AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Works and Infrastructure Committee
Thursday 16 August 2018
Commencing at 9.00a.m.
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Councillor Stuart Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Luke Acland, Paul Matheson, Matt Lawrey, Gaile Noonan, Tim Skinner and Mike Rutledge (Deputy Chairperson)
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Order 12.1:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings
· At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.
· Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee
It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda. They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.
Works and Infrastructure
Committee
16 August 2018
1. Apologies
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Public Forum - Ben Bushell - Community Compost Nelson
Document number M3586
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 28 June 2018, as a true and correct record.
Chairperson's Report
6. Chairperson's Report
7. Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 15 - 17
Document number R9056
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (R9056) and its attachment (A1828548).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Adopts the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (A1828548).
8. Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 18 - 26
Document number R9032
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 and its attachments (A1620958 and A2021298).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Adopts the Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1620958), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 including the renewal of existing residential water meters with manual read meters.
9. Paxster Use on Nelson Footpaths 27 - 41
Document number R8928
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Paxster Use on Nelson Footpaths (R8928) and its attachments (A1844004, A1990509 and A1990504).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the use of Paxsters on selective routes for a period of 24 months and works with NZ Post to finalise exclusion zones as shown on Attachment A1990504 of Report R8928.
Public Excluded Business
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Request for Leave of Absence
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person |
11. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Re-admits the public to the meeting.
Note:
· Youth Councillors Reuben Panting and Robbie Anderson will be in attendance at this meeting.
Works and Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 28 June 2018
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 28 June 2018, commencing at 9.05a.m.
Present: Councillor S Walker (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, Councillor P Matheson, M Lawrey, G Noonan, T Skinner and M Rutledge (Deputy Chairperson)
In Attendance: Councillors M Courtney, K Fulton and B McGurk, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Youth Councillors Samantha Cronin and Jacob Mason.
Apology: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese; Councillors L Acland and M Lawrey for lateness
1. Apologies
|
Resolved WI/2018/026 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives and accepts an apology from Her Worship the Mayor Reese and Councillors Lawrey and Acland for lateness. Skinner/Noonan Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was an additional Public Forum speaker, David Stephenson, who the Chair had agreed to include at late notice.
The Chair confirmed that Item 9 on the Agenda: Tahunanui Cycle Network: Preferred Option, would be the first report to be considered to allow the representatives attending to return to work.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
|
Stella Chrysostomou, Church Street Committee, in support of the Church Street Project |
|
|
|
Ms Chrysostomou spoke on behalf of the Church St Committee and tabled a document outlining the areas of concern to Church St businesses. The Church St Committee supported Option 1 in the Church St Upgrade report R9055. However if this option was not approved they requested that assigned funds were held over for a more considered view of the Central Business District, which would include Church St. |
|
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey joined the meeting at 9.21a.m. Attendance: Councillor Acland joined the meeting at 9.23a.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments 1 A1998683 Public Forum Tabled Document Church Street Committee 28Jun2018.pdf |
4.2 Aaryn Barlow, Health Promoter, Nelson Marlborough Health in support of Tahunanui Cycle Network Project.
Mr Barlow spoke in support of the Tahunanui Cycle Network Project and congratulated the Committee on a potentially fantastic community asset. He spoke about initiatives Nelson Marlborough Health and Nelson City Council collaborated on. A recent initiative was bikes in schools, which included Tahunanui school. Nelson Marlborough Health would prefer a separated cycleway connecting the Haven to Tahunanui. Mr Barlow spoke about the aspiration of Nelson/Tasman becoming New Zealand’s cycle friendly city providing an international standard of transport infrastructure.
