subdivision stage therefore strikes a reasonable balance between the cost the Council carries as soon as the infrastructure is built and the financial risk that the developer carries between the subdivision stage and selling the lots.

Recommendation:

No change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2018 Policy to provide for delayed payment until building consent issue.

Areas 20 Werneth and 21 Wastney Terrace

5.25 Submitter 19004 Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd has questioned whether there is an error with Areas 20 and 21 being located in Table 4 (Development Areas not catered for in this Policy – see page 25 of the draft Policy). These areas do have projects in the Long Term Plan that would enable the development of those areas, and therefore Areas 20 and 21 should be listed in Table 3.

5.26 Officers have checked the schedule of projects in the Long Term Plan and concur that there is an error in respect of Area 21 Wastney Terrace where all projects are included in the LTP. In respect of Area 20 Werneth stormwater projects to enable capacity to be released in this area are estimated to cost around $1.2M and are not included in this LTP. Funds for the design and investigation of this project are included in the LTP however the works are not programmed to be completed within the 10 years. Therefore this growth area will not be serviced in the LTP round and is correctly located within Table 4 of the Development Contributions Policy 2018.

Recommendation:

Area 21 Wastney Terrace is moved from Table 4 Development areas not catered for under this policy to Table 3 Development areas catered for under this policy.

No change is required to Area 20 Werneth.

Reserves Development Contribution

5.27 Submissions have been received on the proposal to introduce reserves as a development contribution from Adcock Properties Ltd (18997), Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd(19004), GPI Investments Limited (19023), Projects & Ventures Ltd (19061), Summerset Village Ltd (19089), Staig & Smith Ltd (19092), Solitaire Investments Ltd & Projects & Ventures Ltd (19093), Stoke Valley Holdings & Solitaire Investments Ltd (19094), Stoke Valley Holdings Ltd (19095), Coastal View Lifestyle Village Ltd19104), and Wakatū Incorporation (19106).

5.28 The issues raised by submitters relating to the proposed removal of financial contributions for reserves and implementing a development contribution approach can be summarised into the following topics.

(i) Fairness: Submitters state that the quantum payable by small allotments significantly increases, which disadvantages them (by requiring them to pay disproportionately more for reserves contribution), thereby favouring low-density developments over high-density.

(ii) Discouraging urban intensification: Submitters consider that the proposed approach runs counter to the Council’s position of encouraging urban intensification.

(iii) Lack of consultation: Submitters consider that the change was not signalled in consultation, and insufficient time has been provided to affected developers to respond.

(iv) Increasing Council revenue: Submitters state that Council is using the change from financial contributions to development contributions as an opportunity to increase Council revenue.

(v) Complexity: Submitters consider that the proposed development contribution process is more complex than the current financial contributions model for reserves.

5.29 Officers respond to each of these points below under the topic headings:

Fairness

5.30 A number of points need to be made in relation to the perceived fairness of the proposed methodology for charging for reserve contributions.

Inaccurate calculation of contributions

5.31 Several submissions have compared current and proposed contributions using only the land value calculation used under the financial contributions regime. However, the current methodology levies contributions at two different stages – resource consent and building consent. Including the second stage, which most have omitted to do, adds a significant amount to the total levied and leads to a correct comparison, for example:

(i) 5.5% of land value at subdivision, e.g. $300k section = $16.5k;

(ii) 0.5% of building value less a $95k exemption, e.g. $400k building value = $1.5k (adding nearly 10% to the total sum levied).

Methodology

5.32 Development contributions operate under a different statutory framework (the LGA) to financial contributions (which are imposed under the RMA). Under the LGA, a development contributions policy is required to observe a number of different principles set out in s.197AB which include the requirement that development contributions are “…determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who create the need for those asset.”

5.33 The principle of proportionality (i.e. that the development contribution levied on a single development should be proportionate to the demand that it creates) is complemented by an objective in the draft Policy of consistency; i.e. that like developments should be treated in a like manner.

5.34 The current methodology of using land value for determining reserve contributions under the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) has no link to the need for Council in creating the asset. For example, the doubling of land values does not double the demand for reserve space, whereas doubling of the population (in approximate terms) does. Thus, a high number of small sections in high-density developments generally require more neighbourhood reserve land than more dispersed larger lots.

5.35 The proposed methodology links increases in population to increases in reserves space. As HUDs are a proxy for population, the demand for reserve land per HUD is the same regardless of whether the section is 200m², 400m² or 1,000m². The difference is shown in the following graph. The statutory caps under the LGA (a maximum of 7.5% of the land value or 20m² of land per HUD) that will apply under the proposed approach are also shown for sections under 600m². The proposed methodology (orange dotted line) is therefore fairer than the current financial contribution policy and meets the requirements of the LGA with respect to the principle of proportionality required by development contributions.

Change in contribution levels

5.36 Under the proposed methodology some individual sections (mainly smaller, high value sections) will pay a higher contribution compared to the existing financial contributions – this is an inevitable consequence of transitioning to a different methodology. However, focusing on individual examples of increases is to ignore two important points.

5.37 Firstly, while there are increases for (generally) smaller sections, other sections (typically larger sections) will pay a lower contribution under the proposed approach. The perceived fairness of the proposed change in methodology therefore is significantly influenced by whether one pays less or more under the new approach.

5.38 Secondly, under s.203 of the LGA, a developer will be assessed for contributions based on the total allotments created by the subdivision. Accordingly, assuming there is a mix of lot sizes, increases for small lots will be off-set by decreases for larger lots.

5.39 An analysis of the proposed Wakapuaka SHA (Atawhai Downs) illustrates the two points above. The draft plans for this development are provided in Attachment 3. The development includes:

• 75 lots ranging in area from 230m² to 2,500m², with an average lot size of 680m².

• The total area of all residential lots is 51,020m², with 15 lots less than 400m² ($660/m²), 48 lots between 400m² and 900m² ($500/m²) and 12 lots over 900m² ($330/m²)

• The lots range in value from $150k to $825k, with an average value of $320k/lot.

5.40 Table 1 below shows the indicative reserve contributions under the existing (financial contributions) and the proposed (development contributions) approach. At an individual lot level there are some significant increases for small lots, but conversely significant decreases for large lots. Overall, however, there is a (relatively modest) 6% increase in the total contribution payable.

Table 1 – Comparison of changes – Wakapuaka SHA

Method	Reserve land acquired	Funds received	*Calculation method*
			Total Land value: $23.800m
Financial contributions	2,920m²	$1.402m	5.5% of land value + 0.5% building value
Development contributions	3,000m²	$1.484m	75 HUDs x 40m² (land value)
$ difference		$82k
% difference		6%

5.41 An alternative way to view the different approaches is to consider a scenario where the entire Wakapuaka SHA development is high density (200m²/lot). This is the scenario advanced by a number of submitters, and although an uncommon scenario as typography and demand results in a range of section sizes, it is useful to assess the difference in contrast to the regular subdivision scenario above. This scenario would increase the number of lots from 75 to 250 lots and the key differences in the current and proposed reserves contribution approaches in this scenario can be summarised as:

(i) Under the current approach the reserve land provided would be the same at 3,000m² or 6% despite nearly 3.5 times as many households sharing the land.

(ii) Under the proposed approach the reserve land would increase to 5,000m²(20m²/HUD) a reduction per HUD but still significantly more land than the existing approach.

5.42 Based on the discussion above, officers consider that the proposed methodology is fair, logical, proportionate and consistent with the LGA requirements in that:

a) Contributions are based on a demand (determined by the increases in HUD) and not land value; and

b) Individual increases for small lots will typically be off-set by decreases for large lots, resulting in minimal difference to the total quantum of contributions paid for the overall development; and

c) To the extent that there is any increase, it will be based on meeting the Council’s current level of service for neighbourhood reserves.

Discouraging intensification

5.43 By ensuring there is adequate reserve space (i.e. 20-40m²/HUD) within high-density urban developments, the proposed approach supports and enables urban intensification rather than discourages it. Providing excellent green-spaces helps the developer make the developments more attractive to the market, while making developments more desirable places to live through high amenity open spaces. This is consistent with the outcomes Council seeks for the community of people-friendly and well-planned urban environments.

5.44 The fact that developers may have to pay a higher contribution than currently charged needs to be considered in the context of the higher value of those lots.

5.45 In addition, the inner-city exemption will be able to be applied in the case of up to 30 HUDs developed each financial year providing financial incentive to developers who expeditiously progress city centre developments.

Lack of consultation

5.46 There were two rounds of consultation in the form of stakeholder workshops with developers and their advisers prior to the formal public consultation under the LGA. During the first workshop, the option of introducing a development contribution for neighbourhood reserves (amongst other options) was explicitly highlighted and was supported by the majority of stakeholders.

5.47 The second stakeholder workshop canvassed a number of alternative options to the current reserves financial contribution. One of those identified was the option now contained in the draft Policy. The workshop provided a table comparing potential reserves development contribution amounts with that of the current reserves financial contribution for a typical range of section sizes.

5.48 The draft Policy and consultation document was released for feedback on 23 March 2018, with submissions closing on 23 April 2018. On 23 March development stakeholders were sent an email notifying them of the formal consultation opportunity. The email also offered that during the consultation period officers were available to discuss any issues or assist with any interpretation or calculation examples they might need to further inform their submissions.

