Agenda of Sports and Recreation Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Sports and Recreation Committee

20 November 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Dahlberg

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 21 August 2018 6 - 9

Document number M3690

Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Sports and Recreation Committee, held on 21 August 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Marsden Valley Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations 10 - 27

Document number R9541

Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Marsden Valley Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations (R9541) and its attachments (A1969247 and A2073288).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms that the practice of culling deer within the Marsden Valley Reserve should continue.

8. Quarterly Report to Sports and Recreation Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 28 - 49

Document number R9775

Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Quarterly Report to Sports and Recreation Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 (R9775) and its attachments (A2077598 and A2079885).

9. Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review 50 - 56

Document number R9818

Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu wharf remaining closed for use by vessels, but retained in the short term for its landscape values only; and

Considers a full wharf refurbishment or replacement in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

10. Marina Governance 57 - 62

Document number R9845

Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Marina Governance (R9845).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms the continuation of the Marina Advisory Group to advise on matters pertaining to the management of Nelson Marina; and

Approves the Marina Advisory Group to work through a process to advise the Sports and Recreation Committee on future Marina management once they are in a more informed position.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Latai Funaki and Jacob Mason will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Sports and Recreation Committee Minutes - 21 August 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Sports and Recreation Committee

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

On Tuesday 21 August 2018, commencing at 9.02a.m.

Present: Councillors T Skinner (Chairperson), M Courtney, B Dahlberg (Deputy Chairperson), K Fulton, B McGurk and S Walker

In Attendance: Councillor Paul Matheson, Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Youth Councillors (C Leaper and S Cronin) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

Leave of Absence: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese on Council business

Apologies : Nil

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

4.1 Tony Fitzwater - The use of Andrews Farm

Mr Fitzwater noted concerns about the changes at Andrews Farm and lack of consultation, in particular regarding the loss of green space in favour of a circle of very tall trees. Mr Fitzwater requested that the circle changes be reversed.

Mr Fitzwater further noted concerns regarding Betsy Eyre Park’s increasing unsuitability as a recreation space, with cars taking up the green space, and close proximity to roads and the stream.

4.2 Murray Cameron and Malcolm Saunders - Champion Green Facilities Committee

Mr Cameron and Mr Saunders presented their memo regarding Champion Green Future Developments (attached A2034613) and emphasised that the Champion Green Facilities Committee would like to be consulted. They requested to share their cost saving ideas with Nelson City Council, in particular for the Champion Road to Saxton Field road link, velodrome parking and other related matters.

Attachments

1 A2034613 - M Cameron and M Saunders, Champion Green Facilities Committee

4.3 James Scoltock and Erica Richards- Vertical Limits Ltd
	Mr Scoltock presented his open letter to Council (attached A2035367). He noted that the current lease for Vertical Limits was expiring and asked for financial support from Council to help build a new centre for indoor rock climbing, or assistance in finding a suitable interim venue. Mr Scoltock noted that a venue with a 15m wall would allow for national and international climbing competitions to be held in Nelson.
	Attachments 1 A2035367 - J Scoltock and E Richards, Vertical Limits

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 3 July 2018

Document number M3597, agenda pages 5 - 11 refer.

Resolved SPO/2018/036

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Sports and Recreation Committee, held on 3 July 2018, as a true and correct record.

Dahlberg/McGurk Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

6.1 Chairperson's report

The Chairperson presented his report and commended volunteers and organisations for their work making events happen in Nelson.

In regards to the Akersten Street boat ramp it was noted that the pontoon had been completed ahead of time and under budget. The Marina Working Party was noted as a successful model.

Resolved SPO/2018/037

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Received the report Chairperson’s Report.

Dahlberg/Barker Carried

7. Adoption of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28

Document number R9157, agenda pages 12 - 18 refer.

Property and Facilities Asset Planner, Paul Harrington and Manager Parks and Facilities, Rosie Bartlett presented the report. A correction to page 13 of the report was noted, i.e. that item 4.2.1 should read ‘funding for mountain biking increased by $190,000’ (correction underlined).

Property Parks and Facilities Asset Manager, Andrew Petheram answered questions about Andrews Farm and Reserve, noting that extensive consultation had been undertaken with community groups and residents and that the changes being implemented were in direct response to the consultation undertaken.

Officers answered questions about the AMP, in particular dog walking; the number and location of rubbish bins along the Maitai esplanade; public toilets in Queens Gardens; fly tipping; and the Tahuna Beach to Great Taste Trail (airport).