4.3 David Stephenson in support of Waimea Road improvements.
Mr Stephenson spoke in support of the Waimea Road improvement and referred to the report Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges R9361 on the Agenda. He spoke about living in Bishopdale and witnessing high speed accidents. Mr Stephenson asked the Committee to consider a trial of Option 3c in the report as it would cost less to implement and could be completed quickly in order to test the effectiveness.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 22 May 2018
Document number M3499, agenda pages 8 - 13 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2018/027 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 22 May 2018, as a true and correct record. Rutledge/Matheson Carried |
6. Chairperson's Report
Document number R9417, agenda pages 14 - 17 refer.
The Chair presented his report which provided a list of infrastructure work completed.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions on hybrid cathodic protection.
|
Resolved WI/2018/028 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the Chairperson's Report (R9417). Walker/Lawrey Carried |
7. Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option
Document number R8979, agenda pages 85 - 119 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis advised there were some amendments in the report that were inconsistent with the recommendation. Future options would not be presented to the Regional Transport Committee but would be included in the Activity Management Plans which would inform the Long Term Plan.
Councillor Walker invited members of the Tahunanui Cycle Network Advisory Group to join officers at the table. The group was represented by Chris Allison, John Gilbertson and Barbara Bowen. The Group members spoke in support of the options provided, consultation enabled by forming the group, the impact on children being able to ride to school and the vital role a cycle network would play in future transport infrastructure.
Senior Asset Engineer, Paul Deveraux and Senior Engineering Officer, Andy High presented the report and answered questions on the impact of losing car parks, future works, NZTA funding and next steps to progress the work.
Manager Roading and Utilities, Marg Parfitt, updated the Committee on a suite of travel demand management initiatives that officers were discussing with businesses in Tahuna which included public transport, ride-share, and promotion of walking and cycling.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis confirmed that further work and linkages into the preferred spine (Route 1 – Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road) would be considered in a future Activity Management Plan.
The meeting adjourned from 10.40am until 10.55am.
|
Resolved WI/2018/029 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report R8979 Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option , and its attachments (A1948256, and A1979013); and Approves as the top priority for progression to targeted consultation, detailed design and construction Option 1: Route 1 – Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road as detailed in Report R8979; and Recommends the package of work as identified in Attachment 2 (A1979013 of Report R8979) to be considered in the next review of the 2021-2031 Transport Activity Management Plan and Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031. Rutledge/Matheson Carried unanimously |
8. Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Document number R8965, agenda pages 18 - 75 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2018/030 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (R8965) and its attachments (A1831374, A1987259 and A1987256); and Approves the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) and the draft Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) for the purposes of community consultation subject to an equivalent resolution being passed by the Tasman District Council; and Delegates authority to approve any minor changes to the draft Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) to the Chair (Councillor Kit Maling – Tasman District Council) and Deputy Chair (Councillor Stuart Walker – Nelson City Council) of the Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Working Party. Noonan/Matheson Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council WI/2018/031 That the Council Approves the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) that will allow the Special Consultative Procedure to commence; and
Approves, following the decision by the Tasman District Council’s Engineering Services Committee on 21 June 2018 to add two additional Tasman councillors to the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Working Party to hear and deliberate on submissions to the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, that in addition to Nelson City Councillors Walker, Barker and Lawrey that Nelson City Councillors Matheson and Dahlberg be added to the Working Party; and
Approves that the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Working Party Terms of Reference (A1831374) be amended to reflect the additional Nelson City Councillors of Matheson and Dahlberg as well as the addition of Tasman District Councillors Ogilvie and Wensley. Noonan/Matheson Carried |
9. Recycling - Effect of International Markets
Document number R9280, agenda pages 76 - 84 refer.
Group Manager, Alec Louverdis presented his report and answered questions on Smart Environmental Limited’s storage capacity, the 40% increase in recycling since wheelie bins were provided, alternative markets and promotion of waste minimisation.
Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 11.24a.m. until 11.26a.m.