Increasing Council Revenue

5.49 Submitters have suggested that the proposed methodology will result in windfall revenue gains for Council. However this assertion overlooks s.197AB(c) of the LGA which imposes a principle that development contributions should be determined “…in a way that avoids over-recovery of costs allocated to development contribution funding.”

5.50 While the number of HUDs determines the area of land required for reserves, the value of land in the area being developed will determine how much the Council will need to collect as development contributions to acquire land (of comparable value) in or near the development area. Accordingly, if a residential development is in a high value area, the Council will need to collect a greater quantum of funding to acquire reserve land than it would in a development area with lower land values. (Note: The developer has an option of providing the land in lieu of cash where it meets levels of service (no other reserve is located within 800m walking distance and where at least 2500m² of suitable land is available)).

5.51 The proposed approach therefore only seeks contributions from developers that are proportionate to the Council’s level of service (40m²/HUD), and commensurate with the value of land to be acquired. Table 2 below is a comparison of the existing and proposed approach for a sample of lots developed over the past four years. It shows that the Council would in fact actually have received slightly less in total revenue had the proposed approach been in place.

Table 2 –Comparison of changes – sample of lots developed over the last four years

No. of lots assessed

Size

Land Value

Total FCs payable

Total DCs payable

Difference $

Difference %

324

Total land = 27.7 Ha

Range 160m² - 7,500m²;

Average = 860m²/lot *

Total $70.9M;

Range $85k - $380k;

Average = $220k/lot

$4.23M

$4.06M

-$0.17M

-4%

*of the 324 lots assessed 22 (or 6%) of them were less than 300m².

5.52 It should also be noted that if more revenue is received in the future than is currently the case, it will be due only to a greater volume of development or increased reserve land costs. In either case, the additional revenue will only be matching current levels of service and population increases.

Complexity

5.53 Contrary to what is stated in several submissions, officers consider that the current approach is more complex (compared to the proposed approach) with a two-stage process (that are months or even years apart in payment), and an initial calculation based on land value and then a second calculation based on building value, often with two different parties involved (subdivider and home builder).

5.54 The proposed approach has a single criterion for contribution calculation (i.e.40m²of land for every HUD). If the developer provides land as the contribution then the formula is simply:

no. of HUDs being developed x 40m² land ^{(up to statutory cap}).

If the developer provides cash in lieu of land, then there is an additional step of valuing the land in the area being developed as follows:

$x/m² x 40m^{2(up to statutory cap)}/HUD x no. of HUDs being developed.

5.55 Officers do not consider this a complex calculation. An on-line assessment tool will be provided to enable developers to assess their reserves contribution by entering lot size and valuation figures.

5.56 There is an additional consideration where the statutory caps apply. However, the practical operation of these caps – which operate to the benefit of developers – is proposed to be included in the draft Policy and can also be included in the online assessment tool.

Recommendation

Examples of the operation of the statutory cap are added to the Policy to better illustrate the operation of s.203(1) of the LGA.

5.57 Due to submissions primarily focused on the change from financial contributions for reserves to development contributions, and the concern that the option selected is not fair, reasonable and proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets as is required by the LGA, other options have been evaluated in section 6 of this report and an officers recommendation is provided in respect of reserves development contributions following that analysis.

Procedural and Administrative Decisions

5.58 Currently reserves contributions are imposed under Chapter 6 of the Nelson Resource Management Plan as a condition of subdivision consent (5.5% of land value) under the Resource Management Act, and a portion (0.5% of the building value less $90k) is also collected at Building Consent time.

5.59 The Development Contributions Policy 2018 provides for reserves contribution to be taken under the Local Government Act 2002 as a development contribution. If this is approved by Council then the following consequential and administrative amendments to existing procedures need to be confirmed:

5.59.1 Council agrees to stop imposing conditions of consent for reserves contribution under Chapter 6 of the NRMP for new applications received after 1 July 2018. Discretion for Council to do this is provided for in section 108 of the RMA. Council has previously in 2007, stopped imposing Chapter 6 requirements for financial contributions for infrastructure despite these being included in the NRMP. The Nelson Plan review will remove Chapter 6 making the new Plan provisions consistent with the Development Contributions Policy. This will not have legal effect until the Nelson Plan is beyond legal challenge. Amendments to the RMA will prevent all Councils from imposing financial contributions as set out in their District Plans by 2022 in any event. The LGA requires that where there is a Development Contributions Policy financial contributions cannot be used for the same purpose (no double dipping).

5.59.2 For existing titles consented prior to 1 July 2018 that have not yet been built on, Council agrees to stop collecting the 0.5% of the building value for reserves at the time of building consent issue. There are also a small number of vacant titles that when built on will attract a financial contribution of 2% of the building value for infrastructure at the time of building consent issue. This is left over from the financial contribution requirements between 2004 and 2007. This 0.5% reserves and 2% infrastructure collection system is an administrative burden, and places additional reserves and infrastructure contribution costs on future home owners that they are generally not expecting. Officers recommend that this practice (not part of the 2018 Policy) is abandoned from 1 July 2018. This will result in a loss of approximately $500K of potential revenue up to 2037, however only a portion of that is recoverable anyway as the ability to charge financial contribution’s ceases in 2022.

5.59.3 For the purpose of clarity, this recommendation relates only to vacant lots that have yet to be built on. All existing subdivision consents that have yet to obtain 224(c) will still be required to pay their 5.5% reserves contribution in accordance with their conditions of consent.

Recommendation:

Additional wording be added at the end of section 1.2 ‘Transition between policies’ of the 2018 Policy on Development Contributions:

a) The financial contribution of 0.5% of building value that is payable under Table 3 of the 2015 Policy in respect of reserves for residential and non-residential developments; and

b) The financial contribution of 2% of estimated building value that is payable for infrastructure in the 2015 Policy.”

6. Options

6.1 Council is required to adopt a Development Contributions (and/or Financial Contributions) Policy, or re-adopt the current Policy, or resolve not to have development contributions by 30 June 2018. Re-adopting the current Policy or not having a Policy would mean all the funding assumptions in the Long Term Plan would need to be re-worked and projects altered in scope and/or timing. These two options are contrary to Council’s previous direction and are therefore not assessed.

6.2 The change in the draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 that received the most feedback from submitters is that of the discontinuation of the financial contributions for reserves, and the introduction of a development contribution for reserves. While officers have addressed the submission points in section 5 above, it is considered prudent to outline the options in relation to alternative methods for collecting contributions for reserves infrastructure to ensure Council is satisfied the most fair, reasonable and proportionate approach has been adopted.

Alternative Options for Reserves

6.3 A range of alternative options for reserves contribution have been considered between the existing approach and the proposed approach, this being the focus of most submitters.

6.4 Should any of these reduced options be selected, it is recommended that they come with a caveat within the Policy that in development areas where a self-imposed cap is applied by Council, the development may receive a lower level of service for neighbourhood reserve land compared to the rest of Nelson City. This caveat may, however, have the unintended consequence of Council not being able to provide a suitable level of reserve land to ensure higher density developments remain attractive places to live. For this reason none of the options for alternative methodologies explored are recommended as suitable by officers.

6.5 The seven options evaluated in Table 3 are:

(i) Adopt the proposed option (with noted amendments).

(ii) Exclude GST from the land valuation.

(iii) Reduce the level of service (40m²/HUD) to a smaller area of land.

(iv) Impose a cap on the area of land (based on a maximum % of the section size) for high-density developments.

(v) Retain the status quo.

(vi) Levy a fixed $/HUD amount for all sections using a city-wide average rather than a localised valuation.

(vii) Reduce reserves contribution for high density infill development.

Table 3: Alternative Options for Reserves Contributions Methodologies

Option (i) Proposed policy: All HUDs provide cash or land equivalent to 40m² per HUD, based on localised subdivision valuation
Advantages	· Complies with legislative requirements. · Consistent with draft Policy objectives. · Consistent with other activities (network infrastructure and community infrastructure) that are funded by development contributions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Results in increases for some smaller lot developments. ·
Option (ii) Exclude GST from land valuation: Same as draft policy however remove GST, if any, from the land valuation. The current approach under financial contributions includes the GST, (if any) in the valuation, and then adds 15% GST to the financial contribution, if paid in cash.
Advantages	· Would reduce the development contribution required by 15%. · Would remove perception of double dipping on GST. · Consistent with TDC approach.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would only partially reduce the increases for high density developments. · Would result in lower funding with which to achieve set levels of service.
Option (iii) Lower level of service: As with policy but reduce the 40m²/HUD to a lesser amount
Advantages	· Would reduce level of some contributions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would not be fair to existing community who have contributed to a higher level of service. · Would result in a decline to the overall level of service. · Would have limited effect on high density lots unless service levels reduced the requirement to less than 20m^2. · Inconsistent with community outcomes related to good quality urban development.
Option (iv) Land area cap: For high-density developments cap the land required based on a maximum % of the section size
Advantages	· Would reduce the contributions for the high-density developments, which have the largest increase under the proposed policy.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May result in Council not being able to provide sufficient reserve land in high-density areas. · May be viewed as unfair by medium and low-density developments. · Loss of revenue for Council but no decrease in level of demand for reserves.
Option (v) Status quo, retain a set percentage: Contribution is based on a set % of total land value.
Advantages	· Reduces the contribution required in high value areas, so reduces the increase for small lot developments.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Inconsistent with the Policy objectives. · Inconsistent with the principles of s.197AB LGA. · Levies a disproportionately high contribution on HUDs on large sections.
Option (vi) Fixed $/HUD: All HUDs are levied the same $ amount based on an average, city-wide value
Advantages	· Provides high level of certainty. · Reduces the largest increases for certain developments.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Inconsistent with the principles of the LGA. · Council would not receive sufficient contributions to provide suitable amounts of reserve land in high value areas, resulting in increased funding from other sources; e.g. rates.
Option (vii) Reduction reserves contribution for high density infill development: Adopt provisions in the DC Policy to provide a reserves contribution reduction for high density development in brownfield areas.
Advantages	· Existing residential areas already have neighbourhood reserves and therefore a reduced DC for reserves for infill development in brownfield areas can be linked to levels of service. · Would be compatible with the inner city waiver and reduced HUD for small second units on the same title, thereby completing a package of reductions seeking to incentivise intensification of existing residential areas. · Would lower costs for high density infill development in brownfield areas.
Risks and disadvantages	· May result in greater funding from rates to achieve levels of service. · May result in a lower level of service for reserves in brownfield high density areas. · Inconsistent with policy objectives and assumptions that all new residential titles equal one new HUD. · Would need to include definitions to ensure reduction was only applicable to brownfield areas, not high density development in greenfield areas. Would also need to include a maximum lot area for eligibility for reduction (say for lots 300m² and less).