Officers were asked to note the following areas to be considered for future iterations of the Asset Management Plan (AMP):

· support for disc golf and archery through suitable sites;

· dog walking as a standalone activity needing emphasis;

· investigate the weed management alternatives to glyphosate as used by other councils;

· the concept of ‘nature strips’ as biodiversity corridors in road reserves;

· collaboration with the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary to increase the number of walking tracks, similar to the collaboration with the Mountain Bike Club;

· adequate seating on walking tracks and in reserves;

· consider levels of service for water fountains, inclusiveness and accessibility for playgrounds;

· review riparian planting numbers as a measure for Esplanade and Foreshore Reserves’ ecological values level of service;

· adequacy of equipment at Saxton Stadium.

Resolved SPO/2018/038

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Adoption of the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (R9157) and its attachment (A2004774).

Courtney/Dahlberg Carried

Recommendation to Council SPO/2018/039

That the Council

Adopts the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A2004774) amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.

McGurk/Courtney Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.03a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Marsden Valley Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations

Sports and Recreation Committee

20 November 2018

REPORT R9541

Marsden Valley Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider options to manage the wild deer population within the Marsden Valley.

2. Summary

2.1 Council staff have received reports that wild deer are roaming in Marsden Valley, and the deer have caused damage to vegetation within Marsden Cemetery and the neighbouring subdivision. There have been several sightings of deer crossing Marsden Valley Road which is hazardous to vehicles, especially at night when vision is impaired.

2.2 Local residents have petitioned Council to protect the deer in the valley, rather than see them culled or removed. As a result of this petition officers were asked to bring a report to the Sports and Recreation Committee.

3. Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Marsden Valley Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations (R9541) and its attachments (A1969247 and A2073288).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms that the practice of culling deer within the Marsden Valley Reserve should continue.

4. Background

4.1 In June 2017, there were reports of a herd of wild deer wandering unrestricted through residential and rural properties for a number of months in Marsden Valley. The issue was raised and investigated with Environmental Inspections Limited (EIL).

4.2 During this investigation it was determined that the deer were wild, rather than escaped farmed animals. At this time the deer attracted the attention of the media and the Police, resulting in poachers frequenting the area and discharging firearms. There was no managed cull at this time as the deer retreated into the back country of the Marsden Valley Reserve.

4.3 Reports of wild deer populations within the Marsden Valley began again at the start of 2018. The residents of Marsden Park, Quail Rise and Tussock Place who live within the Marsden Valley subdivisions, were aware of these reports and as a result petitioned Council to protect the deer in the valley rather than see them culled or removed. A petition (Attachment 1, A1969247) was presented at the 21 June 2018 Council meeting and the following resolution was passed:

Resolved CL/2018/145

That the Council

Receives the Petition in favour of protecting wild deer population in Marsden Valley (R9382) and its attachment (A1969247); and

Requests that a report on the options for the wild deer population in Marsden Valley be presented to a future Sports and Recreation Committee.

4.4 The Marsden Valley Residents also requested Council to erect signage on Marsden Valley Road to warn drivers of potential deer on the road. The installation of signage on Marsden Valley Road is not planned at this time; officers will assess the need following the proposed cull.

5. Discussion

5.1 The relevant legislation that permits Council to manage this issue is the Impounding Act 1955 and Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Last year EIL sought legal advice on effecting the Impounding Act to control the deer. The impounding of stock was not considered possible due to the ‘flighty’ nature of the deer and the extensive area in Marsden Valley where they were roaming.

5.2 The Wild Animal Control Act 1977 s.8 gives the landowner authority to hunt or kill any wild animal on their property. The Wild Animal Control Act 1977 s.8 “provides for the control of wild animals generally, and for their eradication locally where necessary and practicable” and for coordination of commercial and recreational hunters.

5.3 Nelson Nature has recently run a contract for animal control work in the Maitai and Roding water reserves. The control aspects cost around $22k this year, covered around 4700ha and removed 136 goats and 41 deer. In the reserves there is a range of old mature trees. The trees are seeding, but the seedlings/saplings are all being consumed before reaching maturity. Once the old trees die, they will not be replaced and we will have significant local biodiversity losses through the reserves.

5.4 The purpose of the animal control work was to address the damage being caused to vegetation by browsing ungulates (i.e., a hoofed mammal). If the bush is in good condition it can sustain very high numbers of ungulates for a short period of time, until the bush becomes degraded and the food supply is exhausted. Once degraded, the relatively low number of ungulates that persist are able to prevent regeneration and maintain the degraded state in the long term.