The Chief Executive noted prices for recycling had dropped in the past and could pick up quickly; the impact of this was long term and would be debated in the next Long Term Plan process. Alternative markets were being researched nationally and internationally.
|
Resolved WI/2018/032 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Recycling - Effect of International Markets (R9280); and Agrees to continue with recycling in Nelson recognising the strong commitment from Nelsonians; and Agrees to accept the costs resulting from the global drop in commodity prices, for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account; and Requests a further follow-up report to a future Works and Infrastructure Committee in early 2019 advising of the longer term future of recycling. Noonan/Lawrey Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council WI/2018/033 That the Council Approves the funding resulting from the global drop in commodity prices for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account. Noonan/Lawrey Carried |
The meeting adjourned from 12.05pm until 12.41pm at which time Councillor Matheson left the meeting.
10. Church Street Upgrade
Document number R9055, agenda pages 120 - 145 refer.
Group Manager Environment, Clare Barton and Team Leader Engineer, David Light presented the report which provided four options for the upgrade of Church St and answered questions on the project rationale, timeline for the city centre activation report and aligning the Church St upgrade with the city centre activation, the opportunity for the Farmers Market to use the site and access from Rutherford Hotel to city centre.
Councillor Rutledge moved the officers recommendation, seconded by Councillor Skinner.
Councillor Acland foreshadowed that if the motion was lost he would move a recommendation that the matter be considered by Council.
The meeting adjourned from 1.15p.m. until 1.25p.m.
The motion was put and a division was called:
|
Resolved WI/2018/034 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Church Street Upgrade (R9055) and its attachments (A1990747, A1977465, A1977517, A1979152 and A1952746); and Confirms the additional costs are significant and unbudgeted and that any upgrade of Church Street should be included in the City Centre Strategy being completed in the 2018/19 year and prioritised accordingly.
Rutledge/Skinner Carried |
11. Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges
Document number R9361, agenda pages 146 - 160 refer.
Manager Roading and Utilities, Marg Parfitt presented her report and answered questions on consultation, impacts on future options for reducing congestion in Waimea Rd and impacts on affected residents.
Councillor Walker moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Rutledge.
Councillor Skinner foreshadowed that if the motion was lost he would move a motion to support Option 3C.
|
Recommendation That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges (R9361) and attachments (A1985032, A1989357, A1985289, A1981206); and Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge in the preferred location depicted on Option 3D (subject to approval by all private landowners to a change in their Right of Way status) as detailed in Report R9361, to allow progression to detailed design and construction; and Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge in location Option 3C (as detailed in Report R9361) should Option 3D be shown to be impractical following consultation. |
|
The motion was put and the vote being equal the motion was lost. |
|
Resolved WI/2018/035 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges (R9361) and attachments (A1985032, A1989357, A1985289, A1981206); and Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge in the preferred location depicted on Option 3C. Skinner/Noonan Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.11pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 7: Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 August 2018 |
REPORT R9056
Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 (AMP).
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (R9056) and its attachment (A1828548). |
Recommendation to Council
|
Adopts the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (A1828548). |
3. Background
3.1 A workshop was held with Councillors (18 May 2017) to review the Draft Solid Waste AMP and on 9 November 2017 Council resolved as follows:
Approves the Draft Solid Waste Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1828548) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28.
3.2 Council adopted the Long Term Plan (LTP) on 21 June 2018 and now needs to consider adopting the Solid Waste AMP.
4. Discussion
4.1 The draft Solid Waste AMP was not affected by any changes to the LTP. Officers note that this AMP is based on the current Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) adopted in 2012.
4.2 The Draft JWMMP is about to go out for consultation and whilst similar to the existing JWMMP, it is possible that the hearing panel could decide that the new JWMMP needs to set specific targets. If that is the case the Solid Waste AMP will be amended so that the implications of the targets set in the new JWMMP are considered and reflected in future Annual and LTP’s.