6.6 Officers recommend that the proposed methodology for levying development contributions for reserve land is the most appropriate because it:

a) Meets the policy objectives of being:

a. Fair (and fairer than the current system);

b. Administratively simple to apply;

c. Certain, transparent, and consistent; and

d. Supports Nelson City community outcomes;

b) Is compliant with the requirements of the LGA in that it

a. Does not result in over-recovery;

b. Allocates costs in proportion to where they arise.

Recommendation:

The draft proposed methodology for reserves development contributions is approved.

Alternative Options for the Development Contributions Policy

6.9 Council can deliberate on the submissions to the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 and use any decisions from these deliberations to amend the Policy before its adoption on 21 June 2018. Officers recommend Option 1 as the best option.

Option 1: Resolve to finalise the Development Contributions Policy 2018 in line with the recommendations in this report for adoption on 21 June
Advantages	· Addresses concerns of some submitters while maintaining consistency with the objectives of the policy. · Allows Council to fund infrastructure required to provide for growth in accordance with s.197AB that development contributions are “…determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who create the need for those asset.” · Ensures compliance with the requirements of the LGA. · Is consistent with the intentions of the amendments to the RMA to remove financial contributions by 2022. · Provides a fairer and less complex system, including transitional provisions, for reserve contribution.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not address the concerns of all submitters.
Option 2: Alter the recommended resolutions before making them or make additional resolutions, including requesting further changes to the Development Contributions Policy 2018 to be brought back for adoption on 21 June.
Advantages	· Will allow elected members to make further amendments to the Development Contributions Policy 2018 in response to submitters.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May result in lower levels of service, particularly in relation to reserves, than the community anticipates. · May be inconsistent with the objectives of the policy and the requirements of the LGA in respect of Development Contributions.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Submissions were sought on the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2018 between 23 March and 23 April. Council heard from submitters on 8 of May. At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the changes proposed to the Development Contributions Policy 2018. The Policy will be updated in accordance with Council’s resolutions before going to a Council meeting on 21 June for adoption.

Lisa Gibellini

Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Attachment 1: (A1964099) DC Policy 2018 tracked changes version to go with deliberations report for 16 May ⇩

Attachment 2: A1966064 Wakapuaka SHA (Atawhai Downs) Concept Plans used in reserves contribution analysis (A1966064) ⇩

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 recommendations in this report are consistent with the Council’s outcomes, in particular that the community has good quality sustainable, integrated, affordable and effective infrastructure and that growth is well managed. Adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2018 contributes to the Nelson 2060 goal that our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson.

3. Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the level of support from the community of the proposed changes to development and financial contributions. Council is able to consider any risks highlighted in that consultation, and in making a decision on submissions.

4. Financial impact

The adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2018 will ensure that those who benefit from Council’s investment in infrastructure to provide for growth fund it. This ensures a minimal impact on debt and rates levels.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2018 is of low to medium significance because it does not significantly impact on the community, maintains current levels of service and provides a revenue stream that enables Councils investment in infrastructure to support growth to be recovered rather than funded by rates. Engagement on this decision is not required as submissions have already been sought.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not specifically been consulted on this report

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for development contributions, however the delegations register contains a not that “All powers relating to the review of the Development and Contributions Policy are referred to Council”.

Item 5: Nelson City Council Minutes - 7 May 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Monday 7 May 2018, commencing at 9.00a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Acting Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Advisers (J Brandt and E Stephenson)

Leave of Absence: Councillor Matheson

Opening Prayer

Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.

1. Apologies

Her Worship the Mayor discussed availability with Councillors. Apologies were noted on appropriate days.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Draft Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 - Late Submissions

Document number R9277, agenda pages 8 - 69 refer.

Resolved CL/2018/073

That the Council

Receives the report Draft Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 - Late Submissions (R9277) and its attachments (A1959969, A1959727 and A1960028); and

Accepts late submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.

Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

6. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028, Development Contributions Policy and Waimea Dam

Monday 7 May – Infrastructure

Jenna Stallard, Nathaniel Rais, Alex Hunter, Robbie Anderson, Cassie Hagan and Others - Nelson Youth Council (18764), page 372 refers

Youth Councillors tabled a supporting document and highlighted survey results. In response to a question, they noted that the area to target for lighting on the Maitai walkway was from the Collingwood Street bridge. The Youth Park Stoke, parking metre technology and the importance to have the best environment possible to increase Council performance were noted.

Attachments

1 A1963042 - Nelson Youth Council (18764) tabled document

Ms Noeline Inglis (18912), page 705 refers.

Ms Inglis tabled a supporting document and stressed her request to Council to focus efforts on the core services of Council enabling the day-today running of the city, such as stormwater and sewerage. She highlighted issues affecting Douglas Road.

Attachments

1 A1963982 - Noeline Inglis (18192) tabled document

Mr Trevor Garnett (18693) spoke about homelessness in Nelson as well as the state of cricket grounds as per the map provided in the submission, highlighting the risks to health and safety for players.

Mr Garnett also spoke to DC Policy submission 18695, pages 271 and DC 1 refer. Mr Garnett urged Council to stop increasing costs to the ratepayer.

Mr Ian Goldschmidt (18782) for Nelson Mountain Bike Club, page 411 refers.

Mr Goldschmidt highlighted the club’s desire to bring a high level mountain biking event to Nelson and funds needed. Mr Goldschmidt answered questions regarding the quality of tracks and the positive long term impact on the region improvements to tracks would bring.

6.5 Mr Ishna Jacobs (18825) - The Hollow and Bridge Street Studios, page 532 refers.

Ms Jacobs tabled a supporting document and answered questions about specific ideas to enhance Bridge Street, incorporating the existing blue stripes on the footpath. Ms Jacobs explained how funds would be used, with the first year focusing on installation of nine frames to fix artworks and illuminate these at night. Another focus was on shared office space.

Attachments

1 A1963984 - Ishna Jacobs (18825) tabled document

Mr John Jennings (18422), page 128 refers.

Mr Jennings stressed the urgency for action by Nelson City Council to prepare for the effects of climate change, and answered questions about the build of the proposed sea wall.

Ms Glenys MacLellan (19130), page 1367 refers.

Ms MacLellan spoke to her submission and stressed that the lack of public toilets at Queens Gardens had resulted in the Suter toilets being used instead. In relation to footpaths, Ms McLellan urged Council that more funding be put into footpaths and added that brick pavers posed potential health and safety risks to some users.

Mr Murray Cameron (18656 and 18744) and Malcolm Saunders - Individual and Champion Green Facilities Group, pages 198 and 333 refer.

Mr Cameron tabled a supporting document and highlighted the request to bring the timing of Champion Green facilities forward, and the wish of the Champion Green Facilities Committee to be formally consulted. In response to a question, Mr Saunders confirmed that their submission had support from the cycling groups.

Attachments

1 A1963985 - Murray Cameron and Malcolm Saunders (18656 and 18744) tabled information

Ms Jenny Easton (18735), page 314 refers.

Ms Easton expanded on the duties she envisaged for the role of Climate Change Manager she was proposing for Nelson City Council to introduce, and highlighted the importance of taking a long term view and providing leadership in this area.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 10.24a.m. until 10.32a.m.

Mr Ian Price (18900), page 677 refers.

Mr Price tabled a supporting document and highlighted his frustrations with the the Paremata Flats project and clarified that he was asking that Council halt pastoral management of the reserve and manage the land through mowing instead of grazing.

Attachments

1 A1963987 - Ian Price (18900) tabled document

The meeting was adjourned at 10.37a.m. and reconvened at 10.53a.m. Councillor Skinner was not present.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 11.02a.m.

Mr Steven Mitchell (18824) - Tasman Rugby Union, page 530 refers.

Mr Mitchell tabled a supporting document, highlighted issues with field quality and explained the provision situation experienced by rugby at Neale Park. Mr Mitchell stressed that a long term sports strategy would bring improvement to the management of grounds and field allocation for Nelson.