5.5 The purpose of the management intervention is to reduce browser density to very low levels, to allow the seedlings of these species to grow out of reach of the browsing deer and goats.

5.6 Not carrying out the proposed cull in the Marsden Valley Reserve could undermine the earlier cull in the Maitai and Roding areas by allowing deer to re-populate.

5.7 Marsden Valley Cemetery has experienced loss of vegetation and the Sexton has reported sightings of deer within the cemetery.

5.8 If Council wishes to eradicate the problem effectively, the property owners adjoining Marsden Valley Reserve and the cemetery would be asked to give approval for culling to occur on their land as well. Attachment 2 (A2073288) is a map showing the location of adjacent properties.

6. Proposed action

6.1 It is proposed that:

6.1.1 Council writes to adjacent rural property owners (i.e. Solitaire Investments Ltd and other surrounding private property owners, as required) and seeks approval for culling to occur on their land.

6.1.2 Council writes to the Marsden Valley residents explaining the process and reasoning.

6.2 There is not a specific budget for this activity. The proposed culling would be covered from within the existing conservation reserve programmed maintenance budget. Quotes for this cull have not yet been obtained.

7. Options

Option 1: Do nothing and allow and deer to roam into Marsden Valley (not recommended)
Advantages	· The Marsden Valley residents are able to retain the aesthetic value of seeing the deer in their neighbourhood.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Vegetation damage will continue to occur. · Identified hazard of deer on the road is not actioned, which has potential to cause injury and vehicle damage. · A high density deer herd in this location cannot be contained and would act as a source population of pest animals into the adjoining area increasing the magnitude of the current issues over time. · The earlier cull in the Maitai and Roding reserves could be undermined.
Option 2: Cull deer on Council land and private property within Marsden Valley (recommended)
Advantages	· Council is recognised as undertaking best practice pest management. · The issue does not increase with new populations. · Public and private property is protected. · Reduced hazard on the roads.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Marsden Valley Residents oppose deer culling. · Culling will need to be managed to ensure health and safety is observed.
Option 3: Cull deer only on council land within Marsden Valley (not recommended)
Advantages	· No property authority required from adjacent property owners.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Marsden Valley Residents oppose deer culling. · Effectiveness of operation will not be met as the deer will likely escape onto the adjoining properties and return. · Culling will need to be managed to ensure health and safety is observed.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Wild deer are roaming within the Marsden Valley Reserve, the Marsden Valley Cemetery and subdivisions within the Marsden Valley. A petition was signed and presented to Council requesting that these deer are not culled. However, officers recommend that the deer be culled in order to prevent damage to vegetation and property, the growth of the herd, and the possibility of deer being the cause of vehicle accidents. The most effective option is to undertake a cull on both Council land and adjacent private properties, with the permission of the owners.

Author: Gary Alsop, Team Leader Facilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1969247 - Petition in Favour of Protecting the Wild Deer Population in Marsden Valley - 14May2018 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2073288 - Property Ownership Map - Marsden Valley ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Deer culling within the Marsden Valley is a cost effective way to protect the environment and improve safety while also avoiding escalation of the problem.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation supports the community outcome of, “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected” and “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”.

3. Risk

The risks associated with accepting this recommendation are considered manageable and consist of pest management consequences and public perspectives relating to animal welfare, and ensuring health and safety during the cull.

There are risks associated with option 1 (do nothing and allow deer to roam in the Marsden Valley) of damage to vegetation, re-population of already culled areas, and risk to drivers and vehicles.

4. Financial impact

The proposed culling would be from within the conservation reserve programmed maintenance budget. An ongoing budget will be sought through the Annual Plan process to continue to control wild animals within parks and reserves.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because pest management is a business as usual activity for Council. The following engagement is proposed: Department of Conservation, the Marsden Valley Residents Association, Tasman District Council Biosecurity Department, the Marsden Valley Trappers Group, local residents.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

This matter was referred to the Sport and Recreation Committee by Council. While this issue covers more than one committee delegation (e.g. the cemetery, which is a Community Services delegation), the largest area of affected land is the Marsden Valley Reserve which is covered under the Sport and Recreation Committee.

The Sport and Recreation Committee has the following delegations to consider this subject.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Parks and Reserves

Powers to Recommend:

· Any other matters within the areas of responsibility noted above.

