Agenda of Works and Infrastructure Committee

Speed Related Crashes Waimea Road

2018- To March

Non-injury

N-logotype-black-wide Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

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 28 September 2018 11 - 19

Document number M3788

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 28 September 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Quarterly Report to Works and Infrastructure Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 20 - 74

Document number R9623

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Quarterly Report to Works and Infrastructure Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 (R9623) and its attachments (A2078013 and A2087315); and

Approves a contribution of up to $150,000 towards the upgrading of the water main in Suffolk Road funded from a projected underspend in the water activity replacement of the Roding Water Supply Resource Consent as part of the Summerset development to future proof the City’s water supply noting that this work will be undertaken by the developer; and

Notes the re-prioritisation of the sewer renewals for the current 2018/19 financial year as detailed in Report 9623 based on the urgent work to rectify sewerage wet weather overflows in the Vanguard Street catchment; and

Notes the re-prioritisation of the water renewals for the current 2018/19 financial year as detailed in Report 9623, based on the urgent work to rectify ongoing water breakages in the Central Business District (Hardy Street) and the opportunity to undertake work in Annesbrook Drive as part of the Tahunanui cycleway project.

8. Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 75 - 78

Document number R9058

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 and its attachment (A1755799).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1755799), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.

9. Recycling - Update on international markets 79 - 87

Document number R9485

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Recycling - Update on international markets (R9485); and

Agrees to continue with recycling for the 2019/20 financial year in Nelson recognising the strong commitment from Nelsonians.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Agrees to consider through the 2019/20 Annual Plan the additional costs resulting from the ongoing low global commodity prices, for the 2019/20 financial year at an estimated cost of between $132,000 and $192,000 funded 50% from the current reserves in the Solid Waste account and 50% through increased landfill charges.

10. Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial 88 - 92

Document number R9692

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial (R9692) and its attachment (A2078208); and

Refers a decision on the ongoing dosing trial at Tahunanui Modellers Pond to the Council meeting of 13 December 2018.

11. Hanging Baskets Activity Review 93 - 99

Document number R9584

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Hanging Baskets Activity Review (R9584).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves foregoing $16,000 budgeted income in the Annual Plan 2019/20 from business contribution towards hanging baskets in order to maximise the number of baskets that are hung within the City; and

Approves that the hanging baskets be funded from the Parking and CBD Enhancement cost centre, street parking meters maintenance account (5510 2010 0415).

12. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent 100 - 143

Document number R9759

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent (R9759) and its attachments (A2086495, A2086498 and A2086501); and

Endorses the changes made to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018/19 (A2086495) to better reflect Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and their environmental aspirations; and

Receives the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit’s Acting General Manager’s advice (A2086498) that there is very good alignment between the Bell Island resource consent and Nelson City Council’s environmental aspirations and that the Bell Island resource consent application should proceed.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Nelson Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018-19 (A2086495) noting that this now better reflects Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and Nelson City Council’s environmental aspirations.

13. Waimea Road - Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 144 - 168

Document number R9765

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Waimea Road - Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw (R9765) and its attachments (A2069574, A2075290, A2069647, and A2079928).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Agrees a bylaw to set a permanent speed limit is the most appropriate way of addressing safety issues on Waimea Road between Market Road and the Beatson Road roundabout; and

Agrees the proposed amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) are the most appropriate form of bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) is not required; and

Adopts the Statement of Proposal (A2069647 of Report 9765) relating to the lowering of the speed limit along Waimea Road from 240m south of Market Road (Market Road) through to 200m north of the Beatson Road roundabout (Beatson Road roundabout); and

Approves commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2069647 of Report R9765), with the consultation period to run from 14 December 2018 to 15 February 2019; and

Approves the consultation plan (A2079928 of Report 9765) and agrees:

(a) the plan includes sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

(b) the plan will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

14. Seafield Terrace remediation - supplementary information 169 - 203

Document number R9760

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Seafield Terrace remediation - supplementary information (R9760) and its attachments (A2088021 and A2086667).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Enhanced “Scaled-up do minimum” option as the preferred remedial solution as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2038309) of report R9621 (A2088021) for Seafield Terrace, noting a preliminary revised estimated capital cost of $1.25 Million with an expected 51% NZTA Funding Assistance Rate; and

Notes that design will commence in the current 2018/19 financial year with request for funding for consents and construction ($1.25 Million) to be made through the 2019/20 Annual Plan; and

Approves unbudgeted expense of $70,000 in the 2018/19 financial year to cover costs incurred to date and to commence detailed design of the preferred option.

Public Excluded Business

15. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Kerry Anderson of DLA Piper and Mark Foley and Tom Shand of Tonkin & Taylor remain after the public has been excluded, for Item #1 of the Public Excluded agenda (Seafield Terrace Remediation: Legal Considerations), as they have knowledge relating to the Seafield Terrace remediation that will assist the meeting.

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	Seafield Terrace Remediation: Legal Considerations Releasing the advice exposes Council to legal risk not outweighed by any public interest in sharing the opinion	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
2	Graham Street and part of Rogers Street - proposed road stopping	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
3	Watermain Upgrading Vanguard Street	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Seafield Terrace Remediation: Legal Considerations

Releasing the advice exposes Council to legal risk not outweighed by any public interest in sharing the opinion

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

Graham Street and part of Rogers Street - proposed road stopping

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

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

Watermain Upgrading Vanguard Street

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Note:

· Youth Councillors will not be in attendance at this meeting due to NCEA examinations. (delete as appropriate)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 28 September 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee

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

On Friday 28 September 2018, commencing at 9.01a.m.

Present: Councillor S Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland, P Matheson, M Lawrey, G Noonan, T Skinner and M Rutledge (Deputy Chairperson)

In Attendance: Councillors I Barker and B McGurk, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Adviser (J Brandt) and Youth Councillors (E Grant and N Rais)

Apology: Councillor Matheson (for lateness)

Apologies

Resolved WI/2018/046

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives and accepts the apology from Councillor Matheson for lateness.

Lawrey/Rutledge Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

4.1 Genie Em - Litter in Nelson City

Ms Em spoke in response to an article in the Nelson Leader “Clean up your Hood”, expressing her concerns at the amount of litter in Nelson and noted possible solutions such as increasing the number of recycling bins in town as well as ‘butt boxes’ for cigarette butts. Ms Em further encouraged Council to help change people’s littering behaviour by raising awareness and appropriate messaging.

Attendance: Her Worship Mayor R Reese joined meeting at 9.13a.m.

4.2 Barry James – Nile Street plane trees

Mr James outlined his concerns regarding the scheduled removal of a number of heritage trees on Nile Street and requested to be involved in decisions regarding the trees. The Chairperson advised that he would ask Council officers to meet Mr James with Councillor Skinner present. Mr James further outlined his vision for Nile Street East as Autumn Glory Avenue.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson joined the meeting at 9.21a.m.

4.3 Phil Osborne – Seafield Terrace Remediation

Mr Osborne advised that the Glen community would like to be more actively involved in the options for remediation. He requested that Council takes a pause, during which officers could engage with residents regarding design and implementation before funds were committed.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 16 August 2018

Document number M3687, agenda pages 9 – 13 refer.

Resolved WI/2018/047

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 16 August 2018, as a true and correct record.

Rutledge/Skinner Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

A brief verbal update on the recent attendance of the Water NZ Conference was presented, during which Councillor Walker commended Nelson City Council’s Engineering Assistant, Sristy Malla for two awards she received at the conference.

7. Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2018 - 28

Document number R9670, agenda pages 14 - 18 refer.

Resolved WI/2018/048

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2018 - 28 (R9670) and its attachments (A1611752 and A1711433).

Noonan/Skinner Carried

Recommendation to Council WI/2018/049

Adopts the Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2018-28 (A1611752 and A1711433), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Noonan/Skinner Carried

8. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Landfills Asset Management Plan

Document number R9496, agenda pages 19 - 22 refer.

Acting General Manager Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Landfills Asset Management Plan (NRLBU), Don Clifford and Senior Asset Engineer – Solid Waste, Johan Thiart answered questions regarding the future site of the landfill, broader environmental issues of waste going to landfill, possible impacts of the emission trading scheme and waste levy changes.

Discussion took place as to what was currently happening with recycling and whether any local materials were contributing to environmental issues in other countries. It was noted that the extra funding agreed at a previous meeting was a temporary measure only and that the matter of recycling would require further consideration in future.

Resolved WI/2018/051

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Landfills Asset Management Plan (R9496) and its attachment (A1998592).

Rutledge/Walker Carried

Resolved WI/2018/052

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Requests that a report be brought to the 15 November 2018 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting, for the purpose of determining the future of recycling in Nelson, as well as to provide information relating to overseas markets.

Rutledge/Walker Carried

Recommendation to Council WI/2018/053

That the Council

Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Landfills Asset Management Plan (A1998592).

Rutledge/Walker Carried

9. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Treasury Policy

Document number R9441, agenda pages 24 - 33 refer.

Accountant, Andrew Bishop confirmed that retrospective approval was being sought.

Resolved WI/2018/054

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Treasury Policy (R9441) and its attachment (A1963932).

Noonan/Rutledge Carried

Recommendation to Council WI/2018/055

That the Council

Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Treasury Policy (A1963932 of Report R9441).

Noonan/Rutledge Carried

10. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018-19

Document number R9503, agenda pages 34 - 60 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis answered questions regarding implications of not having the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) business plan signed off by both Councils, advising that business as usual would continue.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 10.09a.m. to 10.13a.m.