Attachments

1 A1965337 - Steven Mitchell (18824) Tasman Rugby Union tabled document

Mr Peter Riley (18728), page 302 refers.

Mr Riley noted his support for Council’s housing plan and the Brook Sanctuary. Mr Riley highlighted public transport solutions to prevent traffic congestion between Richmond and Nelson.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 11.13a.m. to 11.16a.m.

Mr Gustaaf Beullens (18779), page 407 refers.

Mr Beullens spoke to his Powerpoint presentation exemplifying the issues of the failing stormwater issues affecting Milton Street.

Attachments

1 A1961108 - Gustaaf Beullens (18779) PowerPoint presentation

Mr John Gilbertson (19051) and Rob Stevenson - Tahunanui Business Association, page 1130 refers.

Mr Gilbertson spoke to the submission and stressed the importance of Council prioritising infrastructure upgrades to address stormwater and waste water issues, and said that ring-fencing funding to the area may be part of the solution.

Mr Stevenson asked that the recreational cycleway near the Tahunanui holiday park be timed to occur with other work in the area, e.g. the rock wall and spoke in support of Council renewing the lease with the Tahuna Holiday Park.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 11.32a.m. and returned at 11.40a.m.

Mrs Karen Price (18848) - Homeowners - Tipahi St & Eckington Tce, page 600 refers.

Mrs Price emphasised the considerable length of time residents had been waiting for stormwater and street lighting to be improved at Tipahi Street.

Kevin & Gwen Gilmore and others (18951) - Homeowners - Arapiki Road, page 780 refers.

Mr Aaron Ward tabled a supporting document and video which illustrated the significance of flooding issues experienced on Arapiki Road.

Mr Gilmore highlighted that residents had made submissions on the matter for nearly a decade and were frustrated with delays to having the underground infrastructure issues addressed. He stressed that curb and channel issues needed to be addressed at the same time and requested to have the current timeline for planned works revisited and brought forward.

Attachments

1 A1965285 - Kevin and Gwen Gilmore and others (18951) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 11.55a.m. and returned at 11.57a.m.

Les Hollyman and Jan Gillanders and others (18979) - Landowners - Hillwood, page 911 refers.

Ms Gillanders spoke to the presentation illustrating the drainage issues affecting their farmland and highlighted the causes leading to the flooding. She stressed the need for Council to take action, in particular to clean the drains, maintain flood gates and maintain flood storage capacity. In response to a question, Mr Hollyman spoke about riparian planting and the impact ducks had on the streams.

Attachments

1 A1963633 - Les Hollyman and Jan Gillanders and others (18979) PowerPoint presentation

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 12.08p.m. and returned 12.10p.m.

Mr Mike Stevens (18896) - Blind Citizens NZ Nelson Branch, page 666 refers.

Mr Stevens spoke to his submission and answered questions about the accessibility of the Nelson City Council website, which needs to be compatible with screen reading programmes.

Ms Jackie McNae, John Hutton & Andrew Fenemor (18904) - Community Water Solutions Advisory Group, page 24 WD refers.

Mr Hutton tabled a supporting document and spoke to the submission stressing that the Waimea Dam would provide long term reliability for the region.

In response to a question Mr Hutton spoke on the potential impact of climate change on the medium and long term future water needs of the region. In response to a question Mr Fenemor explained that if there was sufficient water then subdivisions could happen closer to the hills rather than the Waimea Plains, ensuring productive land was retained. Mrs McNae noted recent decisions made by Tasman addressing issues relating to productive land.

Attachments

1 A1964645 - (18904) Community Water Solutions Advisory Group tabled document

Mrs Jackie McNae (19088) - Personal, page 60 WD refers.

Mrs McNae highlighted key points of her submission and answered questions regarding alternatives for Nelson South and stressed that connectivity of supplies is key to strengthen resilience.

At the conclusion of the morning session of the hearing, members asked for clarification and feedback from officers on a number of matters.

The meeting adjourned was adjourned at 12.46p.m. and reconvened at 1.20p.m. Councillor Rutledge was not present

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 1.24p.m.

Monday 7 May – Community Services

Mr Ian Bowell (18640) - Nelson Arts Community, page 152 refers.

Mr Bowell summarised key points in the submission relating to development of the Refinery Artspace and associated land and answered questions regarding activities leaving the CBD, access points, the redevelopment, budget and funding, the walkway and a business plan.

Mr Simon Duffy & Mr Chris Butler (18660) - Uniquely Nelson, page 216 refers.

Mr Duffy demonstrated the Uniquely Nelson website https://uniquelynelson.nz/ and the Nelson Advantage Newsletter website https://nelsonadvantage.co.nz/ and highlighted challenges for retailers.

Mr Roger Wilson (17632) - Nelson Santa Trust, page 1 refers.

Mr Wilson spoke in support of the submission and gave a brief history of the Trust and its activities. He highlighted key issues, including the lack of funding from local businesses, and answered questions regarding getting community and business involvement and the Community Events Fund.

Mr Don MacLennan (18678), page 246 refers.

Mr MacLennan spoke regarding the lack of charging facilities for mobility scooters and answered a question regarding chargers and the requirement for power points.

Ms Lea Beaven (18798), page 469 refers

Ms Beaven tabled supporting information relating to her submission and spoke about health problems relating to damp and poor housing conditions.

Attachments

1 A1953139 - Lea Beaven (18798) tabled document

Mr Colin Clough (18656), page 262 refers.

Mr Clough highlighted key points in his submission regarding library extensions and a range of activities in libraries, including coffee shops.

Mr Grant Rosewarne (18666) - NZ King Salmon Co Ltd, page 221 refers.

Mr Rosewarne provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to the submission highlighting the issues of improved social and economic outcomes for Nelson from sustainability utilising top of the South environment and infrastructure, the Norway role model for salmon farming, the potential of aquaculture, biosecurity, offshore farming and answered questions regarding tipping points for toxic organisms, Council advocacy, avoidance of ecological damage, organic salmon and antioxidants.

Attachments

1 A1965071 - Grant Rosewarne (18666) - NZ King Salmon Co Ltd PowerPoint presentation

Ms Shelagh Noble (18924), page number 719 refers, did not attend.

Ms Catherine Walker, representing Ms Shelagh Noble (18924), page 719 refers.

Ms Walker highlighted key points in Ms Noble’s submission relating to housing affordability, development contributions and the need for a Housing Champion.

Mrs Ruth Halsey (18830) - Nelson Women’s Centre, page 553 refers.

Ms Halsey tabled supporting information, spoke to the submission highlighting the issues of homelessness and the lack of affordable rental accommodation, the need to provide emergency short term shelter for vulnerable women and children the need for a local community hui. Ms Halsey answered questions regarding the numbers of women requiring emergency housing and possible solutions.

Attachments

1 A1965038 - Ruth Halsey (18830) - Nelson Women's Centre tabled document

The meeting was adjourned at 2.51p.m. and reconvened at 2.56p.m. Councillors Fulton and McGurk were not present.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 2.57p.m.

Attendance: Councillor McGurk returned to the meeting at 2.58p.m.

Dr Peta Wellstead (18832) - Freelance Information Services, page 557 refers.

Dr Wellstead spoke to her submission and highlighted key points regarding library redevelopment, information hubs, engaging non-users, and the changing needs of the entire community and answered questions regarding the need for libraries, modern libraries in the future, library usage, loss of quiet space and differing needs.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting at 3.03p.m.

Mr Derek Nees (18811) - Nelson Returned Services Association, page 508 refers.

Mr Nees spoke to the submission regarding funding for commemorative events and the lack of RSA assets and answered a question regarding council support in the rest of New Zealand, which he said varied.

Mrs Zoe Gray (19001) - Education Nelson-Marlborough, page 946 refers.

Ms Gray, accompanied by Ms Ewing, spoke to the submission regarding funding for the programme and the programme’s primary function as an international student destination. Ms Gray highlighted the benefits of international connections. Ms Ewing noted the importance of promoting the region to international students. Ms Gray and Ms Ewing answered questions regarding becoming a commercial model and the timeline for that.

Mr Wayne Harrison (18769) - Nelson Volunteer Coastguard Inc, page 381 refers.

Mr Harrison provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to the submission’s key points, including the role of the Coastguard, the rescue vessel replacement project and answered questions regarding funding requirements from both NCC and TDC ($100,000 each), the price of the proposed vessel, the prices charged for its services, the timeline, and engagement with the Marina Advisory Group.

Attachments

1 A1963634 - Wayne Harrison (18769) - Nelson Volunteer Coastguard Inc, page 381 refers.

The meeting was adjourned at 3.33p.m. and reconvened at 3.40p.m. Councillor Skinner was not present.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 3.42p.m.

Frans Dellebeke CEO (18838) - Nelson Tasman Hospice, page 575 refers.

Mr Dellebeke spoke to the submission regarding the Hospice’s services and facilities, future plans and funding needs and the lack of government funding for buildings.

Mr Doug Hattersley & Yvonne Bowater (18790) - Melrose House Colonel Noel Percy Adams ( Melrose) Society, page 439 refers.

Mr Hattersley highlighted key points in the submission, including renewal of the lease, options on partial funding for different facilities and events, heritage protection and the lower stage area events. Ms Bowater spoke on the role of the voluntary Governance Board and past Council support and answered questions regarding a coordinator for the Society, earthquake proofing, the need to furnish the house, the café’s contribution, heritage issues with the grounds, informal discussions with neighbours on outside events, storage facilities and security.