Item 8: Quarterly Report to Sports and Recreation Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018

Sports and Recreation Committee

20 November 2018

REPORT R9775

Quarterly Report to Sports and Recreation Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform members of the Sports and Recreation Committee of the progress and financial results of the activities under its delegated authority, and to highlight any material variations.

2. Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Quarterly Report to Sports and Recreation Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 (R9775) and its attachments (A2077598 and A2079885).

3. Background

3.1 The financial reporting focuses on the three month performance compared with the year-to-date approved capital and operating budgets.

3.2 Unless otherwise indicated, all measures are against approved operating budget which is the 2018/19 Long Term Plan budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the Committee or Council.

3.3 The contents of this report will be a work in progress, and staff welcome feedback. In the interests of efficiency it is proposed to keep the contents of the quarterly reports standard to all committees and avoid customisation where possible.

4. Key developments for the three months to 30 September 2018

4.1 Stoke Youth Park. The first stage of investigation (analysis) has been completed in draft and the results will be presented to the Sports and Recreation Committee for consideration and adoption (February 2019) followed by community consultation to determine the preferred provision option.

4.2 Reserves land purchase. New reserves are predominantly funded from subdivision financial contributions, not rates. Completion of subdivision construction is dependent on a number of external factors including market demand meaning that the timing of reserve acquisitions can vary over several years. Subdivisions currently in progress and continuing over the next few years include: Montebello, Marsden Valley, Marsden Park, Marsden Valley Homestead, Solitaire Quail Rise, Bishopdale Developments, Tasman Heights, Wakapuaka (Taylors), Exeter Street, Farley Street, Bayview Holdings and Toi Toi.

4.3 Marina Hardstand. Work is proceeding to seal four bays of the hardstand.

4.4 Marina Water Sports Building. Preliminary options and concepts have been confirmed with the sea sports groups. The Indicative Business Case is to be finalised to identify a potential final option for consideration for the Annual Plan. The previous concept was to include the ex ‘Totally Boating’ building as part of the new complex however investigation into its current construction quality has indicated that the building is not suitable and that for a long term solution a purpose built solution is preferable. The cost of the recommended build would be considerably more than originally estimated and as such is shown in Attachment 1 – Project Reports (A2077598) as having a major degree of budget risk.

4.5 Saxton Field Champion Drive road entrance. The tender has been awarded, with the construction start date set for early November.

4.6 Saxton Hockey Turf No.2 renewal. On track to commence work at the end of October. Construction timing has been agreed with the Nelson Hockey Association.

4.7 Saxton Athletics Track renewal. The investigation is to be undertaken in 2018/19 with installation in 2019/20. Project management has been awarded to consultants.

4.8 Rutherford Park playground. Still in the preliminary investigative stage which includes a workshop to gather information and help to inform the brief.

4.9 Dun Mountain Trail renewal. Investigations into remediation options for the Maitai (pipeline) slip below the dam are underway.

4.10 Great Taste Trail-Tahuna Beach to Airport section. The resource consent for the coastal section alongside the Tahuna Beach Holiday Park has been lodged. Investigation into the potential threat from coastal erosion is underway.

4.11 Maitai Mountain Bike Hub. The preliminary investigation and consultation with the Nelson Adventure Park is underway.

4.12 Marina Boat Ramp improvements. This project has been successfully completed.

5. Financial Results

Revenue

5.1 Esplanade & Foreshore Reserve is behind budget by $19k YTD for rent across various properties, and rates and utility recoveries.

5.2 Trafalgar Centre has collected $55k extra in rent revenue than budgeted in Q1. In the first quarter of the year nearly half of the annual budget has been achieved. Extra expenditure has also occurred because of this activity.

5.3 Tahuna Beach Holiday Park is behind budget for rental income. The annual wash-up was invoiced in quarter one as expected, however the Society paid $22k extra rental over the last four months of the 2017/18 financial year in order to decrease the size of the potential wash up. Therefore, rental income for the camp was above budget for the 2017/18 financial year, and unless the extra payments occur again this year, rental income will be behind budget for the year.

5.4 Brook Camp is ahead of budgeted revenue with rentals of sites exceeding budget.

Operating Expenditure

5.5 Horticulture Parks (Public Gardens) is $19k ahead of budget with insurance accounting for $11k of the variance due to an increase in premiums with the addition of bridges, culverts and jetties onto the books following a valuation by Opus. Replacement planting is also ahead of budget, having used the entirety of the annual $18k budget.

5.6 Neighbourhood Parks is $39k behind budget. Staff overheads are $27k behind budget. Budgets for policy work are as yet unspent ($12.5k YTD).