Acting General Manager NRSBU, Don Clifford answered questions about the resource consent application, noting that it was technically on hold, and engagement with iwi continuing. He noted that meetings with iwi had been set up.

Discussion took place regarding the importance of resolving existing business plan issues before further pursuing the resource consent application to discharge into the estuary, as well as the importance of meaningful engagement with iwi.

It was acknowledged that Nelson City Council expected that the resource consent application would reflect the environmental standards of this Council, which had not yet been incorporated into the NRSBU business plan 2018/19.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.21a.m. to 10.58a.m.

An addition to the officer recommendation was included to reflect the previous discussion.

Resolved WI/2018/056

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018-19 (R9503) and its attachments (A1928704 and A1995125); and

Approves feedback be given to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) through the Acting General Manager that further review of the draft NRSBU Business Plan 2018-19 is required so that it better complements Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) and the Council’s environmental aspirations; and

Requests that the Acting General Manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit reports back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on the alignment between the Bell Island resource consent application and Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and the Council’s environmental aspirations, and also provides the Works and Infrastructure Committee with an update on the engagement with iwi in relation to the resource consent application.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

11. Wastewater Network Inflow and Infiltration Issues on Private Property

Document number R9502, agenda pages 61 - 77 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities, Phil Ruffell answered questions about the current investigation under way on private property and properties owned by Council.

An additional recommendation was added by officers to clarify the approval process for the communications content.

Resolved WI/2018/057

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Wastewater Network Inflow and Infiltration Issues on Private Property (R9502) and its attachments (A2047807, A2059113, A2046065, A2021386, A2053953);

Endorses a public communication campaign to highlight the issue to private property owners to commence with urgency; and

Delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Works and Infrastructure Committee to approve the final communications content prior to release; and

Endorses the approach to re-direct obvious private stormwater inflows out of the sewer system and that these “quick-wins” (up to $500) be at the cost of private landowners.

Lawrey/Skinner Carried

12. Saltwater Creek Bridge

Document number R9717, agenda pages 78 - 85 refer.

Senior Engineering Officer, Andy High, Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies and Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt joined the table. Mr Davies noted that there may be additional information available for the Council meeting on 15 November 2018 in regards to possible additional funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency, which would mean that the funding required from Council would be less.

Officers answered questions regarding cladding materials for the bridge, sustainability of the wood used, recyclability of the old bridge, dimensions of the new bridge and clarified that the funding was for the bridge as well as grading, abutments and approaches.

Resolved WI/2018/058

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Saltwater Creek Bridge (R9717) and its attachment A2058621.

Noonan/Rutledge Carried

Recommendation to Council WI/2018/059

That the Council

Approves an additional unbudgeted $300,000 to fund construction of the bridge in the 2018/19 financial year that will allow the award of a tender and enable work to commence this financial year (2018/19).

Noonan/Rutledge Carried

13. Seafield Terrace remediation

Document number R9621, agenda pages 86 - 108 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis noted that in response to the feedback received during public forum, he would like to suggest that the matter be left to lie on the table, to pause the process as requested, and undertake engagement with the community before the next Works and Infrastructure meeting.

Mr Louverdis answered questions about impacts on timing, noting that there would be a delay if further consultation was required.

Item of business to lie on the table

Resolved WI/2018/060

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Leaves the item Seafield Terrace Remediation to lie on the table and not be further discussed at this meeting until further engagement with residents has taken place and the matter be brought back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee.

Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried

14. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

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

Matheson/Rutledge

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 16 August 2018	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 16 August 2018

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.43a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.47a.m.

Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to receive the minutes and leaving an item of business to lie on the table, this business has been recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists.

15. Confirmation of Minutes

15.1 16 August 2018

Document number M3688, agenda pages 3 - 4 refer.

Resolved WI/2018/061

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held with the public excluded on 16 August 2018, as a true and correct record.

Matheson/Rutledge Carried

16. Seafield Terrace Remediation: Legal Considerations

Document number R9709, agenda pages 5 - 6 refer.

Item of business to lie on the table

Resolved WI/2018/062

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Leaves the item Seafield Terrace Remediation: Legal Considerations to lie on the table and not be further discussed at this meeting until further engagement with residents has taken place and the matter be brought back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee.

Rutledge/Noonan Carried

17. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved WI/2018/063

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Skinner/Lawrey Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.47a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Quarterly Report to Works and Infrastructure Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9623

Quarterly Report to Works and Infrastructure Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform the members of the Committee of the financial and non-financial results for the activities under its delegated authority.

1.2 To highlight any material variations.

2. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Quarterly Report to Works and Infrastructure Committee 1 July - 30 September 2018 (R9623) and its attachments (A2078013 and A2087315); and

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 officers welcome feedback from all committees. 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.

3.4 There are 41 projects that fall under the Works and Infrastructure Committee that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. 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.

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

4.1 A new Infrastructure Professional Services panel has been appointed.

4.2 The Capital Projects team have introduced a new delivery model, with the majority of the work being allocated to the new Infrastructure Professional Services panel.

4.3 Stoke Loop Hail and Ride has been reinstated.

4.4 Neale Park sewer pump station reached a significant milestone of cutting in the 750mm diameter pipe junction and valve for connection of the new pump station wet well structure.

4.5 Saxton Field road entrance off Champion Drive tender has been awarded, with a construction start date in early November.

4.6 Road re-surfacing completed at Nayland Road Quarantine Road Roundabout and Parkers Road/Bolt Road Roundabout, with a portion of Halifax Street completed.

4.7 Trafalgar Arch Bridge Hybrid Cathodic Protection has been completed. The protection should extend the life of the bridge at least 50 years. The project was delivered on time and within budget.

4.8 Minor improvements were made to the phasing of the traffic signals at the Waimea Road/Motueka Street Intersection to improve safety for the right turn from Motueka Street East and the straight through lane from Motueka Street West.

5. Financial Results - Operating Revenue and Expenditure

Revenue

5.1 Subsidised Roading income received via NZTA is down on YTD budget by $70,000. YTD expenditure is ahead of budget. The difference is in respect of accrual methodology and will be looked at.

5.2 Parking Regulation revenue associated with court costs and infringement notices is behind budget YTD with costs associated with collection of this revenue correspondingly behind.

5.3 Public Transport’s variance to budget reflects the delay in NCC going to a gross contract in which NCC retains all revenue bears all costs.

5.4 Total Mobility claims to NZTA are ahead of YTD budget.

5.5 Water Supply is ahead of YTD budget by $141k, resulting from metered water charges for both commercial and residential users.

Operating expenditure

5.6 Subsidised Roading is ahead of budget by $226k. Un-programmed maintenance variance of $85k is ongoing work related to the Storm Event of February 2018. Data collection and condition inspection activity is ahead of year to date budget by $100k, and staff overheads are ahead of budget by $39k.

5.7 Parking Regulation is slightly behind budget as the contract expenditure paid to EIL under the new contract is $32k less per annum. Court processing fees are also running behind YTD budget.

5.8 Public Transport is under budget in base expenditure and reflects the delay in going to a gross contract.

5.9 Transfer Station costs are slightly behind budget in staff overheads and depreciation charges (due to recent revaluation and movement of some assets to the landfill)

5.10 Wastewater expenditure is behind YTD budget due to an anticipated underspend from the desludging expenditure at the wastewater treatment plant. This year’s work has been completed, and the remainder of work will be completed next financial year. This programme of work will be completed one year ahead of schedule and with an approximate saving of $1million (refer to project ID 1191 in Attachment 1 for further detail).

5.11 Stormwater is ahead of YTD budget due to higher than expected expenditure on building act compliance work (dams).

5.12 Flood Protection is $68k behind YTD budget of which $35k is related to depreciation (misalignment of some assets with stormwater – to be rectified) and $21k internal interest (fewer projects completed in 17/18 than expected).

Capital expenditure

6. Commentary on capital projects

6.1 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.

Water pipe renewals

6.2 The water pipe renewals programme has through necessity and opportunity required to be re-prioritised for the following reasons:

6.2.1 Necessity - As a result of several ongoing breakages of the water main in Hardy Street (CBD) affecting several businesses, officers undertook to address this issue as a priority. The design for this water main has been completed, and will be tendered shortly. Following consultation with the Hardy Street businesses, construction will commence in April 2019 (refer to project ID 3118 in Attachment 1).

6.2.2 Opportunity – NZTA confirmed a strong desire to complete the construction of the new shared path on Annesbrook Drive this financial year. This portion of the project is part of the Tahunanui Cycle Network and was brought forward by NZTA to take advantage of the $500,000 of Urban Cycle funding. This funding will no longer be available next financial year (refer to Project 3182 in Attachment 1 for further detail). As a result of this change, the renewal of the water main (which is currently located within the proposed shared path) was brought forward by one year, so that it can be completed in conjunction with the new shared path.