Ms Susan Hawthorn (18826) - Community Investment Fund panel of community representatives, page 536 refers.

Ms Hawthorn, accompanied by Mr Graeme Thomas and Ms Rachel Saunders tabled supporting information and spoke to the submission. Ms Hawthorn highlighted that the fund was oversubscribed and requested that the funding be returned to its previous level. Mr Thomas spoke of the importance of people and communities and supporting volunteers. Ms Saunders spoke of partnerships with Council creating true communities. Further discussion took place regarding what the fund covered, the growing social need, clarification of the funding required and the history of the change made.

Attachments

1 A1965120 - Susan Hawthorn (18826) - Community Investment Fund panel of community representatives, page 536 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 4.13p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 4.19p.m.

Mr Gordon Oldfield (18835) - Volunteer Nelson, page 564 refers.

Mr Oldfield spoke to the submission and highlighted key aspects, including whether there was sufficient investment in social wellbeing, sustainable funding, the core purpose of the centre and the need for volunteers and answered questions relating to a community hub, venues for events, advertising within the community, the cost of obtaining speakers, current contracts, long-term base funding requirements and ratepayer contributions.

Attendance: Councillor Courtney left the meeting at 4.33p.m.

At the conclusion of the afternoon session of the hearing, members asked for clarification/feedback from officers on several points.

The meeting was adjourned at 4.56p.m. to be reconvened on Tuesday 8 May at 9.05a.m.

Minutes of the reconvened meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Monday 8 May 2018, commencing at 9.05a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Acting Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Group Manager Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Acting Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (R Terry)

Leave of Absence: Councillor Matheson

Apologies: Councillors Acland and Noonan for lateness.

7. Apologies

Resolved CL/2018/074

That the Council

Receives the apologies for lateness from Councillors Acland and Noonan.

Courtney/Walker Carried

Mr Dan McGuire (18181/18129) - Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 2 WD and 55 refer.

Mr McGuire spoke to the LTP submission and highlighted the rapid increase in rates, he followed up on his submission on the Waimea Dam.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton entered the meeting at 9.09a.m.

Mr Dennis J Win (18684/18686) - Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 8ED and 258 refer.

Mr Win spoke to his LTP submission and amended the following:

1) Infrastructure – line 2, should read Commuter Cycle ways.

2) Stormwater rating - Line 3, should read inequality.

3) Infrastructure , Paragraph 2, it is noted in scientific predictions and media that sea level increases could now reach 3 metres.

Should the Doom Sayers be correct, Council on behalf of the Ratepayers has more than major problems. What is being done in Planning and action in case these predictions are correct?

4) Council Performance – 12 months and 3 written requests for an “Official Information Request” leaves little confidence in performance in systems.

Mr Dennis also spoke to his submission on the Waimea Dam.

Mr Murray Dawson (18737), page 13 WD refers.

Mr Dawson spoke to his submission and tabled supporting information. He highlighted his concerns on the Opus Report.

Attachments

1 A1963749 - Murray Dawson (18737) tabled document

Mr Lewis Tinson (18763), page 16 WD refers.

Mr Tinson spoke to his submission and tabled supporting information, he spoke about his concerns that the underlying assumptions of the Opus Report were wrong and discussed the impact on repairing the significant leaks in the Nelson and Tasman water infrastructure.

Attachments

1 A1964785 - Lewis Tinson (18763) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Noonan entered the meeting at 9.38a.m.

Mr Richard Sullivan (18994/18998) - Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 53 WD and 921 refer.

Mr Sullivan joined the meeting via conference call. Mr Sullivan spoke to his LTP submission and highlighted his concern that rates were increasing beyond that which people could afford. He acknowledged that Council needed to get fit for the future but it should sharpen incentives by limiting rates increases and limiting spending increases to core services.

In speaking to his submission on the Waimea Dam he noted Nelson did not need this and the proposed resilience benefits were unfounded.

Mrs Deb Daniell-Smith (18926/18988)- Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 30WD and 921 refer.

Mrs Deb Daniell-Smith spoke to her LTP submission and highlighted that she would like to see a Heritage Strategy in place and asked Council to put more work into the pedestrian islands at the bottom of Day’s Track and the wharf.

Mr Brett Daniell-Smith spoke to the submission on the Waimea Dam highlighting that he was principally concerned about the use of Nelson City Council money going to a project that hadn’t been sanctioned by the Tasman community.

Mr Trevor Riley (19090), page 63 ED refers.

Mr Riley tabled supporting information highlighting the instability of the area for the Waimea Dam with maps.

Attachments

1 A1964776 - Trevor Riley (19090) tabled documents

Mr Barry Thompson (19111) - Thompson Daly Co, page 111 WD refers.

Mr Thompson spoke to his submission and tabled supporting information. Mr Thompson spoke in favour of the Waimea Dam proposal and raised his concerns about the high rates the Council charged for inner city property compared to the Tasman District CBD rates.

Attachments

1 A1964774 - Barry Thompson (19111) - Thompson Daly Co tabled document

Ms Rona Spencer (19020/19014)- Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 55 WD and 1004 refer.

Ms Spencer spoke to her submissions highlighting that she supported the CBD development including community spaces; she would like to see a limit to tourism numbers, reduction in mountainbikers using the Brook and wanted Nelson to be a country town not a Smart Little City.

In speaking to her submission on the Waimea Dam, Ms Spencer advised she did no support Council funding the Dam as we did not need more water in the Nelson area and suggested subsidising water tanks to capture roof water.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.38a.m. and reconvened at 11.00a.m.

Mr Graham Thomas on behalf of Mr John McLaughlin (18847/19115) - Speaking to LTP as well as DC, pages DC5 and 1293 refer.

Mr Thomas spoke to Mr McLaughlin’s submission on Development Contributions seeking that development contributions be deferred to when buildings are completed.

Mr Thomas spoke to the LTP submission about the cost of transportation connections relating to Marsden Valley and discussed options for administering development contributions in such cases.

Mr Garry Adcock (18997/18940/18982) - Kohatu Park Trust & Personal -Speaking to LTP as well as DC, pages DC8 and 767/915 refer.

Mr Adcock spoke to his submission on the Development Contributions policy highlighting that what was proposed regarding reserve land appeared very complex and not very effective.

He also spoke to the submission on behalf of Kohatu Park Trust asking Council to support the establishment of the Trust to open a Motorsport and Adventure Park near Tapawera. He advised Tasman District Council had supported the Trust with $300,000 towards the first consents process.

Mr Iain Sheves (19106/19041) - Wakatu Inc - Speaking to LTP as well as DC, pages DC63 and 1080 refer.

Mr Sheves spoke to Wakatu Incorporation’s submission on Development Contributions with regard to high density housing.

He also spoke to the submission to the LTP in relation to Special Housing Areas, development of the Elma Turner library and their support of inner city living. He noted that Wakatu Inc strongly supported closer working relationship with Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 11.41a.m. until 11.44a.m.

Mr Mark Lile & other speakers (19089/19023/19104/19128) - Various Organisations - Speaking to LTP as well as DC, pages DC 15/23/61 and 1359 refer.

Mr Lile spoke on a number of submissions and provided background on Swimming Marlborough.

Hamish Neill joined him to speak on behalf of Swimming Nelson Marlborough’s submission on the LTP and tabled supporting documents. He requested that Council join a group of stakeholders to discuss how to move forward.

Mr Lile spoke to Coastal Views Lifestyle Village Ltd.’s submission on the Development Contributions Policy which sought clarification on transition between current and new policies.

Mr Lile spoke to Summerset Village Ltd.’s submission on the LTP and Development Contributions Policy and noted their concern at the proposed methodology of calculating contributions toward reserves for higher density housing.

Mr Scott Gibbons joined Mr Lile to speak to GP Investments Limited’s submission on LTP and Development Contributions and tabled supporting documents. He highlighted that Nelson CBD was no longer meeting the shopping needs of residents and also discussed the new Land Development Manual (LDM) floor level adding significant costs to development. Mr Lile added that the LDM was very conservative and low risk and could be prohibitive to development as increased cost in land preparation costs would be around 10%-15% the cost of the land.

Attachments

1 A1965035 - Mark Lile and other speakers (19089/19023/19104/19128) - Various Organisations tabled documents

Attendance: Councillor McGurk left the meeting from 11.50a.m. until 11.52a.m.

Jackie McNae (19092/19093/19094/19095) Various Organisations - Staig & Smith, pages DC26/37/47/51 refer.

Ms McNae presented on behalf of a number of submitters and presented a supporting document showing comparison of reserve changes on urban subdivisions, she highlighted that the submitters were concerned at the disproportionate penalty on inner city development which did not encourage higher density development.

Ms McNae spoke to Stoke Valley Holdings and Solitaire Investment Ltd.’s submission on the Development contributions Policy with regards to Ngawhatu reservoir highlighting their concern at the very high price for water compared to other developers.

Attachments

1 A1964134 - Jackie McNae (19092/19093/19094/19095) Various Organisations - Staig and Smith tabled document

Mr Graeme Dick (19061) - Projects and Ventures, page DC21 refers.

Mr Dick spoke to his submission and tabled a supporting document. Mr Dick highlighted points on market developments, reserves and the cost increase to contributions.