5.7 Conservation Reserves is $38k behind budget, most of which relates to maintenance budgets.

5.8 Esplanade & Foreshore Reserves is $170k ahead of budget. $94k of this is unprogrammed/reactive costs associated with the February 2018 weather event. A further $38k relates to the Modellers Pond.

5.9 Sports Parks is $85k ahead budget with electrical work contributing $48k of this variance and some re-coding of maintenance contracts required to allocate costs to the Golf Course and Saxton Field.

5.10 Trafalgar Centre is $50k ahead of budget for event and venue hire and maintenance costs, which offsets the extra rent received.

5.11 Saxton Oval Pavilion is about to be painted in the second quarter.

5.12 Golf Course shows $29k behind budget in maintenance costs, awaiting a re-code from Sports Parks.

5.13 Saxton Field is $185k behind budget as grant funding to TDC is tied to the completion of the work at Champion Drive. The tender for this work has been awarded with the likelihood that the full budget will be spent this financial year.

5.14 Tahuna Beach Holiday Park has had unbudgeted expenditure for business advisory services as approved by Council, including meetings with the Board, information reviews, audit of financials and assistance with the lease of the Conference Centre. A proportion of this expenditure will be recovered from the Society as provided for by their current lease.

5.15 Brook Camp has incurred unprogrammed and unbudgeted service delivery expenses of $17k YTD for the secondment of Nelmac personnel, along with additional costs for NCC staff. Some additional income assists with these costs.

Capital Expenditure

5.16 All capital projects with a budget greater than $250k in this financial year have a project sheet in Attachment 2 of this report.

5.17 Swimming pool capital expenditure was spent in the first quarter to align with renewal work.

6. Commentary on capital projects

6.1 There are 12 Sports and Recreation projects that are included as part of the quarterly reporting (Attachment 1). These have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2018/19, are multi-year projects with budget over $ 1 million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the committee.

6.2 Project progress is analysed based on three factors; quality, time and budget. From the consideration of these three factors the project is summarised as being on track (green), some issues/risks (yellow), or major issues/risks (red). Projects that are within 5% of their budget are considered to be on track in regards to the budget factor.

6.3 Capital projects are completed at different times throughout the year and the year to date figures don’t necessarily coincide with straight line ‘Actual’ expenditure. Examples include Land Purchases within Neighbourhood Parks and work completed already at Riverside Pool.

7. Project reports – operational

7.1 There is one operational project (Reserve Management Plans) that has been included as part of the quarterly reporting. This project has been selected for quarterly reporting as it makes an important contribution to Council’s work programme.

7.2 This project has been assessed on the same factors – quality, time and budget and noted as being on track, with some issues/risks or with major issues/risks.

7.3 This project update is also included in Attachment 1.

8. Key Performance Measures

As part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP) Council approved levels of service, performance measures and targets for each activity. There are eight performance measures for the Sport and Recreation Committee. The final results for each performance measure will be reported on through the Annual Report. Preliminary results are shown in Attachment 2. A number of performance measures cannot be reported on until the end of the financial year, accordingly the scale to report on the performance measures is as follows:

· On track

· Not on track

· Achieved

· Not achieved

· Not measured

Quarterly Review of Performance Measures

Author: Rosie Bartlett, Manager Parks and Facilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2077598 Project Reports for Sports and Recreation Committee - Quarter 1 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2079885 Quarterly Report for Parks and Active Recreation Performance Measures ⇩

Item 9: Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review

Sports and Recreation Committee

20 November 2018

REPORT R9818

Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the future of the wharf facility at Haulashore Island Manuka Motu.

2. Summary

2.1 Presently the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu wharf is closed for use because it is structurally unsafe and near the end of its life. Council proposed to remove the structure in May 2018 but the work was deferred when community groups indicated that the facility was important.

2.2 Subsequently a variety of options are being presented in this report, ranging from the complete removal of the asset, to a total rebuild. Council needs to make a decision on the future of the wharf, taking into consideration the level of community interest in the wharf and the safety issues present.

2.3 This report recommends that the facility is made safe and retained for its landscape values only, in the short term. Under this proposal the wharf would remain closed to vessels. The long term option of rebuilding or refurbishing the facility can then be considered in the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021–31.

3. Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu wharf remaining closed for use by vessels, but retained in the short term for its landscape values only; and

Considers a full wharf refurbishment or replacement in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

4. Background

4.1 In November 2016, a structural engineer inspection (completed by OPUS), found that the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf was nearing the end of its life and was considered unsafe. The wharf was promptly closed and in 2017 the stairs and landing platform were removed.