5. Options
5.1 The Solid Waste AMP supports Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the recommended option is for Council to adopt the Solid Waste AMP.
|
Option 1: Adopt |
|
|
Advantages |
· Supports Council to meet the requirements of the LGA. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Nil |
|
Option 2: Not adopt |
|
|
Advantages |
· Nil |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Not adopting the AMP would leave Council without a clear plan to mitigate risks and achieve levels of service. |
6. Conclusion
6.1 The Solid Waste AMP 2018-28 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted LTP 2018-2028.
Johan Thiart
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: Solid Waste Asset Management Plan (A1828548) (Circulated separately) ⇨
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The Solid Waste AMP sets out how Council will deliver agreed levels of service to the community in the most cost effective way. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Solid Waste AMP supports the delivery of the following Council Community Outcomes: · Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs · Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient |
|
3. Risk Adopting the Solid Waste AMP 2018/28 is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects all of the relevant LTP decisions. Adopting the AMP helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets for operations, maintenance, renewals and capital expenditure. |
|
4. Financial impact The AMP reflects the decisions made by Council on the 21 June 2018 when they adopted the LTP and sets out budgets for both operational and capital expenditure. Funding is both directly from rates and indirectly through borrowing. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because decisions arising from the Solid Waste AMP which were considered to be significant were consulted on through the LTP. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process No consultation with Māori was undertaken with respect to this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation: 6.5.3 Powers to Recommend to Council: Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility. |
Item 8: Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 August 2018 |
REPORT R9032
Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 (AMP) and to confirm the proposal for residential water meter renewals.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028 and its attachments (A1620958 and A2021298). |
Recommendation to Council
|
Adopts the Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1620958), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 including the renewal of existing residential water meters with manual read meters. |
3. Background
3.1 Two workshops were held with Councillors (16 February 2017, 11 July 2017) to review the Draft Utilities Asset Management Plans and on 21 September 2017 Council resolved as follows:
Approves the Draft Utilities Asset Management Plans 2018-28 (Water Supply (A1620958), Wastewater (A1611752), Stormwater and Flood Protection (A1711433)) as the versions to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28.
3.2 Some budget changes were signalled to Council at the workshop on 31 January 2018 as part of the development of the Proposed Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP). The most significant change to the Draft Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (AMP) was to the renewal of residential water meters, reflecting the replacement on a ‘like for like’ basis with manual read water meters as opposed to replacement with automated read meters. Prior to the completion of the business case the draft AMP included a budget of $6.3M for the renewal of water meters with automated read meters. The business case however identified the following:
· Manual read meters will cost $2.4M-$3.2M to purchase and install (the budget allowance in the LTP is $3.27M). There will be no net change to operating budgets.
· Automated read meters will cost up to $6.3M to purchase and install with an increase in operating budgets of approximately $690,000 in the first year lowering to $300,000 in subsequent years, as a result of the following:
· The need to replace and write-off the 2,500 newer manual read meters already in the network;
· The greater depreciable value of the automated meters relative to the manual read meters; and
· Increased interest costs for the purchase and commissioning of automated read meters.
· The additional costs quoted above include the savings that would be achieved by not manually reading the meters.
3.3 Council has also continued with the programme to investigate un-accounted for water losses. This programme is based on investigating the Council water supply network to identify and quantify the various sources of water use that are not metered. This information will allow Council to better account for all water supplied to the city. The programme has the following broad work areas:
· Development of District Metered Areas (DMA’s) that allow the city to be broken down into areas where the supply points can be controlled and metered; and
· Checking all parts of the public network for leaks; and
· Requiring all contractors and others who take water from fire hydrants to use metered connections.
3.4 For the purposes of the project, the city has been divided into 38 DMA’s, of which four are permanent, eight are semi-permanent and 26 are temporary. These DMA’s allow Council to better compare the flows from the water treatment plant with the flows into these smaller areas and then against the individual property meters. This also assists in tracking unauthorised/un-metered connections of which three have been found in the past two years.