6.3 The revised 18/19 water pipe renewal programme is summarised below:

Project [highest to lowest priority]	Original Funding Proposal [2018/19 Final Inflated LTP]	Revised Funding Proposal [2018/19 Forecast]	Variance
3118 Hardy St (Trafalgar - Collingwood)	0	455,000	455,000
2133 Brooklands	416,262	360,000	(56,262)
3186 Annesbrook (Manchester - Marie St)	50,000	730,000	680,000
3117 Kakenga Road	210,000	300,000	90,000
3283 Bolt Road	610,000	610,000	0
3116 Tui Glen Road	600,000	45,000	(555,000)
3100 Church Street	200,000	0	(200,000)
Included to show balancing of the programme
2555 WTP Membranes renewal	3,000,000	2,600,000	(400,000)
Total	5,086,262	5,100,000	13,738

Sewer pipe renewals

6.5 As a result of sewage discharge during high rainfall events in the Vanguard Street area to both private properties and at Victory School, officers undertook to address this issue with urgency. Work is currently underway on site (refer project ID 3294 in Attachment 1).

6.6 The revised 18/19 wastewater pipe renewal programme is summarised below:

Project [highest to lowest priority]	Original Funding Proposal [2018/19 Final Inflated LTP]	Revised Funding Proposal [2018/19 Forecast]	Variance
3126 Bridge Street	50,000	325,000	275,000
3129 Halifax/Halstead Street	200,000	122,000	(78,000)
3113 Achilles Avenue and Whakatu Lane	170,000	230,000	60,000
3115 Bronte Street and Collingwood Street	355,000	100,000	(255,000)
3098 St Vincent street	200,000	60,000	(140,000)
3099 Stansell #52 and Princes Drive 274/278	150,000	50,000	(100,000)
2737 Jenner Road	0	24,000	24,000
1564 Wastewater Pipe Renewal funding account	90,000	0	(90,000)
Included to show balancing of the programme
3294 Vanguard St (Totara - Franklyn)	0	320,000	320,000
Total	1,215,000	1,231,000	16,000

Other

Summerset

6.7 As part of the private developers agreement between Council and Summerset Group Holdings Ltd the developer is required to install a water main from the Council reticulation in Suffolk Road to terminate at the city end of Hill Street North.

6.8 This work also provides an opportunity for Council to fund an increased pipe size for part or the full length of the installation to allow larger volumes of water to be delivered to this area in the future.

6.9 The developer is currently designing the trunk main that will supply the development and tenders are expected to be sought before the end of December 2018 with construction planned for this financial year. It is estimated that the cost to Council to upsize the water main will be in the order of $50,000-$150,000 depending on the extent of the upgrading required. This can be funded within the water activity account from savings in the replacement resource consent for the Roding water supply.

7. Project reports – operational

7.1 There are three operational projects that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. These project have been selected for quarterly reporting as they make an important contribution to Council’s work programme.

7.2 These projects are assessed on the same factors – quality, time and budget and noted as being on track, with some issues/risks or with major issues/risks. These project updates are appended as Attachment 1

8. Other notable achievements or issues

8.1 Capital Projects Engineering Assistant Sristy Malla attended the Water NZ Conference and Expo 2018 and participated in the “Young Water Professionals Workshop” – 2 minute hot topic. Sristy was announced as the winner of the best presentation along with the people’s choice award. Her hot topic was “How to better engage young people in engineering”.

8.2 Staff resourcing is currently the biggest risk/challenge facing the Infrastructure Group to successfully deliver the capital work programme.

8.2.1 Within Capital Projects there are currently seven vacancies

8.2.2 Within Utilities and Transportation there are two vacancies each.

This staff shortage has significantly increased workload across all business units the effects of this will be quantified in the second quarter report. Recruitment is well underway with several positions offered and/or under negotiation. It will however still take substantial time for new staff to embed themselves in their respective Business Units. With a primary focus on quality and budget management, the lack of resources means some project timeframes may slip. Accommodating unexpected priority projects, for example in the water main renewals noted above, has also added pressure to the programme.

8.3 There is a risk of potential time extensions and costs associated with market conditions and contractor availability across all projects that have construction in this financial year.

9. Key Performance Measures

9.1 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 35 performance measures that fall under the Works and Infrastructure Committee. The final results for each performance measure will be reported on through the Annual Report. 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 yet

Quarterly Review of Performance Measures

9.2 Twenty nine of the 35 performance measures were on target as at the end of the first quarter.

9.3 The results of four performance measures are not due until the end of the year.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The review of performance for the first quarter for the Works and Infrastructure Committee is included in this report, with project reports and performance measure updates attached.

Author: Lois Plum, Manager Capital Projects

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2078013 Works and Infrastructure Quarterly Project Reports Quarter One 2018/2019 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2087315 Works and Infrastructure Quarterly KPI Reporting Quarter One 2018/2019 ⇩

Item 8: Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9058

Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 (AMP).

2. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-2028 and its attachment (A1755799).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1755799), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.

3. Background

3.1 Three workshops were held with Councillors (30 March 2017, 29 June 2017 and 13 October 2017) to review the Draft Transport Asset Management Plan and on 9 November 2017 Council resolved as follows:

Approves the Draft Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1755799), as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and the Mid Term Review of the Regional land Transport Plan 2015-2021.

4. Discussion

4.1 The draft Transport AMP 2018-28 adopted by Council on 9 November 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 decisions made at the LTP deliberations meeting that affect budgets within the Transport 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 The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) work programme and budget as approved by the Regional Transport Committee on 11 May 2018 has been included.

4.2.2 Saxton Growth Area. $15.6 million capital expenditure and $450,000 operational expenditure has been included 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.

4.2.3 Champion Road roundabout - $150,000 has been brought forward for the Champion Road roundabout from 2021/22 to 2019/20 to align with Tasman District Council funding, subject to a satisfactory transport outcome.

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 Transport 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 the Transport AMP
Advantages	· Supports Council to meet requirements of the LGA.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not adopt the Transport AMP
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 Transport AMP 2018-2028 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted LTP 2018-2028.

Author: Paul D'Evereux, Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1755799 - Transport AMP 2018-2028 (Circulated separately) ⇨

eee

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Transport 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 Transport 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” and “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”

3. Risk

Adopting the Transport 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 Transport 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 in writing this report.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation:

6.5.1. Areas of Responsibility:

· Roading network

6.5.3 Powers to Recommend to Council:

· Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility

Item 9: Recycling - Update on international markets

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9485

Recycling - Update on international markets

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide the Committee with an update on recycling and the international commodity markets.

1.2 To provide the Committee with information as to what happens with recycling from Nelson when it reaches overseas markets.

1.3 To agree a way forward with respect to how recycling is progressed for the 2019/20 financial year.

2. Summary

2.1 In June 2018, the Committee was advised that China (New Zealand’s largest off-shore market for recycling) through their National Sword initiative had caused a sudden and steep drop in commodity prices notably for PET Mixed plastics and fibre.

2.2 This drop in prices resulted in Nelmac seeking relief as allowed for under the contract and Council approving funding for 2018/19 at an estimated cost of up to $94,500 funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account (reserves).

2.3 Industry commentary suggests that commodity prices for fibre may experience a modest lift, but will still overall be very low and for PET Mixed plastics that prices are set to worsen. If commodity prices remain low for 2019/20, the additional cost to Council could be up to $192,000.

2.4 Commodity prices for aluminium and steel are marginally on the rise and prices for HDPE and PET Clear remain stable.

3. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Recycling - Update on international markets (R9485); and

Agrees to continue with recycling for the 2019/20 financial year in Nelson recognising the strong commitment from Nelsonians.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

4. Background

4.1 This Committee resolved on 28 June 2018 as below:

Resolved WI/2018/032

“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”.

4.2 In addition this Committee resolved on 28 September 2018 as follows:

Resolved WI/2018/050

“Requests that a report be brought to the 15 November 2018 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting for the purpose of determining the future of recycling in Nelson as well as to provide information relating to overseas markets”.

4.3 In order to advise councillors on the future of recycling leading up to the 2019/20 Annual Plan it is prudent to combine these two reports into one and present that back to the November Committee meeting.

5. Discussion

Commodity prices

5.1 The drop in commodity prices (between September 2017 and April 2018) reported to the committee in June 2018 is summarised below:

5.1.1 Fibre - $122/tonne to $8/tonne

5.1.2 PET Mixed plastics - $31/tonne to $0/tonne

5.2 The contract with Nelmac provides that if the price for a commodity drops by 70% for a period of 12 months or more the financial responsibility falls on Council.

5.3 These drops in commodity prices triggered the 70% contractual threshold for fibre and PET Mixed plastics and the request from Nelmac to seek relief. This request from Nelmac led to Council approving funding for the current financial year (2018/19) of between $88,500 and $94,500 – being fibre for six months (from Jan 2019) and PET Mixed plastics for two months (from April 2019). This is to be covered by reserves in the Solid Waste Activity ($570,000 as at 30 June 2017). Nelmac advise that since the drop in commodity prices in September 2017 they have incurred losses in excess of $100,000.

5.4 The commodity prices for these two items have recovered somewhat as detailed below:

5.4.1 Fibre - to $15/tonne for August 2018 after hitting a low of $4.50/tonne for June and July (still an overall drop of 87%).

5.4.2 PET Mixed plastics – to $10/tonne (just above the trigger point of $9/tonne).

5.5 The commodity prices continue to fluctuate, but at the current price of $15/tonne for fibre, the cost to Council for 2018/19 would be around $83,000 and at $10/tonne for PET Mixed would be $300. However if prices fall to those experienced in April 2018, the cost to Council would remain at those indicated in the previous report to this Committee.

Recycling 2019/20

5.6 It is extremely difficult to predict international recycling commodity prices going forward, but industry commentary suggests that commodity prices for fibre may experience a modest lift, but will still overall be very low and that prices for PET Mixed plastics are set to worsen.