4.2 In May 2018, Council contractors were instructed to remove the rest of the wharf on the basis it was a hazard. The work was deferred however when community groups contacted Council and reported that they wished to retain the wharf to access the island. In response Council conducted wider consultation and reassessed its options.

5. Discussion

5.1 Eleven community groups were consulted. Three individual submissions were also received via the LTP 2018-28.

5.2 Based on the feedback, it is apparent that a deep water landing is important for visitors to Haulashore Island Manuka Motu. Of those consulted (83%) wanted a wharf or jetty to provide easy access to the island. The wharf is mostly required for sensitive fibreglass vessels or people with restricted mobility. The feedback also showed that the wharf is valued for its historic character and is considered to be part of the island’s identity.

Additional Findings

5.3 Through the consultation it was also found that:

5.3.1 Small craft such as kayaks, paddle boards and durable vessels (aluminium boats) are able to use the beach for access

5.3.2 The Nelson Ferry service has beach landing capability with a bow gangway and does not require the jetty

5.3.3 The wharf is located in the best possible site with deep water on all tides

5.3.4 The wharf is affected by tidal flows and wave action, which limits the length of time a vessel can berth unattended at the facility

5.3.5 Port Nelson’s records show that this wharf was the first wharf on the island being constructed in 1975. The wharf is in its original form but does not hold heritage status in the Nelson Regional Plan or in the proposed Nelson Plan.

6. Options

6.1 After consulting with the community, officers have assessed the following options which are presented for consideration.

6.2 Remove the wharf completely: Based on the feedback received by users the option to completely remove the asset would not be well supported by the community. It was also likely that a complete removal of the wharf would eliminate future options to refurbish the wharf as an existing asset in the Coastal Marine Area. The estimated cost for this option is $30,000 and is currently budgeted for in 2018/19.

6.3 Retain the wharf as a landscape feature (recommended): There is an option to remove the hazardous elements of the structure and retain the rest of the asset for its landscape values. This would result in a superficial wharf only and would not be able to be used by vessels. The wharf would need monitoring to ensure it remains safe. This option is estimated to cost $15,000 and could be achieved in the 2018/19 budget. This option is recommended because it would retain the remains of the wharf in the short term and leave open future options, outlined below, for Council to consider as part of the LTP 2021–31.

6.4 Replace the most critical components: An option to complete a basic refurbishment of the wharf would resolve the immediate structural issues, especially for critical elements. This work would deliver a functional wharf for users. However the durability (life) of the asset could not be assured, as many components of the structure are at various stages of decay and are exposed to open ocean wave action. This option is estimated to cost $400,000 and is not budgeted for in the LTP.

6.5 Replace with a new facility: A new facility would involve the demolition of the existing structure and the design and build of a new wharf. With new floating pontoon designs available, the facility could be improved which could help overcome the challenges of tidal flows and wave action. It is unlikely a new build would retain all the landscape values of the existing structure, however it would provide a facility fit for purpose. With the wharf situated in the Coastal Marina Area it is likely that a publicly notified resource consent would be required. The preliminary cost of a rebuild is estimated at $1,000,000 and it could take 2-3 years to complete. This option is not currently budgeted for in the LTP. A business case will be completed with more accurate rebuild costs, if it is proposed in the LTP 2021–31.

Option 1: Remove the wharf completely $30,000
Advantages	· The immediate hazard of an unsafe structure would be eliminated · Budget is available
Risks and Disadvantages	· Residents with an appreciation for the wharf’s landscape values and users of the wharf would not support its removal · Its removal would eliminate the long term option of a refurbishment as an existing asset under the Nelson Regional Plan
Option 2: Retain the wharf as a landscape feature only $15,000 (recommended in the short term)
Advantages	· The landscape value of the asset would be retained · Budget is available · Allows time for the reconsideration of a refurbishment option via the 2021-31 Property And Facilities Asset Management Plan
Risks and Disadvantages	· The wharf would not be a functional facility · The structural integrity of the asset would need to be monitored and managed · Any future storm events could compromise the wharf’s structural integrity
Option 3: Replace the most critical components – broad estimate $400,000
Advantages	· Provides an accessible landing for recreational vessels · Protects the landscape values of the wharf
Risks and Disadvantages	· There would be the ongoing costs of maintenance for the remaining components of the asset · The life of asset would be limited (10-20 years) · The existing design is vulnerable to storm damage · Cost estimates are broad - would need further work · Not currently budgeted in the LTP
Option 4: Replace with a new facility – broad estimate $800,000 to $1,000,000
Advantages	· Provides a fit for purpose landing for vessels · New technology could be used to overcome the challenges of tidal currents and wave action
Risks and Disadvantages	· The landscape values of the existing structure may be lost in the rebuild process · It is likely a publicly notified resource consent would be required which may increase the complexity of the project · Cost estimates are broad - would need further work · Not currently budgeted in the LTP