3.5 The permanent DMA’s allow Council officers to routinely monitor usage remotely through Council’s electronic SCADA (System Control and Data Acquisition) network and to identify areas of the city with unexpected high usage that might signal leaks or un-metered connections. The semi-permanent DMA’s require some manual valving changes to be made and the temporary DMA’s lack a permanent electronic meter or have many water supply feeds that have to be manually isolated by Council’s maintenance contractor. A number of new electronic flow meters have been installed in the network and others are planned to be installed in the next twelve months to streamline and optimise the DMA’s to allow increased direct monitoring to be established. These can in turn be isolated into smaller areas as issues are identified in specific locations.
3.6 Recently Council has completed a check of the public network across the city to try and identify leaks that contribute to the 2.7M m3 of un-accounted for water each year. The exercise identified a number of leaks that contribute approximately 270,000 m3 of water losses from the network each year. At this point the volume of water leaks identified was relatively minor and it is anticipated that leak detection of individual DMA’s will need to continue on an ongoing basis with prioritisation based on the results of night flow monitoring.
3.7 Work to require contractors to record volumes of water taken from hydrants or un-metered connections is ongoing. While contractors engaged on Council projects are required to supply these details as part of their contracts the response from contractors working on non-Council related projects has not been uniformly successful. Further engagement with contractors is planned.
3.8 It is considered that putting additional focus on these areas will do more to reduce unaccounted for water than would be achieved by installing automated read meters.
3.9 Council also contributes to industry benchmarking of the operation of the water supply activity. The results from the 2015-16 Water NZ report show Nelson City Council in the mid-range of New Zealand Local Authorities for water losses (Refer Attachment 2). The city also compares favourably with a number of other Councils of a similar size.
4. Discussion
4.1 The draft Water Supply AMP adopted by Council on 21 September 2017 has been amended to reflect the LTP as adopted by Council on 21 June 2018 and now requires Council approval as the final version.
Changes made through Long Term Plan deliberations
4.2 The following paragraphs summarise relevant resolutions made at the LTP deliberations meeting that affect budgets within the Water Supply AMP. These changes have been incorporated into the final documents and highlighted for the purposes of transparency (highlights will be removed prior to publishing).
4.2.1 Funding of $350,000 was approved for the extension of the water main from Suffolk Road to Hill Street North in 2019/20.
4.2.2 Funding of $150,000 was approved to increase the capacity of the water line from Ngawhatu to the Suffolk Road connection for the proposed new line to Hill Street North in 2019/20.
Changes made since the Draft Asset Management Plans were prepared
4.3 At the time the Draft AMP was adopted as the version to inform the LTP a number of sections had not been finalised. Since the draft version was adopted updates have been made to many sections but most particularly to the following areas:
· Financial summary
· Risk Management
· Future demand (growth projections)
· Asset management maturity
· Levels of service performance measures
Activity Management Plans 2021-31
4.4 Planning for future Activity Management Plans 2021-31 is underway. To ensure officers have a clear understanding of Council’s expectations and key issues a series of workshops will be arranged with the Works and Infrastructure Committee over the next three years.
5. Options
5.1 The Water Supply AMP supports Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the recommended option is for Council to adopt these plans.
|
Option 1: Adopt |
|
|
Advantages |
· Supports Council to meet requirements of the LGA. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Nil |
|
Option 2: Not Adopt |
|
|
Advantages |
· Nil |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Not adopting the AMP would leave Council without a clear plan to mitigate risks and achieve levels of service. |