5.7 If recycling prices remain low (and past the 70% threshold), the potential cost to Council, should Council agree to continue with recycling, for 12 months (at an average 129 tonnes/month for fibre and 7 tonnes/month for PET Mixed) would be as follows:

Commodity	70% threshold	Worst case
Fibre	@ $37/t	@ $0/t
	$132,000	$189,000
PET Mixed	@ $9/t	@ $0/t
	$ 2,000	$ 2,600
TOTAL	$134,000	$191,600

5.8 The cost to take these recyclables to landfill for 12 months at an average cost of $122.61/tonne (excluding GST) would be as below and would be more expensive (albeit marginally) than continuing to recycle.

Commodity	Volume/month (average)	Total
Fibre	129 tonne	$190,000
PET Mixed	7 tonne	$ 10,500
TOTAL		$200,500

5.9 Council currently has reserves in the Solid Waste Activity amounting to $695,000, as at 30 June 2018 (up from $570,000 as at June 2017). Council has already agreed to cover costs for the current 2018/19 financial year of up to $94,500.

Overseas markets

5.10 It was reported back in June 2018 that Smart Environmental Limited (SEL) were seeking alternative markets including the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and India. The market for Nelson recycling is currently Malaysia.

5.11 The committee was concerned about reports in the media that thousands of tonnes of plastic that NZ sends to overseas markets (notably Malaysia) is being burnt by illegal factories who then dump the waste they cannot process, polluting rivers.

5.12 It is difficult to accurately ascertain (short of visiting these overseas markets) exactly what happens to Nelson’s recycling. Nelson is a very small player with very small volumes. Officers have made enquiries of SEL through Nelmac as to what happens to Nelson’s recycling once it arrives off-shore. SEL advise that they sell product to Visy International (a global recycling company) who arrange overseas markets. SEL are unable to advise exactly what happens to Nelson’s recycling.

5.13 It was also reported by media that representatives from Wellington City Council (WCC) flew to Malaysia to ascertain if their plastics were been recycled appropriately. Feedback, as below, from the WCC officer was reassuring:

5.13.1 Plastic was being appropriately processed into “plastic pellets” and on sold to China for reuse in manufacturing;

5.13.2 Environmental controls were in place, noting that anything that was burnt was processed so no polluting smoke was emitted and that factories had water reuse and treatment plants in place;

5.13.3 Workers welfare was seen to be satisfactory with many factories having on site accommodation with good levels of amenities. There was no evidence of children working on site.

6. Options

6.1 Council has four options as detailed below.

6.1.1 Option 1 – Stop recycling and divert to landfill.

6.1.2 Option 2 - Continue to recycle with Council accepting costs for 2019/20 for 12 months for fibre and for PET Mixed funded from reserves from the Solid Waste account.

6.1.3 Option 3 - Continue to recycle with Council accepting additional costs from drop in commodity prices funded equally (50/50) from reserves and from an increase in landfill fees for 2019/20. Officers support this option. If the additional costs were to be covered from landfill fees and the balance from reserves for 2019/20, the impact on reserves (across the range of costs) is assessed as below.

	Low	High
Reserves as at 30 June 2018	$695,000	$695,000
Less 2018/19 recycling funding from drop in commodity price (June 2018 Committee decision)	$ 88,500	$ 94,500
Less 50% 2019/20 recycling fees from drop in commodity price	$ 67,500	$ 96,000
Projected reserve balance as at 30 June 2020	$539,000	$504,500

If commodity prices remain low for 2020/21 and Council decided to continue with recycling then officers support the entire shortfall be covered 100% through an increase in landfill costs.

6.1.4 Option 4 – Continue to recycle and take to landfill until commodity prices stabilise/improve funded from either reserves or increase in landfill fees.

Option 1: Stop recycling and divert to landfill
Advantages	· Saving of around $1M in recycling contract with Nelmac.
Risks and Disadvantages	· High reputational risk · Undermines excellent Nelson recycling ethos · Costs to divert to landfill · Dividend from Nelmac would potentially decrease as Nelmac have incurred losses in excess of $100,000/year since the drop in commodity prices · Potential contractual payment to Nelmac who purchased new recycling collection trucks to service new collection methodology · Sunk cost of new recycling bins around $1M would be lost
Option 2: Continue to recycle with Council accepting costs for 2019/20 funded from reserves
Advantages	· Low reputational risk · Can be covered from reserves from the Solid Waste account · Recycling momentum maintained · No cost to ratepayer
Risks and Disadvantages	· Lowers solid waste reserves
Option 3: Continue to recycle with additional cost covered by reserves and from an increase in landfill fees
Advantages	· Low reputational risk · Recycling momentum maintained
Risks and Disadvantages	· Landfill fees would increase · Potential dissatisfaction from commercial operators who would be paying the increased rate and would be passing additional costs to their customers through increased bin/bag costs · Ratepayer dissatisfaction for higher bin/bag costs.
Option 4: Continue to recycle but take to landfill and fund from either reserves and/or increase in landfill fees and charges
Advantages	· Potentially no cost to the ratepayer unless landfill fees increase and the cost of bin/bag would then potentially pass on to the ratepayer.
Risks and Disadvantages	· High reputational risk · Undermines recycling ethos · Lowers solid waste reserves · Potential dissatisfaction from commercial operators who would be paying the increased landfill charges and would be passing additional costs to their customers through increased bin/bag costs

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council needs to make a decision as to how it wishes to proceed with recycling for 2019/20 and officers have provided options. Officers support Council accepting the drop in commodity price and continuing to recycle on the basis that the impact is less than diverting recycling to landfill – and that this be funded through a combination of an increase in landfill fees phased in over two years with the balance funded from the reserves in the Solid Waste account.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Recycling is a key Government initiative to address sustainability in a cost effective manner for households and businesses.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Recycling contributes to the following community outcomes - “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”; “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected”; “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our Council provides leadership and a regional perspective”.

3. Risk

How Council deals with the current situation is critical to the perceptions of the general public on the back of the excellent work the community has done to embrace and increase recycling. The risk of reputational risk to Council if recycling is discontinued or if recycling is collected but taken to landfill is very high.

4. Financial impact

The long-term financial impact to Council is potentially high should commodity prices remain low. Whilst this could be offset by the reserves in the Solid Waste Activity for the 2019/20 year the other option is to share the increase and progressively cover the costs by increasing landfill fees and charges.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance. Council will however need to clearly communicate their decision to their ratepayers.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on with respect to this report.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider recycling:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Solid Waste, including landfill and transfer stations

· Recycling and waste minimisation

Powers to Decide:

· Approval of specified business cases or projects referred by Council to the committee, and also included in the Annual Plan

Powers to Recommend:

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

Item 10: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9692

Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To refer authority to Council to consider the future of the dosing trial at the Tahunanui Modellers Pond (Pond).

2. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial (R9692) and its attachment (A2078208); and

Refers a decision on the ongoing dosing trial at Tahunanui Modellers Pond to the Council meeting of 13 December 2018.

3. Background

3.1 Following granting of the resource consent to trial Diatomix at the pond, installation of all equipment (pond circulation and dosing pump) and base testing, the trial commenced on 20 August 2018. The aim of the trial is to improve the water quality and amenity of the pond by reducing algae growth.

3.2 The consent provides for an 18 month trial, with progress being assessed after three months (hold point) and a decision made to either continue or not continue with the trial after this point.

3.3 This trial involves dosing the pond with a Diatomix (which are single celled algae of a variety of species) with the objective of encouraging diatom growth thereby limiting nutrients available for the growth of filamentous algae (which forms long strands/mats) and aquatic weeds.

4. Discussion

4.1 There is only sufficient budget to operate the trial for three months, ending 20 November 2018. Officers are not able to adequately assess the data and report on the outcome of the three month trial to this Committee as the completion of the trial is after the 15 November. As the next Committee meeting is on the 14 February 2019, officers are recommending that any decision to continue or not continue with the trial past the three months be referred to full Council on the 13 December 2018. Continuing the trial will require approval of additional funding, which is a Council decision.

4.2 The Chief Executive provided an update to all councillors on 27 September 2018 and that is appended as Attachment 1 for information.

5. Options

5.1 In order to provide meaningful information on the success of the trial to date and potentially continue past the three month hold point, officers recommend that this Committee refers the decision to the Council meeting of 13 December 2018. There are two options open to the Committee.

5.1.1 Option 1 - Retain at this Committee before making a recommendation to Council; or

5.1.2 Option 2 – Refer a decision to Council.

Option 1: Retain at this Committee
Advantages	· Committee retains full overview.
Risks and Disadvantages	· No funding exists past three months to progress with the trial. · The next W&I Committee meeting is the 14 February 2019.
Option 2: Refer a decision on the ongoing dosing trial at Tahunanui Modellers Pond to the Council meeting of 13 December 2018
Advantages	· A formal decision to proceed with the project within an appropriate timeframe. · More time to assess information and prepare a report.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Only minor costs will be incurred past the three month hold point

6. Conclusion

6.1 A trial commenced at the pond on 20 August 2018 to improve the water quality and amenity of the pond. This trial is planned to run for up to 18 months with a hold point at three months.

6.2 There is only sufficient budget to operate the trial for three months and insufficient time for officers to report on the outcome of the trial to this Committee. Officers recommend referring this matter to Council for a decision.