Attachments

1 A1965030 - Graeme Dick (19061) - Projects and Ventures tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 12.40p.m. until 12.42p.m.

Ms Pauline Hadfield (19004) - Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd, page DC9 refers.

Ms Hadfield presented her submission which related to development areas under the policy, highlighting that she supported neighbourhood reserves and Council’s intent for these to be created at subdivision stage, however was concerned at the methodology of calculating contributions toward reserves for higher density housing.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.00p.m. and reconvened at 1.35p.m.

Tuesday 8 May – Environment

Mr David Sissons (18836) - Waimea Inlet Forum working group, page 568 refers.

Mr Sissons presented his submission on behalf of the Waimea Inlet Forum working group. He requested that Council manage and prioritise environmental protection, in particular the rise in sea level, plants and birds.

Mr Leeson Baldey & Paul Brockie (18828) - Warmer Healthier Homes, page 540 refers.

Mr Baldey and Mr Brockie provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke on behalf of Warmer Healthier Homes. They noted that in order to continue delivering their initiative, they would require Council funding. A number of homes were still inadequately insulated, mainly low income homes. Mr Baldey and Mr Brockie answered questions around heating, insulation, ventilation and funding. They noted that any funding received would be spent in the areas with the highest need among Nelson City residents.

Attachments

1 A1954587 - Leeson Baldey and Paul Brockie (18828) - Warmer Healthier Homes PowerPoint presentation

Mr Ren Kempthorne (18958), page 862 refers.

Mr Kempthorne presented his submission, noting that a small city is a smart city. He emphasised the need to expand the school bus system in order to reduce congestion.

Mr Lindsay Wood (18930), page 730 refers.

Mr Wood provided a PowerPoint presentation, spoke to his submission and tabled a supporting document. He spoke about a rideshare system in Nelson and the benefits to Nelson city. He highlighted the issues of climate change and greenhouse emissions and felt the zero funding approach needed to be reconsidered and would like to see these issues prioritised. Mr Wood answered questions about Port Nelson and regional coordination.

Attachments

1 A1965546 - Lindsay Wood (18930) tabled document

2 A1963964 - Lindsay Wood (18930) PowerPoint presentation

Councillor Rutledge declared an interest in Submission 18957 and left the meeting at 2.08p.m.

Dr Meg Rutledge, Stephen Standley & Alan Hinton (18957) - Natureland Wildlife Trust, page 817 refers.

Mr Hinton spoke to the submission and noted the importance of regional biodiversity and strategic alliances. Mr Standley spoke about the need for renewal work and the ability to raise additional funding to up-spec the existing facilities. Dr Rutledge answered questions about their relationship with The Brook, funding opportunities and external sponsors.

Mr Bruce Dyer (18766), page 377 refers.

Mr Dyer spoke to his submission and the need to be independent of the world economy and take into account the current unstable economic environment. He suggested that the Council look at adopting the Alaskan model in regards to fishing quotas. He spoke about cooperatives in a social development capacity and the United Kingdom’s economics foundation, called Local Multiplier – an initiative to encourage buying local.

Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 2.22p.m.

Mr Mike Ward (18974) - The Creative Alliance, page 899 refers.

Mr Ward spoke to his submission and highlighted the need for a cycleway along the waterfront and suggested that Council purchase the Brook walkway (Grampions) and Nelson 2060.

Glenn Cousins (19141)

Mr Cousins spoke to his submission and requested funding for the Brook Sanctuary and free access for locals. He noted the benefits of exercise and the need to encourage residents to be active and make the most of our local spaces. He answered questions and emphasised the importance of having free access to Council land for local residents.

Miss Cynthia van de Loo (18980), page 912 refers.

Miss van de Loo spoke to her submission and answered questions about foraging fruits and herbs and said that she supported the fact the Council was planting fruit but would prefer this to be spray-free.

Mr Lawrence Carter (18880) – Engineers for Social Responsibility, page 646 refers.

Mr Carter spoke on behalf of the Engineers for Social Responsibility and presented a supporting document. Climate change will have an increasing impact on Nelson and they requested that Council future-proof infrastructure and assets in flood-prone zones and look at re-housing residents in low-lying coastal areas. Mr Carter answered questions on flood prone areas and climate change.

Attachments

1 A1963713 - Lawrence Carter (18880) Engineers for Social Responsibility tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 2.48p.m. until 2.50p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 2.49p.m.

Mr Derek Shaw, Karen Driver and Robert Taylor (19108/19117) - Nelson Environment Centre and Top of the South Athletics Charitable Trust, page 1301 refers.

Mr Shaw spoke to the submission and suggested that the Council engage with community partners in regards to a climate change strategy. He noted waste management strategies and felt there would be further opportunities for waste to be diverted.

Mr Shaw and Mr Taylor spoke to the submission and noted the current state of the track at Saxton Oval. They highlighted the need for work to be done as the conditions report identified hardening of the top layer and this would need resurfacing or potentially full replacement. Mr Shaw answered questions about the track resurfacing and reorientation and current funding options for the Trust.

Ms Joanna Plows (19123/19121) - Speaking to LTP as well as Waimea Dam, pages 120 WD and 1324 refer.

Ms Plows tabled a supporting document and noted that the state of the environment should be Council’s number one priority. She said that she felt that a highway would encourage more traffic and was concerned with debris left by the forestry industry. Ms Plows said that she would like to see funding allocated for affordable and emergency housing and suggested a warrant of fitness for housing.

Ms Plows said that he was not in support of the Waimea Dam proposal as it was on the earthquake fault line and because of the silting behind the dam.

Attachments

1 A1965808 - Joanna Plows (19123/19121) tabled document

Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 3.09p.m.

Susan Jenkins (18843) – Abbeyfield NZ Inc, page 595 refer.

Ms Jenkins spoke on behalf of Abbeyfield NZ Inc and the great work being done around sustainable growth and the ageing population. Ms Jenkins requested further funding for the ageing populating, in particular for land, potentially reallocating existing sites.

Mr John-Paul Pochin and Will Andrews (18956) - Bicycle Nelson Bays, page 811 refers.

Mr Pochin provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke about the current layout of the CBD, he said he thought it could benefit with more green space. He suggested re-purposing some areas for the community such as existing car-parking spaces and increasing the numbers of people cycling and walking by providing incentives. He noted that a lack of transport options isolated people, particularly the older population.

Attachments

1 A1966136 - John-Paul Pochin and Will Andrews (18956) PowerPoint presentation

Mr Dallas Mathieson (18883) - UAE Advertising Group, page 652 refers.

Mr Mathieson spoke to the submission and tabled supporting information. He proposed creating a new centralised Performing Arts Centre in the old ANZ building with the Council being the primary tenant.

Attachments

1 A1966201 - Dallas Mathieson - UAE Advertising Group (18883) PowerPoint presentation

Ms Laura Irish (18909) - Ghost Light Theatre, page 693 refers.

Ms Irish spoke on behalf of the Ghost Light Theatre and noted that the theatre has been in use for the majority of the days since it opened. She noted they are attracting talent to the region and want to ensure they can be retained. She highlighted the economic and cultural benefits that the theatre provides and requested assistance with funding for their rent. She answered questions around the location of the theatre and accessibility issues.

The meeting was adjourned at 3.06p.m. and reconvened at 3.15p.m. Councillors Lawrey and Fulton were not present.

Ms Penny Molnar (18954), page 786 refers.

Ms Molnar spoke to her submission and highlighted the need for stable housing for families. She noted the need for further emergency housing and requested further funding in order to sustain the current housing. The Mayor clarified an issue regarding funding for the Community Investment Funding Panel.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 3.55p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 4.03p.m.

Ms Amy Shattock & Ms Linda Kelly (19113), page 1257 refers.

Ms Shattock presented a supporting document and noted the importance of Kelly’s Bush and protection and maintenance of biodiversity in Nelson. She said the bush was essential for the re-establishment of the bird life around the Brook Sanctuary and the Grampians. Ms Shattock proposed an agreement between the Council and the owners of Kelly’s Bush.

Attachments

1 A1966204 - Amy Shattock and Linda Kelly (19113) tabled document

Ms Luz Zuniga (19064) - Nelson Multicultural Council Incorporated, page 1151 refers.

Ms Zuniga spoke on behalf of the Nelson Multicultural Council Incorporated and tabled a supporting document. Ms Zuniga discussed unity and diversity in Nelson and noted that a language and communication strategy would assist in breaking down the barriers and enhancing inclusion.

Attachments

1 A1958675 - Luz Zuniga - Nelson Multicultural Council (19064) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 4.11p.m.

Ms Gillian Wratt (19045) - Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust, page 1117 refers.

Ms Wratt provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke on behalf of her submission. She said that she hoped to see the funding available for the Great Taste Trail as soon as possible and would like to see this extend this from the airport around the waterfront.

Attachments

1 A1964843 - Gillian Wratt - Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust (19045) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Acland entered the meeting at 4.22p.m.

Mrs Heather Thomas and Karen Stade (18996) - Nelson Historical Society, page 938 refers.

Mrs Thomas spoke on behalf of the Nelson Historical Society and recommend that the heritage advisory role be extended. The Stoke Legacy trail is a good example of linking history, cycling and family activities. She noted that updating the Heritage Strategy would be useful.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 4.29p.m.