7. Conclusion

7.1 It is recommended that the wharf remain closed for use by vessels but retained as a superficial structure for its landscape values over the short term. A full refurbishment or replacement is proposed to be considered in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Author: Jock Edmondson, Property, Parks and Facilities Asset Planner

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Haulashore Island Manuka Motu wharf is a visitor asset that meets some local needs. This has been confirmed through consultation.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation supports the following community outcome:

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

3. Risk

The wharf is unsafe for visitors and for any boats that may tie up to the structure. It is currently closed with signage and fencing. The recommended option presents a low risk in terms of management.

The interest groups connected to the wharf are anticipating a decision on the future of the wharf by Council.

4. Financial impact

Council has funding within its 2018/19 budgets for Option 1 or 2. Option 3 or 4 would require the allocation of funding through the Long Term Plan 2021–31.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because the wharf is only used by a small number of users and many users can access the island without a wharf. However the proposed removal did draw attention and Council received feedback from eleven community groups. Further consultation can occur during the LTP 2021–31.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

· Delegations

The Sport and Recreation Committee has the following delegations to consider the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu Wharf:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Parks and Reserves

Powers to Decide:

· Approval of tenders or projects (whether capital or operational), which exceed the parameters of officer responsibility, as set out in the Council’s Procurement Policy

· To undertake community engagement other than Special Consultative Procedures for any projects or proposals falling within the areas of responsibility

Item 10: Marina Governance

Sports and Recreation Committee

20 November 2018

REPORT R9845

Marina Governance

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To recommend the continuation of the Marina Advisory Group (MAG) as an interim advisory structure for the management of Nelson Marina.

2. Summary

2.1 The Marina Strategy recommended that management of the Marina be devolved to an appointed management committee with an agreed level of service, development, community service and financial performance targets.

2.2 The MAG has proposed that this matter be deferred until such time as it has had time to settle into its new role and is able to make recommendations to the Committee and Council on a new structure. In the meantime the MAG will continue to advise Council officers and the Sports and Recreation Committee on matters pertaining to the Nelson Marina.

3. Recommendation

That the Sports and Recreation Committee

Receives the report Marina Governance (R9845); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms the continuation of the Marina Advisory Group to advise on matters pertaining to the management of Nelson Marina; and

Approves the Marina Advisory Group to work through a process to advise the Sports and Recreation Committee on future Marina management once they are in a more informed position.

4. Background

Marina Advisory Group

4.1 The Marina Advisory Group, (MAG) appointed by Council in April 2017 to advise on the development of the Marina Strategy, has demonstrated the advantage of building a relationship with those who best know the Marina – the berth holders and related business operators.

Nelson Marina Strategy

4.2 The Council adopted the Nelson Marina Strategy on 14 December 2017.

Resolved CL/2017/555

That the Council

Adopts the Nelson Marina Strategy included in Report R8081 as Attachment 1 (A1860198), with minor amendments.

4.3 The Strategy included the recommendation to:

‘Revise the management structure of the marina to retain asset ownership by Nelson City Council but to devolve management to an appointed management committee with an agreed level of service, development, community service and financial performance targets.’

5. Discussion

Marina Governance

5.1 Since that time the Marina Advisory Group (MAG) has been meeting regularly. Processes are improving and frustrations, particularly over the operation of the hardstand area are being worked through.

5.2 The MAG has proposed that this matter be deferred until such time as it has had time to settle into its new role and is able to make recommendations to the Committee and Council on a new structure. In the meantime the MAG will continue to advise Council officers and the Sports and Recreation Committee on matters pertaining to the Nelson Marina.

5.3 This report recommends deferring moving to another governance and management model at this time, whether it be a trust or marina governance sub-committee. It recognises the importance of continuing the communication between Marina berth holders and Marina related businesses and the Council. It allows further time for the MAG to become accustomed to Marina and Council processes. It enables investigations to be undertaken into a preferred way forward including the establishment of a more formal marina management committee or trust.