Author: David Light, Manager Utilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2078208 - Email from CE to Councillors ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The decision required by this report involves Council balancing affordability with the need for good quality local infrastructure and deciding what is the most cost effective approach.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Our Community Outcomes state - “Our communities should have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities”.

3. Risk

There is currently an expectation that the trial will resolve the ongoing problems of water quality in the pond. There is insufficient time to undertake an analysis of the three month trial and report this back to this Committee in a timely fashion to allow the trial to continue. The risk of not delegating this to Council will also mean that insufficient funding exists to continue past three months.

4. Financial impact

Sufficient funding only exists for a three month trial and any decision to continue past this hold point will attract additional cost and will need Council approval.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. A working party has been established, and this includes representatives from the Modellers Society and Tahunanui Business Association.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7. Delegations

The Works & Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider the Tahunanui Modellers Pond trial additional funding:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Stormwater and Flood Protection

Powers to Decide:

· Nil

Powers to Recommend:

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

Council has powers to approve additional funding.

Item 11: Hanging Baskets Activity Review

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9584

Hanging Baskets Activity Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the hanging basket work program and decide on the revenue model.

2. Summary

2.1 The hanging basket work program is funded by contributions from businesses and funding from the inner city enhancement account (rates, parking fees and penalties). A request from a business for a contribution waiver has initiated a review of the funding model for this service. The advantage of removing the subsidy is that internal costs associated with the activity would be reduced and there would be a greater certainty as to the number and location of the baskets. However, if the user-pays element is removed, then Council would forgo approximately $16,000 p.a. budgeted from contributions from business owners.

3. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Hanging Baskets Activity Review (R9584).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves that the hanging baskets be funded from the Parking and CBD Enhancement cost centre, street parking meters maintenance account (5510 2010 0415).

4. Background

4.1 The hanging baskets display was initiated in the summer of 2000 by the late Alan Drummond in conjunction with local businesses with an aim to create a sense of civic pride in the city. The flower baskets are hung on verandas of businesses in the Central Business District, on lamp posts, and Council buildings. The display period is from the first week in December prior to the Christmas parade and extends through summer until after Anzac Day.

4.2 Council receives significant positive feedback from the public and tourists regarding the basket displays, and the positive environment that they create. Businesses have supported the display by allowing the baskets to be hung on their verandas, contributing towards the cost of the flower basket displays and by providing the water supply. Council has installed and maintains an automated irrigation system to ensure longevity of the flower display.

4.3 The preparation and maintenance of the baskets is undertaken by NELMAC under contract. The planting of the displays are often undertaken by volunteer groups. NELMAC hang the baskets, maintain and monitor the condition of the baskets throughout the season, and replace baskets where necessary.

4.4 Council officers manage the administration which includes writing to the business owners, inviting them to participate in the programme, invoicing them for a percent of the cost, and issuing instructions to the contractor. Businesses are charged $40 per basket, however the actual cost to create a new basket is $47.50. The total cost of the basket over the season is $159.95 including installation, the irrigation system and maintenance.

4.5 The Finance Business Unit has estimated the cost of processing each invoice and collecting the debt at $50.00. With 137 invoices this amounts to an administration overhead of $6,850.

4.6 The Upper Trafalgar Street closure in 2017/18 prompted a restaurant owner in Hardy Street to write to Council requesting a waiver of the hanging basket fee, as they believed their business had been negatively affected by the street closure.

5. Funding for Baskets from 2013 - 2018

Years	Revenue from CBD businesses	Funding from Parking fees/penalties and general rates	Total Expenditure	Total baskets on display
2013/14	$15,400	$64,225	$79,625	492
2014/15	$15,600	$69,105	$84,705	488
2015/16	$14,560	$71,691	$86,251	476
2016/17	$11,560	$69,441	$81,001	476
2017/18	$15,974	$87,991	$103,965	568

5.1 In the 2017/18 year 568 baskets were displayed in the CBD, with 422 installed outside businesses and 146 on council buildings and properties.

5.2 There are 654 potential sites for hanging baskets within the CBD. 499 on business buildings and 146 on Council owned facilities.

6. Discussion

6.1 National and international commercial chains are often less interested in responding to the requests to support this activity. This reflects that many businesses in the CBD have their head offices out of town, and the local staff have no discretion for this type of expenditure.

6.2 Notwithstanding this, a request from the Mayor to increase the numbers of baskets displayed in the CBD in the 2017/18 season was quite successful. The number of baskets has increased by 92 from 2016/17.

6.3 To achieve the increase officers undertook a survey of CBD businesses through the Nelson Regional Development Agency, to determine the level of interest in the activity. However, this produced minimal response. Then in October 2017 staff approached each business with a shop front in the CBD and spoke to the staff explaining the process of requesting a hanging basket. This was then followed up with a letter and this generated a more favourable response. It is estimated this effort represented $4,000 of staff time.

6.4 However officers are concerned that unless intensive door-to-door promotion of the service and follow-ups are undertaken, the increase in the number of baskets ordered last year will not be maintained. The value of spending in the order of $10,850 from both the Finance and Parks Business Units staff time to recover up to $16,000 is questionable. Knowing the exact number of baskets that can be hang each year rather than waiting for businesses to opt in will help with planning.

Proposal

6.5 The principle options are to continue with the status quo (partial ‘user pays’ model) or for Council to fund the activity. The main considerations are as follows:

6.5.1 Status quo. This would continue the current model of businesses paying a fee. The advantage is that Council will receive approximately $16,000 in revenue to help partially recover costs, and businesses would be involved in the CBD’s beautification. With the cost of basket construction at $47.50 it is proposed to increase the cost to retailers from $40.00 to $47.50 per basket. The disadvantage is that administration overheads to support this activity are high and it has been difficult to build and maintain support amongst businesses.

6.5.2 Completely funded within the Parking and CBD Enhancement Account. This is the preferred model for the future. This will allow a greater influence over the number of baskets in the CBD rather than relying on business owners to opt into the activity. If the proposal was approved, there would be a $16,000 p.a. loss of budgeted income in FY 2019/20. Offsetting this loss of income would be administration cost savings of $6,850 for invoicing, as well as approximately $4,000 in additional staff time to visit each business, and undertake the follow-up administration work arising from the direct contact with business owners. The officer time is within existing budgets, so this change would not generate a cash saving, but would enable staff to work on other projects. The extra $16,000 cash required would be offset through expected savings realised in the 2019/20 street parking meters maintenance account as the machines are replaced (planned in 2019/20). The provision of additional baskets is within the existing work program as 654 baskets are constructed each year for replacement and reserves; therefore the additional baskets will not increase costs.

7. Options

Option 1: Status quo – Request approval and contribution from businesses for a hanging basket displayed on shop front (not recommended)
Advantages	· The activity is subsidised by businesses with direct shop frontage · Encourages buy in and shared responsibility for the success of the programme · No change to budgets as income remains
Risks and Disadvantages	· Difficult to maximise the number of baskets displayed in the CBD · Administration costs are in excess of half the funds collected · Fees to businesses would increase
Option 2: Fully rate fund Hanging Basket activity (recommended)
Advantages	· A permanent increase in the number of baskets displayed within CBD · By controlling the distribution of hanging baskets an equal level of service for all businesses would be provided whereas the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street is perceived to be providing a higher level of service for those businesses within the street closure area · Lower administration costs to Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The parking meters replacement takes more time than planned and maintenance savings are not realised as quickly as expected. · Potential for less “buy-in” to the scheme from the business community

8. Conclusion

8.1 The hanging baskets activity since 2000 has included an element of “user-pays” through the contribution made by businesses with a basket outside their premises. The number of contributing businesses has declined in recent years and it has been difficult to maintain support for the initiative.

8.2 The 2017/18 season required greater input from staff to increase the number of participating business. One option of providing this enhancement to the CBD would be through funding the entire hanging basket activity from the Parking and CBD Enhancement cost centre, street parking meters maintenance account (5510 2010 0415). However the downside is that this would forgo approximately $16,000 in revenue and removes an opportunity for businesses to be actively involved in the CBD’s appearance.

Author: Rosie Bartlett, Manager Parks and Facilities

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This activity benefits both businesses in the central business district area and residents and visitors to the city.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The hanging basket activity aligns with the Community Outcome of:

Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity.

We are proud of and celebrate our history and heritage and how that contributes to our identity. We have a strong sense of community, enhanced by the wide range of arts, cultural and sporting opportunities on offer.

and

Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.

3. Risk

By introducing a fully Council funded work program for hanging baskets the risk of fewer numbers of baskets and/or a partial uptake to the offer will be reduced. Conversely, by taking on funding itself, Council will lose buy in from businesses for the programme.

4. Financial impact

The proposal to make this work program fully Council funded would have an impact of lost income of budgeted income of $16,000 per annum. There would be a $6,850 saving from the Finance Department in not having to invoice business owners, and an estimated saving of staff time valued at $4,000. Note the cost of invoicing and staff time are within existing budgets, therefore the net cash effect of the proposed change is a reduction in budgeted income of $16,000 per annum.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to most businesses, as they either contribute $40 per basket, or do not participate at all.

The matter is also of low significance to most members of the public, although if the number of baskets decreased again over time, then the level of amenity value in the CBD would diminish.

The proposal will increase the level of service by ensuring the maximum number of baskets at 650 could be provided for within the CBD.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider hanging baskets

Areas of Responsibility:

· 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

Powers to Decide:

· Approval of tenders or projects, which exceed the parameters of officer responsibility.