Ms Kindra Douglas (19110) - Community Action, page 1250 refers.

Ms Douglas provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to the submission, discussing affordable homes and options for Nelson city. She noted the need for further research into the dynamics of issues and other funding options.

Attachments

1 A1966157 - Kindra Douglas - Community Action (19110) PowerPoint presentation

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 4.50p.m.

Ms Jane Murray and Mr Stephen Bridgeman (19105) - NMDHB Public Health Service, page 1203 refers.

Ms Murray and Mr Bridgeman spoke to the submission and said they were supportive of the Long Term Plan. Ms Murray said that she would like opportunities to work with the Council at a strategic and operational level, including smoke-free policies for outdoor dining in Nelson. They supported investment for active and public transport and noted the importance of good quality cycle paths and walkways near schools. Mr Bridgeman noted that alcohol related illnesses were a concern would like to see at-risk groups targeted, such as youth.

Attachments

1 A1966206 - Jane Murray and Mr Stephen Bridgeman - NMDHB Public Health Service(19105) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 4.50p.m. until 4.55p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting from 4.53p.m. until 4.57p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 4.59p.m.until 5.02p.m.

Ms Lucinda Blackley-Jimson and Ms Olivia Hall (19048) - Tasman Bays Heritage Trust, page 1125 refers.

Ms Blackley-Jimson and Ms Olivia Hall spoke on behalf of the Tasman Bays Heritage Trust. Ms Blackley-Jimson noted that the research facility at Isel Park in Stoke was at the end of its functional life and requested Council funding towards a new facility.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 5.03p.m.

Mrs Faye Wulff (19049) - Community Art Works, page 1127 refers.

Mrs Wulff spoke to the submission and confirmed that she was happy with the space they were in currently.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 5.11p.m.

Mr Mark Soper & Karl Wulff (19116) - Community Art Works, page 1296 refers.

Mr Soper and Mr Wulff spoke on behalf of Community Art Works. Mr Soper said they would like to build an amphitheatre to encourage performances that are low or no cost for the community.

Mr Ian Paterson and Nic Foster (19060) - Nelson Bays Football Inc, page 1142 refers.

Mr Paterson and Mr Foster provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke on behalf of the Nelson Bays Football Inc. Mr Foster requested better quality pitches, a regional football hub and an all-weather pitch and noted his concern about a lack of maintenance at Neale Park. They answered questions about co-funding with the football community.

Attachments

1 A1964505 - Ian Paterson and Nic Foster (19060) - Nelson Bays Football Inc PowerPoint presentation

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 5.26p.m.until 5.29p.m.

Mr Peter Gibbs (18874) - Nelson Triathlon & Nelson Sea Swimming, page 637 refers.

Mr Gibbs spoke on behalf of the Nelson Triathlon & Nelson Sea Swimming. His club was seeking an access point at Richardson Street to the water for swimmers and the general public along this area. He noted further parking in the area would also be required.

Attendance: Councillor Walker left the meeting at 5.34p.m.

Ms Megan Birss (18655) - Gymnastics Nelson, page 194 refers.

Ms Birss spoke on behalf of Gymnastics Nelson, noting that their heating system was not compliant with Health and Safety requirements.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 5.36p.m. until 5.38p.m.

Ms Helen Reynolds (19044) - Tasman Broadcasting Trust/Fresh FM, page 1112 refers.

Ms Reynolds spoke on behalf of the Tasman Broadcasting Trust/Fresh FM and provided supporting documentation. Ms Reynolds requested funding of $10,000 from Council, noting the educational role of their organisation in the community and that the funding would go towards their operational costs.

Attachments

1 A1966210 - Helen Reynolds (19044) Tasman Broadcasting Trust/Fresh FM tabled document

Mrs Sarah Holmes (18984) - Nelson Tasman Business Trust, page 916 refers.

Mrs Holmes spoke on behalf of the Nelson Tasman Business Trust and provided supporting documentation. She noted that they had access to community funding, however this had been cut recently and they required further funding.

Attachments

1 A1966209 - Sarah Holmes (18984) - Nelson Tasman Business Trust tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 5.44p.m. until 5.46p.m.

Dr Hans Everts (18911) - Nelson Tasman Settlement Forum, page 703 refers.

Dr Everts spoke on behalf of the Nelson Tasman Settlement Forum. He spoke about community partnerships, youth strategies and the importance of including these in the ten year plan and requested a reference to a partnership with the Council.

Ms Sarah Kennedy (17927) - Ngawhatu Pool Users Inc., agenda attachment, page 10 refers.

Ms Kennedy provided supporting documentation and spoke on behalf of the Ngawhatu Pool Users Inc. submission. Ms Kennedy proposed building a new therapeutic pool, ideally located on Salisbury Road Richmond, and sought funding assistance from the Council. She noted that this would provide vital services to the ageing community.

Attachments

1 A1960715 - Sarah Kennedy (17927) - Ngawhatu Pool Users Inc. tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 6.06p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Barker left the meeting at 6.10p.m.

At the conclusion of the afternoon session of the hearing, members asked for clarification/feedback from officers on several points.

The meeting was adjourned at 6.18p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday 9 May 2018.

Minutes of the reconvened meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Wednesday 9 May 2018, commencing at 1.05p.m.

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

Leave of Absence: Councillor Matheson

Apologies: Councillor Fulton for lateness and Her Worship the Mayor for early departure

8 Apologies

Resolved CL/2018/075

That the Council

Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Fulton for lateness and from Councillor Noonan and Her Worship the Mayor R Reese for early departure.

Her Worship the Mayor/Lawrey Carried

Wednesday 9 May – Corporate Services

Mr Tim Dean on behalf Mr Gaire Thompson (19129) - Thompson Property Group, page 1361 refers.

Mr Dean spoke to the submission highlighting key points, including levels of commercial rates, free parking, efficiency, library spending, Civic House and Council staffing, the Waimea Dam, ratepayer funded facilities, debt levels and iwi representation on committees.

Mrs Kate Malcolm (19003), page 959 refers.

Ms Malcolm tabled a supporting document and spoke to her submission highlighting the impacts of climate change and the need for a bolder approach by Council on climate action and answered questions regarding transport choices.

Attachments

1 A1966329 - Kate Malcolm (19003) tabled document

Mr Steve Cross (18802), page 476 refers.

Mr Cross spoke to his submission and highlighted his concerns regarding Council debt and unsustainable budget deficits, emergency event funding provisions, the level of rate increases, grants, the Suter Gallery, Council’s publicity spending, deferred infrastructure, the NRDA, Government regional development funding, water charge increases, the need for a business review, the number of council workshops and smart water meters. Mr Cross answered questions regarding budgets, debt levels and outsourcing expertise.

Mr Luke King (18785) - Glen Café, page 432 refers.

Mr King spoke to the submission highlighting the issues of mental health and crime in the area and the lack of support for men in Nelson. He spoke regarding the need for an external team from the building sector and answered a question regarding support for drug users.

Mr David Rogers (18816), page 519 refers.

Mr Rogers summarised his submission regarding planned growth in the area, raising development fees, infrastructure and the environment, the need for the Southern Link road, rates increases, the need to under promise and over deliver.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 1.52p.m. and Councillor Barker assumed the Chair.

Ms Hilary Clifton and Mr Bill Johnson (18687) - Citizens' Advice Bureau - Nelson Tasman, page 265 refers.

Mr Bill Johnson and Ms Hilary Clifton spoke to the submission highlighting the redevelopment of the Elma Turner Library and the CAB’s desire to be situated within the library. Mr Johnson answered questions regarding timeframes, possible sites, working with similar groups and confidentiality issues. Ms Clifton spoke about partnerships.

Mr Mike Kolff on behalf of Mr Greg Rzesniowiecki (18178), page 71 refers.

Mr Kolff summarised the four recommendations in the submission including a request that Council supports the Local Government (Four Well-beings) Amendment Bill.

Mrs Christine Tuffnell and Mr George Truman (18971) - Nelson Grey Power Association, page 887 refers.

Mrs Tuffnell tabled a photograph and spoke to the submission highlighting key points. Mr Truman also spoke about unclaimed rates rebates, a rock weir in the Maitai River and the promotion of Nelson’s sunshine hours. Mrs Tuffnell and Mr Truman answered questions regarding the GST component of rates, rates rebates schemes and ratepayer numbers.

Attachments

1 A1967380 - Christine Tuffnell and Mr George Truman (18971) - Nelson Grey Power Association tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 2.08p.m. until 2.09p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting from 2.25p.m. until 2.30p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting from 2.26p.m. until 2.28p.m.

Mr Tony Steenhart (18966), page 879 refers.

Mr Steenhart spoke to his submission in support of the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary. He invited Elected Members to visit the Sanctuary and answered a question regarding residents’ access to tracks.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton entered the meeting at 2.31p.m.

Mr Ralph Bradley (19077) - Dark Sky committee - Nelson Science Society, page 1157 refers.

Mr Bradley provided a PowerPoint presentation, spoke to the submission regarding concerns about light pollution and answered a question about dialogue with NZTA on the issue.

Attachments

1 A1962186 - Ralph Bradley (19077) - Dark Sky committee - Nelson Science Society PowerPoint presentation

Ms Jan Marsh on behalf of Mr Clive Richards (19101) - Religious Society of Friends, Quakers, page 1194 refers.