Closed account

5.4 The Marina Activity is operated as a closed account with any funds raised, primarily from berth holder and boat ramp fees, reinvested back into the Marina.

Procurement

5.5 Council’s Procurement Policy is in place to ensure the responsible use of public money. This has been the main area of contention with the Marina Advisory Group which was frustrated with the slowness of working through Council procedures. However in order to comply with the Local Government Act and to protect the assets of the Community, meeting the Procurement Policy requirements is unavoidable.

5.6 Employing project managers directly and not through the Infrastructure Capital Projects Team has been considered. This may speed up the process however the Procurement Policy must still be adhered to. The advantage of oversight by the Capital Projects Team ensures that correct procedures are followed and asset information recorded. This is not the preferred course of action.

5.7 Over the last 12 months an external project manager has been allocated to manage Marina projects. This person works through the Manager Capital Projects to ensure safeguards are in place to protect public money and to record any changes in Marina assets. Implementation of improvements to the launching ramp were successfully completed and sealing of the hardstand is about to begin. Involving a representative of the MAG in the preparation of the business cases was valuable both to the project and with regard to communication with boat owners.

Areas of Responsibility

5.8 It is proposed that the MAG’s areas of responsibility would continue to be to advise on all matters relating to the Marina. The Sea Sports clubrooms are not currently within this portfolio and this would continue.

Relationship with the Operations and Maintenance Contractor

5.9 The operations and maintenance contract currently held by Nelmac would continue to be supervised by Parks and Facilities staff. To avoid confusion between the contractor and the client, Council, the MAG will continue to liaise with Council staff and not directly with the contractor. The contract supervisor will continue to arrange and chair meetings with the MAG representatives and the contractor from time to time.

5.10 Changes to the operations and maintenance contract are dealt with via the variation process and if this incurs a budget increase then approval through the Annual Plan process is required.

Long Term Plan

5.11 All Marina development projects are included in the Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan and require approval through the Long Term and Annual Plan processes.

5.12 In future, draft Business Cases for projects to be included in the Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan will be prepared in consultation with the Marina Advisory Group through the Property and Facilities Asset Planner.

5.13 Levels of Service, determined through the Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan, would be included in the Long Term Plan.

Adviser to the Sports and Recreation Committee

5.14 It is proposed that the MAG would continue to act as an adviser to officers and to the Sports and Recreation Committee, and in particular on matters relating to the Council’s Annual and Long Term Plans.

6. Options

6.1 There are two options to consider. Either:

· Continue using the MAG as an interim advisory group on Nelson Marina to the Sports and Recreation Committee; or

· Request the MAG to bring forward recommendations on a proposed marina governance and management structure as a priority

Option 1: Continue using the MAG as an interim advisory group (recommended)
Advantages	· Allows time for the MAG to review the Marina Strategy and prepare advice to the Committee.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Other governance models may potentially deliver better outcomes but these have not as yet been assessed.
Option 2: Request the MAG to bring forward recommendations on a marina governance and management structure as a priority
Advantages	· A long term governance and management structure for the marina may be established earlier.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The MAG hasn’t had time to fully experience the operation of the marina within an advisory structure.

7. Conclusion

7.1 A decision on the future governance and management of the marina will be best served by continuing the current model and allowing the Marina Advisory Group to work through a process to advise the Sports and Recreation Committee once they are in a more informed position.

Author: Andrew Petheram, Property, Parks and Facilities Asset Manager

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Marina Advisory Group will continue to meet the needs of the boating community and related businesses by having direct access to the berth holders and other stakeholders.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Aligns with the Community Outcome of providing access to a range of recreational facilities and activities:

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

‘Nelson has developed high quality sports and recreation facilities for all ages.’

3. Risk

There is low risk in implementing the recommendation. The Marina Advisory Group is likely to continue to focus the development on the needs of an efficient, effective Marina. Compliance with the Marina Strategy should avoid adverse consequences in the areas of service provision, health and safety and the Nelson environment.

4. Financial impact

The Marina is a ‘stand-alone’ facility of the Council and funded as a separate entity. There are no financial consequences from this decision.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Marina is not a strategic asset. This matter is of medium significance because of the financial and recreational value of the Marina to the Community.

Consultation has been undertaken during the preparation of the Nelson Marina Strategy. The MAG has been consulted in the preparation of this report and supports its recommendation.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Sports and Recreation Committee has the following delegations to consider the matter:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Marina

Powers to Recommend:

· Development or review of policies and strategies relating to areas of responsibility.