Council has powers to approve additional funding.

Item 12: Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9759

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive and consider the updated Nelson Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) Business Plan 2018-19 (Plan).

1.2 To receive and consider the update reports from the Acting General Manager (GM) of the NRSBU relating to the Bell Island resource consent (consent) and iwi engagement in relation to the consent.

2. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent (R9759) and its attachments (A2086495, A2086498 and A2086501); and

Endorses the changes made to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018/19 (A2086495) to better reflect Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and their environmental aspirations; and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Nelson Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018-19 (A2086495 of Report 9759) noting that this now better reflects Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and Nelson City Council’s environmental aspirations.

3. Background

3.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee resolved on 28 September 2018 as below:

Resolved WI/2018/055

“Approves feedback be given to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit through the Acting General Manager that further review of the draft NRSBU Business Plan 2018-19 is required so that it better complements Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) and the Council’s environmental aspirations; and

Requests that the Acting General Manager of the NRSBU reports back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on the alignment between the Bell Island resource consent application and Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and the Council’s environmental aspirations, and also provides the Works and Infrastructure Committee with an update on the engagement with iwi in relation to the resource consent”.

4. Discussion

Business Plan

4.1 The Acting GM was asked to review the Plan and has amended the Draft Plan taking into account the direction provided at the last Committee meeting requiring this Council’s environmental aspirations to be recognised. Refer to Attachment 1 for the revised Plan, with proposed changes shown in yellow for ease of reading.

4.2 The revised Plan was consider by the NRSBU Board on 30 October 2018 where they resolved as below:

Moved Walker/Cr McNamara

“That the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit:

1. receives the NRSBU Draft Business Plan 2018/2019 report; and

2. approves the NRSBU Business Plan 2018/2019 as revised; and

3. instructs the NRSBU Acting General Manager to issue the final NRSBU Business Plan 2018/2019 to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for approval”.

4.3 Tasman District Council (TDC) officers will now present the revised Business Plan to their Council for approval.

Bell Island resource consent

4.4 The updated report from the Acting NRSBU GM in relation to the Bell Island resource consent and engagement with iwi are appended as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.

4.5 Both these matters were considered by the NRSBU on 30 October 2018 where the resolved as below:

Moved Walker/Cr McNamara

“That the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit approves the draft response in relation to the alignment of the Bell Island Resource Consent and the Nelson City Council Long Term Plan 2018-2028 for issue to the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils for their information”.

Moved Walker/Cr McNamara

“That the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit approves sending an update to Nelson City and Tasman District Councils for their information on the engagement with iwi in relation to the Bell Island Resource Consent application”.

4.6 The consent is currently on hold and TDC, as the administering authority, has advised that the consent process will need to resume no later than February 2019. The NRSBU has applied for a 35 year term.

4.7 With respect to iwi engagement, the Acting GM advises that iwi would prefer a shorter consent term with more work to address environmental issues before again renewing the consent.

4.8 With respect to the consent, the Acting GM advises that he considers that there is good alignment with the consent conditions and Council’s environmental aspirations.

4.9 The Chair of the NRSBU and the Acting GM will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions.

5. Options

NRSBU Business Plan

5.1 There are four options to be considered with respect to the revised Business Plan as detailed below. Officers support Option 3 – approve the revised Business Plan.

Option 1: Do nothing – i.e. accept status quo and not approve any Plan
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Delay in finalising the Plan. · Currently TDC has received the Plan and NCC has not, creating a misalignment between the two Councils. · Leaves the NRSBU without a Plan for the year that is nearly halfway through.
Option 2: Approve the original Plan
Advantages	· Aligns with TDC’s approval of the original Plan
Risks and Disadvantages	· Current Plan does not reflect or complement NCC’s LTP, in particular its high environmental aspirations. · Not the preference of the NCC.
Option 3: Approve the revised Plan approved by the NRSBU
Advantages	· Better reflects and complements Council’s LTP, in particularly its high environmental aspirations. · Allows for the Plan to be approved. · Revised Plan has been approved by the NRSBU · Allows the NRSBU Asset Management Plan to be updated and presented to the two Council’s for approval
Risks and Disadvantages	· Possibility that TDC does not approve the revised Plan (deemed to be low risk)
Option 4: Send the revised Plan back to the NRSBU for a full review if deemed not to go far enough
Advantages	· Will provide this Council with the opportunity to have their high environmental aspirations addressed.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Further delay to finalising the Plan. · TDC may not approve any subsequent changes. · Leaves the NRSBU without a Plan for the year that is nearly halfway through. · NRSBU will need to consider and approve any revision.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The NRSBU Business Plan has been amended to better reflect this Council’s environmental aspirations and has been considered and approved by the NRSBU. Officers support Council approving the Plan.

6.2 The feedback from iwi with respect to the consent application is that they prefer a shorter consent term than the 35 years applied for. The Acting GM notes that there is good alignment between the consent application and this Council’s long term environmental aspirations. The matter has been considered by the NRSBU.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2086495 - NRSBU Business Plan 2018/19 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2086498 - Alignment between Bell Island RC application and the NCC LTP 2018-28 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2086501 - Engagement with Iwi ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The decision in this report will assist in the provision of good quality environmental services in a cost effective way.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision to request further works on the NRSBU Business Plan supports the community outcome “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected”.

3. Risk

This report allows Council to approve the NRSBU Business Plan and to allow the consent to proceed. The risk of not providing feedback to the NRSBU is that it may delay its ability to approve and implement actions in the Business Plan.

4. Financial impact

Any review of the NRSBU Business Plan to include specific environmental outcomes could have an impact on the NRSBU Asset Management Plan, the Bell Island resource consent and subsequent Council LTPs.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The approval of the Business Plan is of medium significance and sets the scene for the other documents. The NRSBU is a Joint Committee of the two councils and its activities are included in the LTPs and Annual Plans of each council. Consultation is undertaken by both councils in the preparation/adoption of these plans.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been involved in the writing of this report. The iwi representative on the NRSBU has not yet been replaced.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation:

“6.5.1 Areas of Responsibility - Wastewater.

6.5.3 Powers to Recommend to Council - Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility.”

Item 13: Waimea Road - Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9765

Waimea Road - Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To recommend approval of a Statement of Proposal (SOP) to amend the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) (bylaw) and to recommend commencement of a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) for Waimea Road between Market Road and Beatson Road roundabout.

2. Summary

2.1 Waimea Road is an important arterial route in Nelson’s transport network which carries large traffic numbers. The current speed limit along Waimea road is 50km/h except for a portion extending from 240m south of Market Road (Market Road) through to 200m north of the Beatson Road roundabout, where the speed limit is 70km/h. The affected length is 1.3km long.

2.2 A review of the Waimea Road speed limit is recommended by officers to accommodate the new Princes Drive intersection from the Tasman Heights sub-division with Waimea Road and to address safety concerns on Waimea Road.

2.3 A full speed limit review for Nelson City is being developed for public consultation at a later date. A review of the Waimea Road speed limit prior to the full review is required to align with the Princes Drive development programmed works. The speed limit review, and new Princes Drive intersection fit with the 2018 Government Policy Statement’s (GPS) focus on safety and access.

2.4 An SCP is required to make changes to Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw, which involves adoption of a SOP, a one month consultation period and consideration of written and oral submissions. The Works and Infrastructure Committee has delegated authority to hear and deliberate on submissions.

3. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Waimea Road - Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw (R9765) and its attachments (A2069574, A2075290, A2069647, and A2079928).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Agrees a bylaw to set a permanent speed limit is the most appropriate way of addressing safety issues on Waimea Road between Market Road and the Beatson Road roundabout; and

Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) is not required; and

Approves commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2069647 of Report R9765), with the consultation period to run from 14 December 2018 to 15 February 2019; and

Approves the consultation plan (A2079928 of Report 9765) and agrees:

(b) the plan will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

4. Background

Waimea Road Safety

4.1 The stretch of Waimea Road between Market Road and the Beatson Road roundabout has a speed limit of 70km/h and has a vehicle count of 25,000 vehicles per day. Refer to Attachment 1 for layout.

4.2 A summary of speed related crashes is shown in the table below. This data is from the Crash Analysis System (CAS). Police populate CAS from evidence connected at crash events, including the speed factor.

4.3 In addition to the speed related crashes there has been one fatality (attributed to alcohol impairment) on this section of Waimea Road in 2018. While speed was not a factor of the actual crash, it was a factor in the outcome. The higher speed zone (70km/h) resulted in high impact forces that transferred to the vehicle occupants resulting in the fatality.

4.4 The New Zealand Police support the reduction of the speed limit on Waimea Road (refer Attachment 2), as they receive concerns from motorists, pedestrians and cyclists relating to the speed on Waimea Road at Bishopdale Hill. Police are also concerned about the increasing crash rate, crash severity, intersection safety and new road connections from the subdivision.

Speed Management Framework

4.5 When considering Waimea Road in terms of the New Zealand Transport Agency Speed Management Guide, the safe and appropriate speed for an area of this type is 50km/h based on:

· the corridor’s personal risk rating of Medium in general, and Medium–High at both the Ridgeway intersection and at the Beatson Road roundabout. Personal risk is defined as the danger to each individual using the road and is measured by the number of serious and fatal crashes relative to the traffic volume and distance travelled;

· the surrounding residential land use (with low density residential to the east);

· the presence of five intersections and another one to be constructed (to connect with Princes Drive);

· the existing mean speed between 50km/h and 60km/h;

· the speed environment will be slower between Market Road and Beatson Road as a result of a new signalised intersection.