Ms Marsh highlighted points in the submission relating to climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions requesting that Council review progress made and report back and answered a question regarding membership numbers.

Mr Ian Wishart (19126) , page 1344 refers.

Mr Wishart tabled a supporting document and spoke to his submission regarding to solar energy, encouraged Elected Members to read several useful reports and advocated for public commitment to a climate change strategy.

Attachments

1 A1966336 - Ian Wishart (19126) tabled document

Mr Ian Wishart (19125/19124) - Royal Forest & Bird Society – speaking to LTP and WD, pages 123 WD and 1327 refer.

Mr Wishart tabled a supporting document, summarised the submissions and answered questions regarding Activity Management Plans in relation to the LTP.

Attachments

1 A1965858 - Ian Wishart (19125/19124) - Royal Forest and Bird Society tabled document

Mr Peter Olorenshaw (18955) – Convenor NELSUST, page789 refers.

Mr Olorenshaw spoke to the submission highlighting key issues, including the decoupling of the Rocks Road project from the Southern Link Investigation, creation of a new Townhouse zone and comparison of rates income for different zones. Mr Olorenshaw answered questions regarding the Rocks Road walk/cycleway project, congestion reduction, esplanade requirements, concentrated inner city living and awareness of NZTA strategies.

The meeting was adjourned at 3.05p.m. and reconvened at 3.25p.m.

Mr Steve Cross (18967, 31WD) Water Information Network (speaking to WDC)

Mr Cross provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to his submission regarding the Waimea Dam proposal and the modelling used in the Opus report including the demand forecast, incorrect assumptions, levels of water rates, security of water supply, water demand management and scope for improvement. Mr Cross answered questions regarding Nelson’s moral obligation to contribute, cross-boundary cooperation, security of supply, major events, engineering services agreements, water revenue, and employment opportunities.

Attachments

1 A1963649 - Steve Cross (18967, 31WD) Water Information Network PowerPoint presentation

Mr Glen Patchett (19018), page 1018 refers.

Mr Patchett spoke to his submission regarding library development and highlighted key points in the submission relating to the services provided and accessibility. Mr Patchett answered questions relating to accessibility.

Mr Nigel Muir (18078) - Sport Tasman, page 1158 refers

Mr Muir provided a PowerPoint presentation and summarised key points in the submission including community facility investment criteria, engagement with codes, recreation data, participation peaks, motivation shifts. Mr Muir answered questions regarding female and young people satisfaction with the club mode, recreation figures, walkways fit for needs, ageing demographics, social involvement and barriers.

Attachments

1 A1966616 - Nigel Muir (18078) - Sport Tasman PowerPoint presentation

Mr Aaron Adcock, Kohatu Park (18939), page 764 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting from 4.06p.m. until 4.08p.m.

Mr Adcock spoke to the submission advocating for inclusion of and support for Kohatu Park in the LTP. He spoke about participation, the park as a tourism destination for the region, the potential for an industry cluster, alignment with community outcomes in the LTP. Mr Adcock answered a question regarding future funding.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 4.10p.m. until 4.14p.m.

Ms Megan Courtney (18882), page 650 refers.

Ms Courtney provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to her submission on behalf of residents in Bay View Road supporting inclusion of funding for planning and upgrade of reserves in Atawhai in the LTP to allow the Atawhai reserve network to be more strategically connected and promoted. Ms Courtney answered a question regarding the community’s priorities.

Attachments

1 A1965781 - Megan Courtney (18882) PowerPoint presentation

Mr Ash Price (18941) - NZ Central Motorsport & Adventure Park Inc, page 768 refers, did not attend.

Mr Ashley Hilton (18928) - Nelson North Cycleway Collective, page 722 refers.

Mr Hilton tabled supporting information and spoke to the submission. He advocated support for funding for community projects, including Atawhai Share Path extension to Todds Valley, Wakapuaka Sandflats bridges and walkway and investigating a link along the boulder bank to the Glen.

Attachments

1 A18928 - Ashley Hilton (18928) - Nelson North Cycleway Collective tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 4.24p.m. until 4.25p.m.

Mrs Julie Baxendine and Ms Lindsay Filiatia (19006) - Nelson Netball Centre, page 972 refers.

Ms Filiatia highlighted the Netball Centre’s achievements over the last year and summarised the Centre’s submission, she spoke of the need for increased/more powerful flood lighting, increased seating, courts resurfacing, quality netball experiences and working with Council and court quality. Ms Filiatia and Mrs Baxendine answered questions regarding trends in netball numbers, the Sky platform, funding requirements, submitting to TDC’s LTP, numbers for evening training and lack of facilities and the Centre working with Sports Tasman.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 4.26p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 4.30p.m.

Mr Alan Bartlett on behalf of Mr Andrew Stanton (19007) - Nelson Roller Sports Club, page 975 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 4.33p.m.

Mr Bartlett, accompanied by Emily, a young speed skater, spoke to the submission. He highlighted the need for a purpose built closed sports circuit that could be used by cyclers, skaters, runners and walkers. Emily exhibited a medal that she had won and a photograph. Mr Bartlett answered questions regarding the suitability of Trafalgar Park cycleway or the Velodrome and widening of the Velodrome track.

Mr Hudson Dodd and Mr Derek Shaw (19037) - Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust, page 1057 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 4.42p.m. until 4.53p.m.

Mr Shaw acknowledged fellow trustees and supporters and spoke to the submission. He highlighted key issues, activities, developments, pest eradication, storm events, a lift in bird numbers and the increase in species, reintroduction of native species and development as a tourism attraction, its contribution to bio-diversity in Nelson, investment in education, plans for reopening of the Sanctuary, strengthening of the Board and working in partnership with Council. Mr Dodd reiterated appreciation for Council’s support to-date. Mr Dodd answered questions regarding the amount of operational grant required to allow free admission for Nelsonians and progress with the MoU with Council, the Brown Kiwi, overlap with Natureland projects and future increased funding requirements.

Ms Carrie Mozena (18978) - Nelson Tasman Housing Trust, page 908 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 4.58p.m. until 5.00p.m.

Ms Carrie Mozena spoke to the submission highlighting the need for more warm, dry, affordable, social housing, the review of Council’s community housing policy, the extension of rates remissions and waiving of development contributions to community and social housing providers and Council’s continued contribution to the Warmer Healthier Homes project. Mr Mozena answered a question regarding assisting private developers to build affordable houses.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 5.13p.m.

Mr Ray Caird (19114), page 1291 refers.

Mr Caird provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to his submission regarding support for the extension of the Grampians Reserve into the Brook Valley.

Attachments

1 A1967366 - Ray Caird (19114) PowerPoint presentation

Mr Roger Burton (19112), page 1254 did not attend.

Dr Caroline Wheeler (18919), page 712 refers.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 5.19p.m. until 5.22p.m.

Dr Wheeler spoke to her submission requesting that Council cease its use of glyphosate and highlighted concerns regarding increasing toxicity. Dr Wheeler answered a question regarding long-term use of glyphosate and detoxification.

Mrs Clare Scott (18855), page 613 refers.

Mrs Scott provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to her submission regarding smart innovative transport solution planning and the removal of highways as a suggestion for reducing congestion. Ms Scott answered questions regarding bus routes and frequency in Palmerston North and the Dutch cycling/roading model.

Attachments

1 A1964511 - Clare Scott (18855) tabled document

Attendance: Councillor Walker left the meeting from 5.26p.m. until 5.28p.m.

Dr Annika Wagenhoff (19035), page 1052 refers.

Dr Wagenhoff spoke to her submission highlighting concerns regarding a new arterial route and its detrimental effects on the Victory community and supporting a collaborative stakeholder group process. Dr Wagenhoff answered a question regarding scientist concerns regarding the Southern Link.

Attendance – Councillor Lawrey left from 5.39p.m. until 5.40p.m.

Mr Zachary Domike (19040), page 1078 refers.

Mr Domike spoke to his submission regarding the collection of rainwater, second dwellings as of right, difficulty in crossing SH1, the Southern Link Investigation and congestion. Mr Domike answered questions regarding reinstatement of the south-bound lane, increase in traffic numbers using rat-runs.

Mr Richard Brudvik (19136).

Mr Brudvik spoke to his submission, which was attached to the original agenda, encouraging the Council to think bigger and noting that Nelson had an opportunity to make changes. Mr Brudvik highlighted the ageing population, the use of strategic debt, CBD activity, economic development and intellectual capital. Mr Brudvik answered questions regarding thinking bigger or better and concrete actions.

Mr Graeme O'Brien (18485) - Ratepayer, page 137 refers.

Mr O’Brien spoke to his submission highlighting his concerns regarding the use of Council workshops, lack of transparency, the timing of the release of agendas, non-livestreaming of Regional Transport Committee meetings and accountability of Elected Members and Council staff.

Mrs Rose Brady (18969) - Queens Rd Re-roading Runoff Residents' Group, page 883 refers.

Mrs Brady spoke to her submission on behalf of five residents regarding runoff on Queens Road and the problems caused by upgrade work completed on the road several years ago which changed the camber of the road. Mrs Brady asked for help to resolve the slip issue. Mrs Brady answered questions regarding a response by Council drainage staff and the timing of the work that caused the problem.

At the conclusion of the afternoon’s session of the hearing, members asked for clarification/feedback from officers on several points.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 6.16p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date