6. Conclusion
6.1 The Water Supply AMP 2018-2028 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted LTP 2018-2028.
Author: Phil Ruffell, Senior Asset Engineer - Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1620958) (Circulated separately) ⇨
Attachment 2: Un-accounted for water use. Benchmarking Results (A2021298) ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The Water Supply AMP 2018-28 sets out how Council will deliver agreed levels of service to the community in the most cost effective way. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Water Supply AMP has been developed to support the delivery of the following Council Community Outcomes: · Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs · Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient |
|
3. Risk Adopting the Water Supply AMP 2018-28 is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects all of the relevant LTP decisions. Adopting the AMP helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets for operations, maintenance, renewals and capital expenditure. |
|
4. Financial impact The AMP reflects the decisions made by Council on the 21 June 2018 when they adopted the LTP and sets out budgets for both operational and capital expenditure. Funding is both directly from rates and indirectly through borrowing. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because decisions arising from the Water Supply AMP which were considered to be significant were consulted on through the LTP. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process No consultation with Māori was undertaken with respect to this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation: 1. 6.5.3 Powers to Recommend to Council: · Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility |
Item 9: Paxster Use on Nelson Footpaths
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 16 August 2018 |
REPORT R8928
Paxster Use on Nelson Footpaths
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To reconsider the request from NZ Post to operate new electric delivery vehicles (Paxsters) on footpaths in Nelson in light of the Hamilton based trial.
2. Summary
2.1 NZ Post has sought and received NZTA approval for an exemption under Section 2.13 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule to allow footpath access for Paxsters subject to approval from the relevant Road Controlling Authority (RCA). An illustration and specifications of a Paxster is shown in Attachment 1.
2.2 At the August 2017 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting, NZ Post presented a proposal to introduce Paxsters on the Nelson footpath network. The September 2017 Works and Infrastructure Committee received an officer report on the matter where it was noted that Hamilton City Council (HCC) was undertaking a trial.
2.3 The Works and Infrastructure Committee resolved to defer any decision regarding approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on Nelson City Council (NCC) footpaths until the outcome of the HCC trial was known.
2.4 This report provides information received from Hamilton and Nelson neighbouring road controlling authorities and recommends a way forward.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Paxster Use on Nelson Footpaths (R8928) and its attachments (A1844004, A1990509 and A1990504).
|
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves the use of Paxsters on selective routes for a period of 24 months and works with NZ Post to finalise exclusion zones as shown on Attachment A1990504 of Report R8928. |
4. Background
4.1 Most RCA’s throughout New Zealand have now given approval to NZ Post to use Paxsters following initial trials in Auckland and Lower Hutt in 2014. According to NZ Post, feedback from the trials was almost universally positive. Despite this, there was local concern expressed about the potential of NCC approving the use of Paxsters on their footpaths.
4.2 The main concern from local Accessibility for All Forum (A4A) members was that many people over the age of 65, or people that have accessibility issues, already face significant challenges when leaving their home. Members felt that having even more traffic on footpaths from the likes of Paxsters would pose additional risks to them.
4.3 There had been some national feedback from the accessibility sector that the NZ Post survey methodology limited the opportunity for members of the blind or disabled community from being heard. As a consequence HCC carried out more extensive trials focusing on the impact to members of the public with disability issues. HCC set up a 12 month trial that commenced in July 2017 where a prior count of footpath users was undertaken and then compared with usage figures while Paxsters were in operation.
5. Discussion
5.1 HCC trial results are:
5.1.1 HCC has carried out surveys and has been meeting with NZ Post monthly since Paxster trial operations began. A summary of the first survey conducted 3 months after the trial started is appended as Attachment 2. A second survey was conducted at 12 months and shows very little difference in responses. Surveys collectively show that there have been a low number of complaints, on average 1 or 2 a month involving Paxsters driving on berms or grass.
5.1.2 NZ Post has dealt with between 1-3 incidents a month involving Paxster operation and property damage such as driving into low bollards or collision with utility cable markers or fences. There has been 1 incident on-road involving a Paxster and a vehicle which did not involve any injury.
5.1.3 Hamilton Accessibility groups have regular meetings (similar to the local A4A forum) where feedback about Paxsters is sought. There has been no negative feedback from group members since the trial began, although the vision impaired community continues to express concerns particularly due to the quiet nature of the electric vehicle operation, however there are no reported incidents.
5.1.4 The Hamilton trial included pedestrian counts, noting in particular numbers from the disabled community. These counts have not shown any change in pedestrian numbers that could be attributed to Paxster use on the footpath.