Implications for traffic flows

4.6 Waimea Road is a significant arterial route in Nelson, with an average of 24,000 vehicles per day. Reducing the speed limit from 70km/h to 50km/h will add up to 15 seconds when traffic is travelling at existing mean speeds and will have no effect on traffic speeds at peak times when the road is congested.

Government Policy Statement 2018

4.7 The speed limit review, and new Princes Drive intersection fit with the GPS’s focus on safety and access.

Princes Drive intersection

4.8 Resource consents for the subdivision of the western side of Waimea Road at Bishopdale Hill have been granted to allow construction of a new road (Princes Drive extension) and intersection on Waimea Road. The consent was granted in 2016, but the physical works of constructing the road and intersection are planned for 2019, with detailed design underway.

4.9 The speed limit will have an effect on the design of the new Princes Drive intersection. Higher speeds require wider traffic lanes, longer taper lengths, longer sightlines and longer inter-green phases to allow drivers to safely manage the potential conflicts associated with intersections and crossing traffic. Once built these features are likely to remain. To avoid the cost of redesigning the intersection for a higher speed limit it is prudent to ensure that the design is fit for purpose now.

4.10 The Princes Drive intersection will change the Bishopdale Hill passing lanes into turning lanes for the new intersection. Removal of the passing lanes will remove a significant feature of the 70km/h speed environment.

4.11 The Princes Drive intersection will not limit options for future development of Waimea Road to cater for traffic growth.

Vulnerable road users

4.12 Cyclists are considered vulnerable road users in high volume high speed traffic locations. While there is an off-road facility available many commuter cyclists prefer to use the road to avoid pedestrians on shared paths. Lowering the traffic speed will improve safety for cyclists.

4.13 Pedestrian facilities are not available to all services on this section of Waimea Road. The SPCA is a public facility that attracts pedestrian activity. The SPCA however does not have a footpath connection so pedestrians are required to cross or walk along Waimea Road mixing with the high speed traffic. Lowering the speed will improve safety for pedestrians, and allow review of road space allocation to provide pedestrian facilities in the future.

4.14 An underpass is provided at Arthur Cotton Bridge for students and parents to travel from the Beatson Road area to Enner Glynn School. The underpass is however constrained and not suitable for all users. Parents with wide pushchairs are particularly vulnerable when they cross Waimea Road at grade to avoid the challenges related to the steep gradient and narrowness of the underpass.

4.15 A southbound bus stop is provided opposite Ulster Street in the 70km/h zone. Patronage at this bus stop is constrained because patrons are reluctant to cross the high speed section of Waimea Road.

5. Discussion

Consultation and decision making process

5.1 Section 156 of the Local Government Act (LGA) requires Council to use the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) before making a decision to amend a bylaw. When carrying out an SCP (as outlined in section 83 of the LGA) the Council must:

· prepare and adopt a statement of proposal.

· consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.

· make the statement of proposal publicly available for at least one month and invite written submissions.

· provide an opportunity for people to present their views to the local authority in person

5.2 The draft SOP is included as Attachment 3. No summary of the SOP has been prepared as the full document is not overly complicated to allow people to make well informed comment. Following adoption of the SOP by this Committee, it will be made available to the public for feedback, with a proposed consultation period from 14 December 2018 to 15 February 2019.

5.3 The draft Consultation Plan is included in Attachment 4.

5.4 Holding a hearing on 06 March followed by deliberations on 28 March would enable a recommendation to be considered by full Council on 2 May, with any new speed limit changes to be implemented on completion of physical works on site once temporary traffic management limit is lifted. It is noted that the meeting dates for council committees have not yet been finalised for 2019 so these dates are provisional.

6. Options

6.1 The options to be considered in this report are whether to adopt or not adopt the draft SOP.

6.2 Officers recommend Option 1 due to the significant road safety concerns related to Waimea Road and the permanence of the Princes Road intersection design once this has been built.

Option 1: Recommend adoption of the SOP
Advantages	· Opportunity to improve road safety on Waimea Road. · Opportunity to optimise the Princes Drive intersection by setting the design speed prior to detailed design.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not recommend adoption of the SOP
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Lost opportunity to improve road safety on Waimea Road · Additional developer costs to implement a high speed intersection design at the new Princes Drive intersection. · Princes Drive intersection will reflect a high speed environment if the speed limit is lowered in the future. · Council could incur costs at a future date if changes are required to lower the speed environment at the new Princes Drive intersection.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The draft SOP proposes to reduce the Waimea Road speed limit from 70km/h to 50km/h between Market Road and the Beatson Road roundabout for safety reasons and to improve design options for the Princes Drive intersection.

7.2 Adopting the draft SOP and commencing the SCP will enable the Committee to gain public feedback on this proposal and to conclude whether or not this proposed speed limit change is supported by the community.

7.3 Due to the importance of Waimea Road to Nelson’s transport network and the corridor’s personal risk rating of Medium in general, and Medium–High at both the Ridgeway intersection and at the Beatson Road roundabout, officers recommend that the Committee recommend adoption of the draft SOP.

Author: Paul D'Evereux, Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2069574 Waimea Road Speed Limit Review (Market to Beatson) Map ⇩

Attachment 2: A2075290 Speed Reduction Bishopdale/Waimea Road - Police Support ⇩

Attachment 3: A2069647 Draft Statement of Proposal -amendment to Speed Limit Bylaw (Waimea Road) ⇩

Attachment 4: A2079928 Draft Consultation Plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report considers how to provide safe and appropriate infrastructure that is designed to reduce future costs. Initiation of a special consultative procedure enables democratic local decision-making on behalf of the community.

A review of the Waimea Road Speed Limit for safety improvements fits the 2018 GPS Key Strategic Priority for Safety, a safe system, free of death and serious injury where speed management is a suitable delivery mechanism.

The Council as Road Controlling Authority is required to set speed limits that are safe and appropriate and give effect to nationally consistent and evidence based speeds through the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2017, Rule 54001/2017.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report supports the community outcome: “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.”

3. Risk

The key reason to reduce the speed limit on Waimea Road is to reduce the risk of speed related crashes.

4. Financial impact

An SCP procedure and changes to traffic speed limit signage can be completed at minimal cost and within existing budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance. While it is a relatively simple change to make, it affects a large number of road users as well as the efficiency and safety of vehicle movements on a significant arterial route.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori were not consulted in the preparation of this report.

7. Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider bylaws affecting the transport network.

Areas of Responsibility:

Powers to Decide:

· To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation requirements arising from legislation, falling within the areas of responsibility

Powers to Recommend:

· Statements of proposals for Special Consultative Procedures, or proposals for other formal legislative consultation procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility

· Final decisions on Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation legislative consultation procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility

Item 14: Seafield Terrace remediation - supplementary information

Works and Infrastructure Committee

15 November 2018

REPORT R9760

Seafield Terrace remediation - supplementary information

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide further information to this Committee following the decision on 28 September 2018 to let the report Seafield Terrace Remediation (R9621) lie on the table pending further consultation with the residents.

1.2 To confirm the next steps regarding the remediation of Seafield Terrace.

1.3 This report is to be read in conjunction with the 28 September 2018 report Seafield Terrace Remediation (R9621) and public excluded report Seafield Terrace Remediation – Legal Considerations (R9709).

2. Recommendation

That the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Receives the report Seafield Terrace remediation - supplementary information (R9760) and its attachments (A2088021 and A2086667).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves unbudgeted expense of $70,000 in the 2018/19 financial year to cover costs incurred to date and to commence detailed design of the preferred option.

3. Background

3.1 Two reports were included in the Works and Infrastructure Committee Agenda on 28 September 2018 on this matter (one in public and one in public excluded). For completeness the public report is appended to this report as Attachment 1 and the public excluded report is again on the Public Excluded agenda of this meeting.

3.2 The Committee noted that Council engagement with the Glenduan Community and residents of Airlie Street was an important step in determining the next steps for the Seafield Terrace remediation and that more time was needed to complete this. The Committee resolved as below:

Resolved WI/2018/001

Leaves the item Seafield Terrace Remediation to lie on the table and not be further discussed at this meeting until further engagement with residents has taken place and the matter be brought back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee.

3.3 The 28 September 2018 report is appended to this report, but in summary officers presented ten options with two options presented as viable as detailed below:

3.3.1 The “Scaled up do minimum” option which retains the road at the existing level with rock revetment at an estimated cost of $925,000; and

3.3.2 “Best Practice” option which allows for raising the road by around 0.75m with rock revetment at an estimated costs of $2M.

3.4 The officer recommendation presented to the September 2018 Committee meeting was to approve the ”Scaled-up do minimum” option, with design at an estimated cost of $50,000 commencing this financial year and a request for funding for physical works and consenting to be made through the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

3.5 Costs incurred to date are around $13,000 and are in addition to the estimated design costs of $50,000.

4. Discussion

Feedback and desire of the residents

4.1 A meeting was held on 24 October 2018 with a group of Glenduan residents with the Chair and Deputy Chair of this Committee, Council officers and Council’s consultants (Tonkin and Taylor). The meeting was very productive and feedback from the residents (with officer comment) is summarised below:

4.1.1 That dedicated access for pedestrians to Airlie Street be provided and that this be separated from vehicle traffic.

Officer comment - the proposed width is 5m and the request can be accommodated in the detailed design but will attract additional cost.

4.1.2 That the surfacing of the access road be concrete and not chipseal or asphaltic concrete (AC).

Officer comment - the additional cost for concrete would be in the order of $150,000 and will also require a re-think as to where services are to be located as they will need to be easily accessible for maintenance. It is noted that the revetment works proposed in the officer recommended option will be designed to provide protection from wave action previously not there, which would still allow chipseal or AC to be used. NZTA have advised that no subsidy will be paid on a concrete surface, thereby pushing the cost to Council up substantially.

4.1.3 That services need to be protected.

Officer comment – This will be addressed in the detailed design.

4.1.4 That access to the beach along the revetment proposed works be provided.

Officer comment – Access as part of the revetment works would be costly, but it is noted that unimpeded access to the beach is available further south.

4.1.5 That bus drop-off and pick-up be addressed as part of the design.

Officer comment – This can be addressed as part of the detailed design.

4.1.6 Requirement for a 3D model to be presented to aid residents to visually see the proposed solution.

Officer comment – this is possible and would add a cost of around $2,000.

4.1.7 Concern was raised about the effect of scour at the two end extremities of the new revetment works.

Officer comment – The effects of the extremities will be catered for in the detailed design and the consultants are very aware of the need to address this issue.

4.1.8 Concern about delay in remedial works and that these works should not wait until a final solution is implemented.

Officer comment – Any remedial work will be part of the final solution and is dependent on specific rock size. Immediate remedial works will run the risk of been washed away even in moderate weather events.

4.1.9 Car parking – the group was divided as to car parking with some:

· Favouring no car parking along the edge of the road facing the sea, but provision provided elsewhere.

Officer comment – this is possible but would need to be a separate project (scoped and costed accordingly). This should form part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

· Providing some demarcated car parks along the water front edge and demarcate travelling width for vehicles.

Officer comment – this is possible and could be included in the detailed design.

4.2 The residents requested more time to digest the meeting before coming back to officers. That reply was received on the 30 October and is appended as Attachment 2. The specific issues and officer feedback is as below:

4.2.1 Extend the revetment work to the playground.

Officer comment – The extent of the revetment work was designed to protect the length of road that was damaged during the storm. The southern end has been extended by around 30m past the extent of damage to tie in to the beach where the coastal margin is a little wider and this mitigates the risk to Seafield Terrace of any minor end effects that may occur due to the presence of a sharp end to the revetment. The road to the south of this location was undamaged during the February storm and although inundation occurred, the debris was able to be cleared quickly to reopen access. If Council were to consider this then additional cost to the project would be incurred in the order of $150,000.

4.2.2 Land be restored to pre-cyclone Fehi status.

Officer comment – The additional cost for this would be in the order of $550,000.

4.2.3 Offer of Stuart family farm to source local rock

Officer comment – Council’s consultants have done extensive research on the source for rocks which have specific requirements in terms of size and density. The consultant advises that to determine suitability of rock from the Stuart farm that they will need to undertake trials and operate a test quarry which will require a resource consent. This will attract additional cost and time from Council’s consultants. In addition the resource consent will need to address/mitigation noise, dust, vehicle movements, fresh water considerations and may require the consent to be publically notified. Officers do not support this proposal as it is very unlikely to be economic and will delay the project.

4.2.4 A more permanent retaining wall at northern end of the revetment.

Officer comment – This is required and would attract an additional cost of $50,000

4.2.5 Concrete surface – The Group have softened on their insistence of a concrete surface provided their other concerns are addressed.

Officer comment – Council’s consultant have indicated that the final design (if chipseal or AC) will include best practice to ensure that the solution is robust. However, no guarantees can be provided as the area is subject to natural influences, but Council can provide a commitment that if the chipseal or AC surface does break up that Council will consider concrete. Officers have already indicated that demarcated access for pedestrians along the road will be considered.

4.2.6 Immediate action to rectify the undermining of the road as it goes up the hill towards the residents.

Officer comment – Officers and Council consultants do not believe that the issue is an imminent safety risk, but that there is a risk that a vehicle may pull over close to the edge to enable passing and that this could create excessive surcharge immediately at the crest of the steep slope. Any remedial work needs to be part of the final solution and is dependent on specific rock size. Immediate remedial works will run the risk of been washed away even in moderate weather events. Officers have installed an edge barrier as a short-term remedial fix.

4.2.7 Desire to be involved in all aspects of the design.

Officers comment – This is possible but will attract additional consultant’s time and therefore cost to facilitate this approach.

5. Financials

5.1 The estimated cost (with a 30% contingency) previously provided to Council for the “Scaled up do minimum” option was $925,000.

5.2 To include some additions requested by the residents such as a dedicated footpath, consideration of road marking/bus stop drop off, 3D modelling and northern retaining wall (deemed to be required) will increase the overall estimated cost to around $1.25M.

5.3 Officers still support the “Scaled up do minimum” option with the above enhancements because it balances affordability and a suitable technical solution.

5.4 The additional costs are summarised in the table below. Costs exclude concrete surfacing which the Community has softened on as their “bottom line”:

Description	Rough order cost estimate	Includes	Running total
Scaled up do minimum	$925,000 (30% contingency)	6m wide revetment over 200m	$925,000
Enhanced Scaled up do minimum (no land reinstatement)	$325,000 (50% contingency)	dedicated footpath; consideration of road marking; bus drop off/pick up; 3D modelling; retaining wall northern end	$1.25M
Community requirements	$700,000 (50% contingency)	1. Extending revetment works by 52m ($150k). 2. Reinstating land to pre cyclone Fehi ($550k)	$1.95M

5.5 The amount to be sought through the Annual Plan, should Council agree to the additional works as requested by the community, will increase to $1.95M.

5.6 Any additional work would push the cost estimate over $1M, meaning that this project will also now need to be included in Nelson’s Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) as a stand-alone project (to secure NZTA funding), as the limit for inclusion in the “Low Cost/Low Risk” category is $1M and the estimated cost for this now exceeds that value. A report will be written to a future Regional Land Transport Committee in the new year to get this project included in the RLTP.

6. Options

6.1 Officers are still of the view that the “Scaled-Up do Minimum” with some enhancements (such as the demarcated footpath, parking considerations, bus drop off and pick up and northern wall retaining wall) at a revised cost of $1.25M is still the best remedial solution for the area as it offers the right mix of affordability and a workable technical solution. The reasons in the original report (R9621) – not replicated again in this report but included in Attachment 1 – still apply other than the project now needing to be included in the RLTP.

6.2 The desires/requirements of the community have however substantially increased the estimated cost of the preferred option to $1.95M. Council has the option to include either $1.25M or $1.95M as part of the Annual Plan.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2088021 - Seafield Terrace remediation report - R9621 - 28 September 2018 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2086667 - Community feedback on Seafield Terrace remediation ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report considers how best to meet the current and future needs of the community for good-quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. It considers what level of protection is appropriate to both present and anticipated future circumstances, particularly with regard to sea level rise.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected — our open spaces are valued for recreation and we welcome the many visitors who want to experience our extraordinary natural environment - There is an opportunity to enhance the gateway to Cable Bay Walkway, Horoirangi Marine Reserve, the beach and the Boulder Bank by creating a pedestrian and cycle friendly shared path as part of this project

Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs — Nelson relies on its good quality, sustainable, affordable and resilient infrastructure network - This report considers how to improve the resilience of the transport network, particularly for 32 households whose only road access is via Seafield Terrace.

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient — our community works in partnership to understand, prepare for and respond to the impacts of natural hazards - The safety of residents, as well as cyclists and pedestrians, are key factors to be considered when weighing up the options for remediation of Seafield Terrace.

Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement — Council leaders are mindful of the full range of community views and of the generations that follow - This report considers the effects of sea level rise over time, and how to align as much as practicable with the upcoming community engagement regarding coastal hazards and climate change.

3. Risk

The proposed approach addresses both immediate risks (related to road safety and access to emergency services) and retains enough flexibility for Council to take a different approach in future, as sea levels rise.

The risk of precedent being set for other coastal locations if Council choses a remedial option for Seafield Terrace is deemed to be low as there are special circumstances with respect to Seafield Terrace, namely the need to provide access (including emergency access) to a fixed number of properties that have no alternative access.

4. Financial impact

All options incur a cost to Council and this is unbudgeted. The option chosen will dictate the cost to Council.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of its high importance to a relatively small part of the community. The Mayor, Committee chair and senior management have been liaising with local residents regarding storm damage repair and future protection. Local residents’ ideas for future proofing road access to Airlie Street were considered in full in the T&T report.

Further, formal consultation with all stakeholders will be carried out as part of the resource consent application process. Stakeholders include iwi, Department of Conservation, NZTA, Airlie Street residents and the wider community.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Formal consultation with iwi will be carried out as part of the resource consent application process, recognising:

- the importance of the Coastal Marine Area to iwi

- although there are no statutory acknowledgements over Seafield Terrace, there is an acknowledgement (Kohi te Wai Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve) immediately adjacent to the area

- there is a heritage site terrace (MS47: Kainga (Tototari) where the Boulder Bank meets hills at the Glen nearby (approximately located at 34 Seafield Terrace).

7. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider Seafield Terrace remedial works.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Stormwater and Flood Protection

· Wastewater

Powers to Decide:

· Nil

Powers to Recommend:

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

Unbudgeted expenditure is a Council decision.