5.2 A draft Approval Document has been provided to Council officers by NZ Post which outlines some key operational issues including guidelines for safe operation of vehicles, exclusion areas, complaints processes, engagement with stakeholders, and amendment and review conditions. Restrictions on where vehicles will be operated within Nelson include the CBD (Central City and Stoke), near schools, childcare centres, rest homes and hospitals during high traffic times. The preliminary NZ Post schedules for exclusion in Nelson are appended as Attachment 3. HCC advise the NZ Post supplied schedules provided a good starting point and, like HCC, NCC officers have the option of adding or deleting any other specific exclusions to the final agreed schedule. For example NCC has some footpaths which are too narrow for safe operation of Paxsters and these would be excluded from any schedule of approval.
6. Options
6.1 There are three options for the Committee to consider as detailed below:
· Option 1: Confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on all Nelson City footpaths; or
· Option 2: Do not give approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on any Nelson City footpaths; or
· Option 3: Confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on selective Nelson City footpaths for a trial period of 24 months. This is the preferred option of officers. Officers also suggest that this be monitored for a period of 24 months.
|
Option 1: Confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on all NCC footpaths |
|
|
Advantages |
· Accommodates NZ Post business/clients’ needs. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Shared use of footpath may be unpopular with existing users. · Potential health and safety risk at certain locations. · Not all NCC footpaths are suitable for Paxster use. |
|
Option 2: Do not give approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on any NCC footpaths |
|
|
Advantages |
· Existing use of footpaths is left uncompromised. · No potential new health & safety implications.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
• Decision will be unpopular with NZ Post |
|
Option 3: Confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on selective NCC footpaths for a period to assess suitability |
|
|
Advantages |
· Accommodates NZ Post business/clients’ needs. · Demonstrated Council has heard and accommodated concerns regarding Paxster use in specific locations. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Shared use of footpath may still be unpopular with some existing users at locations approved. |
7. Conclusion
7.1 In September 2017 there was still an element of the “unknown” on impacts of this roll-out on footpath users.
7.2 Accessibility groups and members of the public had presented their concerns to NCC and Council deferred any approval until the outcome of the HCC based trial in July 2018 was known.
7.3 The HCC trial has shown that there is no demonstrated detrimental effect on the disability sector of Paxster operation on selective footpaths.
7.4 Officers recommend that NCC confirm approval for NZ Post to operate Paxster vehicles on selective NCC footpaths and work with NZ Post to finalise exclusion zones based on local knowledge. Approval would be for a trial period of 24 months.
Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager Roading and Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1844004 - Paxster Specifications ⇩
Attachment 2: A1990509 - Summary of Paxster Survey Results (Hamilton trial).pdf ⇩
Attachment 3: A1990504 - Exclusion Zones for NZ Post Paxsters ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The report recommendation considers current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. |
|
3. Risk The main risks for Council associated with Options 1 and 3 are potential safety concerns of footpath users. Based on the information provided by HCC and NZ Post, including its driver training requirements and vehicle operation guidelines, it is considered that the likelihood of there being an incident on NCC footpaths is extremely low. Risks are further mitigated by identifying and restricting vehicle use on specific footpaths at times of high use. Council may withdraw approval if it is dissatisfied with how NZ Post is operating the vehicles, in particular if there are safety concerns or other significant issues for other footpath users. |
|
4. Financial impact There are unlikely to be any major financial implications from this proposal. Trials on other similar road networks showed no additional wear and tear on footpath assets. Some officer time will be required for monitoring compliance of the NZ Post agreement but this falls within normal operational workloads. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This proposal is considered of low significance. Engagement with stakeholders and media will be undertaken to ensure footpath users and the general public are informed about these vehicles. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for: · Roading network, including associated structures, bridges and retaining walls, walkways, footpaths and road reserve, landscaping and ancillary services and facilities, street lighting and traffic management control · Cycleways and Shared Pathways with an active transport focus The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the powers to recommend: · Any other matters within the areas of responsibility.
|
